Kenneth C. Davis

A Sweet Assault on Slavery

2011-03-17T19:02:00-04:00

It may be Madness for everyone else, but the arrival of March in Vermont means one thing: it's Maple Sugar Time. As both the temperatures and sap rise, you see the web of sap lines descending from the woods to galvanized vats beside the roads, as dense clouds of wood smoke billow from sugar houses, large and small. One of my favorite sugaring spots is the Merck Forest, near my home in Vermont, where they celebrate Sugaring Season on March 19 and 20, 2011.

But this year, as the 150th anniversary of the Civil War approaches, the maple sugar season has a different meaning. Some 70 years before the war began on April 12, 1861, people had looked to maple sugar both as a political and economic weapon against slavery. The idea was simple: replace cane sugar, produced by slave labor, with maple sugar and it would be a blow to the slave system.

One of the first to advocate the idea was Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration and an early voice of abolition in America. With the Quakers of Philadelphia, Rush proposed using maple sugar as a means of hastening the end of slavery by replacing one of the key products produced by slave labor. (Rush also opposed the death penalty, was a proponent of public education, and advocated for the humane treatment of the mentally ill.)

In 1788 Rush had published an essay on the "Advantages of the Culture of the Sugar Maple Tree" in a Philadelphia monthly. In 1789 he had founded, with a group of Philadelphia Quakers, the Society for Promoting the Manufacture of Sugar from the Sugar Maple Tree. He had even staged a scientific tea party to prove the potency of maple sugar. The guests -- Alexander Hamilton, Quaker merchant Henry Drinker, and "several Ladies" -- sipped cups of hyson tea, sweetened with equal amounts of cane and maple sugar. All agreed the sugar from the maple was as sweet as cane sugar. (Source: The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia)

Their aim was simple, as Rush's 1788 essay put it: "to lessen or destroy the consumption of West Indian sugar, and thus indirectly to destroy negro slavery."

Dr. Rush found an enthusiastic disciple in Thomas Jefferson, who explored the concept of an American maple sugar industry during a journey to Vermont and even attempted --unsuccessfully, it would turn out -- to import sugar maple trees to Monticello.

Jefferson and other conscientious consumers could now "put sugar in [their] coffee without being saddened by the thought of all the toil, sweat, tears, suffering and crimes that have hitherto been necessary to procure this product." (Source: The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia)

Jefferson, Dr. Rush and other Abolitionists were ultimately disappointed, as the maple sugar idea failed to gain a foothold and speculation in maple forests actually created a "maple bubble" that burst before this "sugar substitute" could prove itself an economic weapon against slavery.

But well into the 19th century, Abolitionists continued to pursue the cause of maple sugar. The American artist Eastman Johnson attempted to make maple syrup a political statement through a collection of works showing that the sugaring process was not only a part of New England's social fabric but a way to strike a blow for freedom.

This failed effort to make what we buy and eat a political act may have been a quixotic disappointment. But the thought of putting maple syrup and sugar to use in a noble cause only makes them taste a little sweeter.

And the fundamental idea that taking care in what what we purchase and consume can make a difference is still a valuable principle.

You can read more about Abolition and the Civil War in my book "Don't Know Much About the Civil War."

Socks, Shirtwaists and Saving the Union

2011-03-08T16:25:00-05:00

So Much Depends Upon a Decent Pair of Socks

"Look for the union label..."

If you are of a certain generation, you'll recognize those words instantly as the first line of a song that became a 1970s advertising icon.

Sung by a swelling chorus of lovely ladies (and a few guys) of all colors, shapes and sizes, it was the anthem of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.

Airing in the 1970s, as American unions began to confront the inexorable drain of jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, the song ringingly implored us to look for the union label when shopping for clothes ("When you are buying a coat, dress or blouse"). Seeing these earnest women, thinking of them at their sewing machines, made some of us race to the closet and check our clothes for that ILGWU imprimatur. ("It says we're able to make it in the USA.")

After all, these were ladies who could put in a hard day's work and then come home and bake one hell of a pie. They were the daughters of Rosie the Riveter. Owning the clothes they made just seemed, well, righteous.

With all the talk abut union-busting and collective bargaining in the controversy over public employee unions, those union ladies of the ILGWU came to mind when I was looking for some socks the other day -- even though socks weren't mentioned in the song. Hunting for warmth in this winter of our discontent, I found it difficult to find a pair of socks that were made in America, just as we all know it is increasingly challenging to locate other American-made articles of clothing, household products, electronics or sports equipment. This, of course, is not news. It's globalization, baby! (Blaming this problem entirely on the unions, as many Americans do, is a simplistic and convenient misrepresentation of a much more complex issue.)

I have never been one to paste a "Buy American -- The Job You Save May Be Your Own" bumper sticker on my cars (which for the most part, I must add, have been foreign-made). But in the past few years, my wife and I have been making a conscious decision to "Buy Local." That means shopping at the local hardware store, sporting goods store and especially the farmers market near our Vermont home, where we feel like we are not only getting fresher produce but also participating in a community. We like to buy things from our neighbors. Even better if they make or grow them.

I struck gold with my sock problem when I finally found some wonderful Merino socks that were not only made in America, but also made in Vermont! They weren't cheap but they were on special -- "Buy 3 Get 1 Free" -- so I took four pair. And yes, I love my Darn Tough socks.

But here's the point. Whether it is socks or solar panels, the task of rebuilding America's manufacturing base is obviously one key to the problem of unemployment and low-wage jobs facing the country. It would be incredibly naïve to think that buying four pairs of locally produced socks will make a big difference. But small acts add up to movements. In the past few months, as my wife and I have become far more label-conscious, we've put down many an item that was foreign-made, either doing without or expanding the search.

Lately, with a little effort -- and some gentle nudging to merchants to show me something made in America -- I've found some small prizes: a nice pair of cycling shorts made in High Point, N.C.; a road bike built in Pennsylvania; sneakers still turned out in an American plant.

Admittedly, some concessions are necessary -- unless you want to go the Gandhi route and wear homespun. But I don't do loincloths very well.

Now, as a political statement, buying homegrown socks doesn't quite rank with joining the March on Washington or going on a hunger strike for peace. It's one small step. But maybe it is the first step that begins a long journey -- and in comfortable socks!

So back to those singing ladies -- and a final point on labor history and the current headlines. The International Ladies Garment Worker Union was born in 1900, in the midst of the often-violent period of early 20th century labor organizing when brutal working conditions and child labor were the norm in America's mines and factories. One of the companies the union attempted to organize was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in Greenwich Village, which employed many poor and mostly immigrant women. A walkout against the firm in 1909 helped strengthen the union's rolls and led to a union victory in 1910. But the Triangle Shirtwaist Company -- which would chain its doors shut to control its workers -- earned infamy when a fire broke out on March 25, 1911 and 146 workers, most of them young women, were trapped in the flaming building and died, some leaping to their deaths. The tragedy helped galvanize the trade union movement and especially the ILGWU.

As the 100th anniversary of that dreadful event approaches, it is worth remembering that American prosperity was built on the sweat, tears and blood of working men and women. It is a piece of history that should be part of any discussion of the future of workers' unions and their rights.

Cornell University's Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation offers a web exhibit on the Triangle Factory Fire;

And on February 28, 2011, the American Experience on PBS aired a documentary film about the tragedy and the period.

Presidents Day? Not Really!

2011-02-22T18:17:00-05:00

So What Day Is it After All?

OK. We all do it. It's printed on calendars and displayed in bank windows. We mistakenly call the third Monday in February Presidents Day, in part because of all those annoying commercials in which George Washington uses his legendary ax and "Rail-splitter" Abe Lincoln swings his ax to chop down prices on everything from linens to SUVs.

But, really it is George Washington's Birthday -- federally speaking, that is. The official designation of the federal holiday observed on the third Monday of February was, and still is, Washington's Birthday.

But Washington's Birthday has become widely known as Presidents Day (or President's Day, or even Presidents' Day). The popular usage and confusion resulted from the merging of what had been two widely celebrated Presidential birthdays in February -- Lincoln's on February 12th, which was never a federal holiday-- and Washington's on February 22.

Created under the Uniform Holiday Act of 1968, which gave us three-day weekend Monday holidays, the federal holiday on the third Monday in February is technically still Washington's Birthday. But here's the rub: the holiday can never land on Washington's true birthday because the latest date it can fall is February 21, as it does in 2011.

Just because it is officially Washington's Birthday doesn't mean we can't talk about the other Presidents too. So here's a quick Presidential Pop Quiz:

Who was the first President born an American citizen?

Martin van Buren, the eighth, also known as "Old Kinderhook," or "OK." All of his predecessors were born British subjects during the colonial era.

Who was the first President to commit troops to a foreign country?

From 1801 to 1805, Thomas Jefferson sent the navy and marines to "Barbary" in what is modern day Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to attack the pirates who were preying on American and European shipping.

Washington was the first general to become President. But how many other generals became President?

Besides Washington, five were career officers: Andrew Jackson (Creek War, War of 1812); William Henry Harrison (Battle of Tippecanoe); Zachary Taylor (Mexican War); Grant (Civil War); and Eisenhower (WW II). Six others were not career soldiers but attained the rank by appointment: Franklin Pierce, (Mexican War); Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison (all of whom served in the Civil War).

Ironically, the two greatest war Presidents, Lincoln and Roosevelt, had little or no military experience. Lincoln was briefly in the Illinois militia, or national guard, during the Black Hawk War and later said he led a charge against an onion field and lost a lot of blood to mosquitoes.

During World War I, Roosevelt was Undersecretary of the Navy and had tried to enlist, but was asked to remain in his navy office. And many other Presidents had military experience but never attained the rank of general.

Which President dodged the draft, legally?

During the Civil War, Grover Cleveland paid for a substitute when he was drafted. That was legal at the time under the 1863 Conscription Act.

Which two Presidents died on the Fourth of July, 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed?

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1826. James Monroe also died on July 4, 1831, and Calvin Coolidge was born in Vermont on Independence Day.

Did President Lincoln write the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope?

That's the myth. But no, Lincoln drafted what may be the most memorable speech in American history several times. At Gettysburg for the dedication of a cemetery to the thousands who had died in the 1863 battle, Lincoln was not the featured speaker. That honor went to a man who spoke for two hours. Lincoln's address took about two and half minutes. But which one do we remember?

Which President returned to the House of Representatives after his term?

John Quincy Adams

Many of these questions are drawn from "Don't Know Much About History" or my children's book"Don't Know Much About the Presidents"

You can also visit the White House Presidents page for quick "official" biographies.

Will That Be One Term or Two?

2011-02-15T15:40:17-05:00

Two thousand, nine-hundred and twenty-two days.

What would you do with that much time?

That's what a president who is re-elected and fully serves both terms in office gets to work with. But as history tells us, more than a few presidents who desired a second term were not returned to office. And not every president seeks re-election.

As Presidents Day -- actually it's Washington's birthday in official terms -- approaches, and with the first whiff of a 2012 campaign already in the air, it seems a good time to take a look at how history has shaken out. What keeps single-term presidents from earning those added 1,461 days in office? And what can the past say about President Obama's future?

Leaving out those eight men who died in office, either naturally or by assassination, and the five presidents who only served out the term of a deceased -- or in one case, resigned -- predecessor and were not reelected in their own right, here's the list of America's twelve single-term presidents (See the White House for quick bios of each):

2d John Adams (Not reelected)

6th John Quincy Adams (Not reelected)

8th Martin Van Buren (Not reelected)

11th James Knox Polk (Pledged to serve a single term and did not seek a second term)

14th Franklin Pierce (Denied nomination)

15th James Buchanan (Did not seek a second term)

19th Rutherford B. Hayes (Pledged to a single term)

23rd Benjamin Harrison (Not reelected)

27th William Howard Taft (Not reelected)

31st Herbert Hoover (Not reelected)

39th Jimmy Carter (Not reelected)

41st George H.W. Bush (Not reelected)

(Grover Cleveland deserves an asterisk here. The 22nd president was elected in 1884 and then defeated in a controversial election, despite winning the popular vote in 1888. But he won again in 1892 and returned to the White House in 1893 as the 24th President.)

Clearly, the first rule about being reelected president is to avoid having the name Adams. We can also set aside James Knox Polk and Rutherford B. Hayes as exceptions; both had pledged to serve only a single term. But apart from the name Adams and the Polk-Hayes oddities, there are a few common themes here:

-- Tough act to follow: Several of the Ppesidents who failed in a bid for a second term were following an extremely popular president. John Adams (after Washington), Martin Van Buren (Andrew Jackson), William Howard Taft (Theodore Roosevelt), and George H.W. Bush (Ronald Reagan). Certainly each of these men had to contend with the expectations -- and perhaps the "fatigue factor" -- of following in the footsteps of four of the most popular presidents in history. Taft's case is also unusual -- he had to run against his popular predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, and finished third, with Woodrow Wilson winning the 1912 election.

-- Not the People's Choice: John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election based on the vote in the House of Representatives. (His opponent, Andrew Jackson, the popular vote winner, called it the "corrupt bargain" and won four years later.) Although Hayes had pledged not run, he also became president in one of the most controversial elections in history in 1876, when a special Commission awarded him some disputed electoral votes, denying the popular vote winner, Samuel Tilden. And Harrison also won a disputed election in 1888 against the aforementioned Cleveland in which election fraud is credited with giving Harrison the electors from Indiana.

-- Ineffective (polite way of saying bad): Pierce and Buchanan, who both were contending with a nation heading almost inexorably towards Civil War, are often ranked among the worst American presidents; neither was renominated by their party. Historians usually rank most of the other one-termers fairly low. Jimmy Carter was given fairly poor marks for his presidency, and especially for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. But his loss may have more to do with the next theme.
(C-Span surveyed historians for Presidential rankings in 2009 and Carter was ranked #25 of 42, right behind Taft.)

-- It's the economy stupid: Most elections are won and lost on the pocketbook issue. Opponents called Van Buren "Martin Van Ruin" as the nation endured a long economic downturn. Herbert Hoover presided over the Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression. Jimmy Carter, saddled with unemployment, inflation, and high interest rates (remember 12%?), and George Bush were also hurt by severe recessions on their watch.

Among the presidents who took office on the death (or resignation) of the president, there are five who did not win a term of their own and they also receive generally low historical ratings:

10th John Tyler (Denied nomination)

13th Millard Fillmore (Denied nomination)

17th Andrew Johnson (Denied nomination)

21st Chester A. Arthur (Denied nomination)

38th Gerald Ford (Lost bid for second term)

What does any of this augur for Barack Obama?

Obama is probably safe on the first three counts: his predecessor was not ranked among the "greats"; he was popularly elected; and, whether or not you like his policies, his first two years can't be called "ineffective."

But if history has anything to say about Obama's future, the last point -- the economy, stupid -- will again be the determining factor.

During his first term, Ronald Reagan was saddled with a deep recession and a higher unemployment rate (10.8% in November 1982) than we have now. Reagan, like Obama, suffered a sharp setback in the midterm elections of 1982. But over the next two years, the economy began to turn and Reagan went on to a landslide victory to secure his second term in 1984.

The history of presidential reelection fortunes? Maybe It's all about the "benjamins" after all.

The Real N-Word Is "Nonsense"

2011-01-08T11:58:31-05:00

"A work that aspires, however, humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line."

The great novelist Joseph Conrad wrote those words in a literary manifesto called "A Preface to the Nigger of the 'Narcissus.' "

Oops, I mean "Slave of the 'Narcissus.'" Or should it be "The Children of the Sea," the title used by Conrad's first American publisher in 1897? Or perhaps I should call it the nearly unspeakable "N-word of the Narcissus," the title chosen by WordBridge, publisher of a 2009 bowdlerized< version of Conrad's novel?

This question arises over the decision to publish a "sanitized" version of the great American classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in an edition which purges the use of the word "nigger" (as well as "injun"). The edition, forthcoming from NewSouth Books, replaces more than 200 uses of the word "nigger" with "slave" in Mark Twain's original text and substitutes "Indian" for "injun.".

This, I believe, is the real N-word: Nonsense.

NewSouth Books asserts that these epithets are "hurtful" and prevent some teachers from assigning the book.

It's true. Some readers, along with educators and parents, have been offended by the use of a word that makes people uncomfortable -- with good reason.

News flash: Art is supposed to make us uncomfortable.

The controversy behind the decision to -- in my opinion -- deface a signature piece of American culture has been well-covered in the media and addressed by many, including New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani as well as the Times' editorial page.

As someone who cares deeply about American History and Literature, I would like to add my voice to those who find this expurgated version of Huckleberry Finn a shameful act of cultural destruction in the guise of political correctness. While it falls far short of the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhas, it is a lot worse than draping the bare breasts of two female "Liberty" statues at the Justice Dept. during John Ashcroft's days as Attorney General.

We are not talking about painting lawn jockeys white, but altering the intent and meaning of one of America's cultural touchstones. And in so doing, missing Mark Twain's central point. It's a bit like complaining that Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is cruel to Irish babies.

This is what I and others call a "teachable moment."

Teachers should assign Mark Twain's Huck Finn, read it together with their students and talk about what the book means. And most important, what Mark Twain meant. Acknowledge that this word is hateful and hurtful. But get students to think for themselves. That, after all, that is a teacher's most important job.

And maybe, while teachers are at it, get their students to read Randall Kennedy's excellent book, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. (Pantheon, 2002). In it, Kennedy writes of Huck Finn:

Twain is not willfully buttressing racism here; he is seeking ruthlessly to unveil and ridicule it. By putting nigger in white characters' mouths, the author is not branding blacks, but rather branding the whites... Huckleberry Finn is the best fictive example of Twain's triumph over his upbringing. In it, he creates a loving relationship between Huck and Jim, the runaway slave, all the while sardonically impugning the pretensions of white racial superiority.

Joseph Conrad, whose work was also sanitized for an American audience, also wrote in that essay:

And art itself may be defined as a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying its every aspect... If I succeed, you shall find there according to your deserts: encouragement, consolation, fear, charm-all you demand-and, perhaps, also that glimpse of truth for which you have forgotten to ask.

Providing that glimpse of truth is what Huck, Jim and Mark Twain were able to do. The justification is found not only in every line, but every word. Even the "hurtful" ones.

Dueling Billboards and the Myths of Christmas

2010-12-13T13:06:22-05:00

There is a new skirmish in the so-called "Christmas Wars."

If you are coming to see the Big Tree in Rockefeller Center by way of the Lincoln Tunnel, you'll be greeted by two starkly opposing views of the Christmas Season. As the Daily News reported on Dec. 2, an atheist group placed a billboard featuring the Star of Bethlehem, Three Kings and the Holy Family at the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel saying, "You know it's a myth." A Catholic group responded with a billboard of its own saying "You know it's real," with a picture of Jesus and Mary.

It might seem like a strange rerun of the classic "Less Filling-Tastes Great" light beer ads, but the dueling billboards highlight the divide over Christmas as an increasingly secular American holiday. More to the point, the atheist billboard raises the question of whether the Nativity, Christmas Day and all the attendant traditions -- from lighted trees to mistletoe, wreaths and Yule logs -- have any historical basis.

So here's the real first Christmas question: Why all the fuss over Dec. 25?

For starters, the Gospels never mention a precise date or even a season for the birth of Jesus. How then did we settle on December 25? If a bright light just went off in your head, you're getting warm. It's all about the Sun.

In ancient times, a popular Roman festival celebrated Saturnalia, a Thanksgiving-like holiday marking the winter solstice and honoring Saturn, the god of agriculture. The Saturnalia began on Dec. 17 and while it only lasted two days at first, it was eventually extended into a weeklong period that lost its agricultural significance and simply became a time of general merriment. Even slaves were given temporary freedom to do as they pleased, while the Romans feasted, visited one another, lit candles and gave gifts. Later it was changed to honor the official Roman Sun god known as Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") and the solstice fell on Dec. 25.

Two other important pagan gods popular in ancient Rome were also celebrated around this date. The Romans were big on adopting the gods of the people they conquered. Mithra, a Persian god of light who was first popular among Roman soldiers, acquired a large cult in ancient Rome. The birth of Attis, another agricultural god from Asia Minor, was also celebrated on Dec. 25. Attis dies but is brought back to life by his lover, a goddess whose temple later became the site of an important basilica honoring the Virgin Mary. By the way, the symbol of Attis was a pine tree.

Candles. Gift giving. Pine trees. Dying gods brought back to life. Hmmm. Sound familiar?

All the similarities between Saturnalia and these other Roman holidays and the celebration of Christmas are no coincidence. In the fourth century, Pope Julius 1 assigned Dec. 25 as the day to celebrate the Mass of Christ's birth -- Christ's mass. This was a clever marketing ploy that conveniently sidestepped the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday while converting the population. Most of our Christmas traditions reflect the merger of pagan rituals, beliefs and traditions with Christianity. The early church fathers knew that they couldn't convert people without allowing them to keep some of their ancient festivals and rituals so they would allow them if they could be connected to Christianity. (Catholic authorities disagree and say that December date was arrived at by adding nine months to March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation, the day of Jesus' miraculous conception.

The importance of the winter solstice, then, is crucial to understanding not only the date of Christmas but many of the other "myths" of this season.

While we are talking about dates, the precise year of the birth of Jesus is also a mystery. The dating system we use is based on a system devised by a monk around 1,500 years ago and is seriously flawed. The historical King Herod who ordered the massacre of the innocents died in 4 B.C. (or B.C.E, Before the Common Era). The "census" ordered by Emperor Augustine is not recorded in Roman history, but a local census did take place in the Roman province of Judea in A.D. 6 (or C.E., the Common Era). Is that all perfectly clear now?

Yes, Virginia, almost everything that Christians around the world cherish about Christmas comes from a pre-Christian era, including the prototype for Santa Claus being found in the Norse myth of Odin riding across the winter sky on an eight-legged horse and leaving gifts for the children who left some hay out for his horse.

But is it all a myth? Does the pagan background to the Christmas traditions mean that Jesus is also a myth? That's a very different question for another day.

You can read more about the mythic roots of Christmas and the gospel accounts of Jesus in Don't Know Much About Mythology and Don't Know Much About the Bible and at Kenneth C. Davis' website.

Truman Didn't Ask, He Just Told

2010-12-10T10:55:31-05:00

The Senate vote vote on a measure which could have put an end to the "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" policy immediately brought to mind the 1948 decision by President Harry S. Truman to desegregate the U.S. military.

(The Truman Library offers a comprehensive overview of the 1948 Desegregation decision).

Here is how Truman opened his Executive Order in July 1948:

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense: NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

Truman's decision took years to be fully implemented. It was resisted inside the Pentagon and in Congress. But it was politically daring. The country overwhelmingly approved of a segregated military.

Yet Truman's bold, brave decision -- which did not require Congressional action -- was a giant step in the civil rights movement. With one Executive Order, he brought belief and optimism to black Americans and those who sought racial justice, both inside and outside the armed forces. It would be years before the courts and Congress caught up to Truman's principled stand. This was Presidential leadership in action. This was "Hope" and this was "Change." Sudden. Dramatic. Uncompromising.

In response to the Senate defeat of the measure repealing "Don't Ask. Don't Tell," President Obama mustered a statement saying he was "extremely disappointed." So are a great many people who voted for him.

Veterans Day: The Forgotten Meaning

2010-11-11T17:42:00-05:00

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

That was the moment at which World War I largely came to end in 1918. One of the most tragically senseless and destructive periods in all history came to a close in Western Europe with the Armistice -- or end of hostilities between Germany and the Allied nations -- that began at that moment. Some 20 million people had died in the fighting that raged for more than four years since August 1914. The complete end of the war came with the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.

The date of Nov. 11 became a national holiday of remembrance in many of the victorious allied nations -- a day to commemorate the loss of so many lives in the war. And in the United States, President Wilson proclaimed the first Armistice Day on Nov. 11, 1919. A few years later, in 1926, Congress passed a resolution calling on the President to observe each November eleventh as a day of remembrance:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed; and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

Of course, the hopes that "the war to end all wars" would bring peace were short-lived. By 1939, Europe was again at war and what was once called "the Great War" would become World War I. With the end of World War II, there was a movement in America to rename Armistice Day and create a holiday that recognized the veterans of all of America's conflicts. President Eisenhower signed that law in 1954. (In 1971, Veterans Day began to be marked as a Monday holiday on the third Monday in November, but in 1978, the holiday was returned to the traditional Nov. 11 date).

Today, Veterans Day honors the duty, sacrifice and service of America's nearly 25 million veterans of all wars. We should remember and celebrate those men and women. But lost in that worthy goal is the forgotten meaning of this day in history -- the meaning which Congress gave to Armistice Day in 1926: "to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations ... inviting the people of the United States to observe the day ... with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples."

The Veterans Administration website offers more resources on teaching about Veterans Day.

A Right to Bare Arms? Arm Bears? The 2nd Amendment (Civics Primer #2)

2010-10-27T17:09:12-04:00

Pop Quiz: How many Representatives are in the House of Representatives? That was one of the stumpers in a recent Civics online survey.

The answer: 435.

Here's another question that wasn't included in that survey: How many Electors are there? Add 100 Senators to the number of Representatives and then three more votes for the District of Columbia (which has no Senators and a non-voting member of the House) and you get the answer: 538. Each state gets electors equal to their representation in Congress. To become president, you must win enough states and their Electors to reach the Magic Number of 270 (half of 538 plus one). By the way, the "Electoral College" is not mentioned in the Constitution -- only "Electors." And no, the Electoral College is definitely not a party school.

In the first post of this series, I summarized the First Amendment and its five essential guarantees -- always a source of controversy. If anything, the Second Amendment has often proven just as contentious. But most of us don't know what it actually says or means.

Americans have always liked their guns. And some Americans REALLY like their guns. Whether to hunt, protect their homes or defend themselves from a tyrannical government, many Americans believe that the government has no right to restrict their access to firearms. But those who want to minimize gun violence, Congress, and the Courts have thought otherwise. Which brings us to the Second Amendment. There is little doubt that the Founders and Framers, in a time when there was no standing army, expected men to have a gun at the ready to defend the country. But does that 18th century logic still hold in a country with a standing army, state militias and local police forces? And does the high level of American gun violence (more than 31,000 firearms fatalities in 2006, according to the CDC) mean it is time to reassess an idea that made sense more than 200 years ago?

Amendment Two: Guarantees the limited right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Among today's most passionately argued of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was intended to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would presumably protect the citizen against Indians, foreign powers, or the power of the federal government, at a time when there was little or no standing army. Militias also served another unique role in the slave holding states: one of their primary duties was to suppress slave revolts, of which there were hundreds throughout American History.

In a long string of decisions, the Supreme Court had consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not bind the states, so that state and local governments are free to enact gun control laws if they desire. In the case of federal laws, since a 1939 case involving sawed-off shotguns, United States v. Miller, the courts have held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right to keep and bear arms, which must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Since then, Congress has placed many restrictions on the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of weapons, and these statutes have all been upheld as constitutional.

Not everyone agrees with that interpretation, even though it stood for more than sixty years. As constitutional scholar Leonard W. Levy writes,

The Second Amendment is as vague as it is ambiguous. Some think it upholds the collective right of state militias to bear arms, while others, probably more accurate in so far as original intent is concerned, argue that it protects the right of individuals to keep arms. (Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution)

Until 2002, no administration had challenged the so-called "collective right" established by Miller in 1939. But in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department would seek to challenge the collective view in favor of the individual rights view, a stance vigorously supported by the National Rifle Association. In footnotes in two filings with the Supreme Court in 2002, the government said that the Second Amendment protected the rights of individuals "to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

More recently, in June 2008, the Supreme Court, led by George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed in 2005 following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist), went beyond the Bush Administration's arguments. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court struck down a 32-year-old Washington, D.C. ban on handguns as incompatible with the Second Amendment.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision ruled that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In a vigorous dissent expressing what had been the predominant view since the 1939 Miller ruling, Justice Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment:

was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

And that is where the Second Amendment stands today.

Here is a link to the District of Columbia v. Heller case, including the majority and dissenting opinions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Don't Know Much About the 1st Amendment? A Civics Primer

2010-10-25T13:38:36-04:00

Who is the Vice President? How many Senators are there? How many Supreme Court Justices?

A new online survey suggests many Americans can't answer those Civics 101 questions. That is a point underscored in a recent New York Times Week in Review article, which points out how many Americans don't know what the First Amendment says. Two of them, sad to say, are Senate candidates in Delaware. Republican Christine O'Donell and her Democratic rival Chris Coons had trouble sorting out the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

To me, this is not only sad but dangerous, especially with Election Day a week away. But this sorry state also constitutes a "teachable moment."

So, in my ongoing effort to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness, here begins a Civics Primer on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a few other basic things we all "need to know" about American History. This Civics Class will offer some of the fundamental facts about American History and government, including the fact that Electoral College is NOT a Party School.

I am going to start with the First Amendment as it is so prominently in the headlines. I will continue this series in the days and weeks ahead until ahead until we all get it right -- or you can turn in your passport.

First, a little background about the Supreme Law of the Land -- the Constitution and the changes that have been made to it.

The U.S. Constitution was drafted during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence had been written and adopted eleven years earlier. Under the new Constitution, the first Congress, meeting in New York City on September 25, 1789, submitted twelve proposed changes to the Constitution -- called articles or amendments -- for ratification by the states. These amendments dealt with certain individual and states' rights not specifically named in the Constitution. Ten of these articles, which were originally proposed as Amendments Three through Twelve, were declared ratified in 1791 and are now known as Amendments One through Ten, or the Bill of Rights.

Since 1791, another seventeen changes have been made to the Constitution, a process that begins when Congress proposes an amendment, which must clear both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority. The proposed amendment is sent to the states for ratification. Three quarters of the states are needed to ratify, and that is usually done by state legislatures.

Here is the First Amendment. And it should be clear to everyone why this one comes first:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment guarantees five fundamental American freedoms:

Religion: Prohibits the establishment of religions by government and guarantees freedom of religion. One of the only restraints on religion permitted is on a practice that may endanger the physical health of citizens; for instance, courts have allowed medical treatment of children against their parents' religious beliefs.

Speech: Guarantees that government cannot limit speech with certain exceptions established over the years by the Courts, such as slanderous or obscene speech. Of course, private companies and employers can limit the speech of their employees, which is why National Public Radio can fire Juan Williams for breaching their code of conduct for reporters and commentators.

Press: Guarantees freedom of the press from government interference, including college publications (but not public high school students). This freedom applies to books, magazines, and most television and radio programs (although the Federal Communications Commission is able to limit broadcasts under its licensing powers -- hence a "wardrobe malfunction" is not protected "speech.)

Assembly: Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably, which includes picketing, a right that that has been at the core of political, labor and civil rights disputes. In general, picketing is protected when it is for a lawful purpose and is orderly.

Petition: Guarantees the right to petition government, a protection best exemplified by the nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

There you go. Five Easy pieces. Fundamental Freedoms you can count on one hand.

Next: The Second Amendment

And by the way: the Answers are Joe Biden, one hundred Senators (two from each state) and nine Justices.

Americans Don't Know Much About the Bible -- Still!

2010-09-28T14:45:00-04:00

Pop Quiz, hotshot: Who is Job?

For a country that is seemingly wild about religion, we may not be a Godless Nation, but we sure are a Clueless Nation.

The latest survey of American knowledge (or ignorance!), conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, tested Americans on the basics of religion -- Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths. According to the Pew Forum survey as reported by the New York Times, most people scored around 50 percent -- which is a failing grade. The most knowledgeable were atheists and agnostics.

The results of this survey do not surprise me at all. For all of the talk of America being a "Christian Nation" and being founded on "religious principles," many Americans are as misinformed about religion as they are about history, basic science and geography. Many people tend to believe what they were told when they were children. That is, sadly, a very incomplete eduction. Few of us seem able to to move past "thinking like a child" and do as Saint Paul said: "When I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13: 11).

When I wrote Don't Know Much About the Bible, I said that the "Good Book" fits Mark Twain's definition of a classic: "A book which people praise but never read."

Most people continue to rely upon what they hear from preachers and politicians. Often it is misquoted or taken out of context. Or they remember what they distilled from the Hollywood version of the Bible. The internet has, in many ways, just made matters worse.

The very serious problem that the Pew Forum survey underscores is that there are a lot of people out there making stark judgments about matters like religion about which they are clueless. And when it comes to Americans doing very bad things based on their beliefs, the results can be deadly. I traced the murderous intersection of religion and history, and America's so-called tradition of tolerance, in a recent Smithsonian article titled "America's True History of Religious Tolerance."

By the way, Job is the biblical character for whom a very challenging chapter of the Bible is named. God took away everything he had -- over a bet with Satan.

Click here to read the New York Times story about the survey, which includes a link to a sample of the quiz. (Full disclosure: I scored 6 out of 6 on the sample.) And click here for a link to the Pew Forum report on the survey.

The Myth of American Religious Tolerance

2010-09-24T12:29:00-04:00

We've been hearing a lot about America's tradition of religious freedom and tolerance lately. But for centuries, religion has been used as a weapon to discriminate and cudgel "non-believers" and "heathens," many of whom came to America in search of religious freedom they never found. The battle over faith in the public square started long before the "Ground Zero mosque."

Isn't it time to tell it like it is?

In the October 2010 issue of Smithsonian magazine, I delve into the real history of America's attitudes about religion, and it is a far different picture from the tidy tableau and storybook version of tolerance that we tell our children. The Smithsonian magazine article, "God and Country," traces the long and often murderous history of religious battles fought on American soil, going back to 1565, before the Pilgrims even arrived, when Spanish Catholics massacred French Protestants in Florida -- a story not told in most of our textbooks.

Click here to read the Smithsonian article.

Memorials, "Mosques" and Burning Convents

2010-07-30T17:02:56-04:00

In polite society, one supposedly never discusses religion or politics. In America, it seems we can rarely separate the two.

The latest fracas over faith in the public square involves the plans for Cordoba House, an Islamic Center, including a "mosque," to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Proposed to bridge the differences between Islam and the West, the $100-million project, which includes a prayer room rather than an actual mosque, has won the backing of Mayor Bloomberg, among others. But with the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks looming, the race for Governor of New York heating up, and a Presidential election in the wings, Cordoba House was plunged into America's boiling pot of religious politics. And like New York's recent weather, the political firestorm that has been ignited shows no sign of cooling.

The pot was first stirred when Sarah Palin implored the group behind Cordoba House not to build the center, asking Muslims via Twitter, to "refudiate" the plan.

Raising the temperature was Newt Gingrich on his website, Newt.org, where he warned that "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."

This whole argument might be construed as a momentary blip in a slow summer news cycle. But the fear and loathing of faiths that supposedly threaten America's existence is nothing new. The grade school notion of America as a "Melting Pot" nation in which all are welcomed to worship is a myth. Since Spanish Catholics slaughtered French Protestants in Florida in 1565, ingrained religious animosity has been an unhappy and uncelebrated American tradition. For centuries, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and other "foreign" religions have encountered disdain, discrimination and worse.

In fact, the political attacks on the Islamic Center recall an earlier assault on a religious compound built near an American memorial.

It was August 1834 and the place was Charlestown, Massachusetts, outside Boston. The "threat" then came from a Roman Catholic convent where Ursuline nuns ran a private school for girls called Mount Benedict.

But the Ursuline Convent stood near sacred ground -- the site on which the Bunker Hill Monument was being built. To many Americans, the Ursuline compound nearby was an affront, a symbol of a foreign faith that was evil, hateful and a threat to the nation.

On the night of August 11, 1834, a few hundred locals descended on the convent. As the nuns and their young charges cowered, both the convent and school were ransacked and torched by the mob. A mausoleum was then opened, coffins overturned and the remains scattered. When the three nights of arson and mayhem was over, the Ursuline convent and the school it housed were in ruins.

The desolation of the Ursuline Convent in August 1834 is not one of the proud events that historic Boston touts to patriotic visitors. And it is hardly unique. America's past is littered with similar examples of intolerance, sectarian hatred and ultimately, religious violence. A decade after the attack on the Ursuline Convent, Philadelphia was torn apart by the anti-Catholic Bible Riots, in which dozens died and the homes of mostly Irish Catholic immigrants were destroyed along with two Catholic churches in an argument begun over which Bible to use in public school.

For much of America's history, the religious fear and loathing were directed mostly towards Catholics -- especially Irish Catholics -- who were thought to be plotting to turn America over to the Pope. Now, of course, the perceived threat comes from Islam and a symbol like Cordoba House has replaced the nefarious Ursuline Convent.

In 1790, after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from what is now Ground Zero, President Washington wrote a letter to another much maligned and distrusted group -- the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. "Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens."

His words should be required reading for public officials -- past, present and future. They might even make a good plaque at Ground Zero.

You can read more about the burning of the Ursuline Convent, the Philadelphia Bible Riots and the history of anti-Catholicism in A Nation Rising.

Don't Know Much About the Declaration? A Refresher On Our Freedoms

2010-07-04T10:00:00-04:00

As we pursue happiness and work our way towards Independence Day on July 4th, here are a few fascinating facts about the document that created the United States of America and the day that the nation was born.

First of all, we celebrate the wrong day -- as far as John Adams was concerned. The Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, actually voted on a resolution of independence on July 2d. John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail that this day would be a day of history that would be marked with bonfires, church bells ringing and "illuminations" -- or fireworks. He was right about all the other details but missed on the date. The date of the adoption of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence became fixed on the national calendar.

Although Jefferson was the chief author of the Declaration, he was a member of a committee of five men charged with drafting a declaration that would explain why the colonies were separating from England. The others were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and Robert Livingston of New York, who was not an advocate of independence.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of ?" Jefferson borrowed from a phrase used by other writers, including fellow Virginian George Mason, who had written about "life, liberty and the pursuit of property."

Here is a link to Jefferson's draft as it was presented to Franklin and Adams with some of his changes shown.

Congress also made some changes. The most significant was the deletion of a paragraph in which Jefferson charged that King George III was responsible for the slave trade. That was dropped, Jefferson later noted, in deference to the men who owned slaves as well as those who made a great deal of money transporting them. Remember, some of the largest slave ports were in the northern colonies.

The July 4th vote was not unanimous. The vote tally was by each state delegation. New York abstained on July 4 and voted to approve the Declaration on July 9th, making it unanimous. All thirteen colonies were then aboard.

The signers didn't sign -- at least not on July 4th. Only two men actually signed the July 4th version: John Hancock, President of the Congress and Charles Thomson, serving as secretary. The actual signing ceremony took place on August 2, 1776. And even then, only 50 of the 56 signers were present to sign.

The first celebration took place in Philadelphia on July 8th when the Declaration was read publicly for the first time. The "Liberty Bell," a name that was not given to the famous symbol of freedom until the early 19th century, was rung. But it didn't crack then. That came later. The words inscribed at the top of the Liberty Bell read, "Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof." And no, Taco Bell did not buy the rights to the Liberty Bell -- that was a very successful April Fools Day joke. (Yes, they got me.)

Words on back? Sorry no secret, invisible treasure map as in the movie National Treasure. But the words "Original Declaration of Independence, dated 4th July 1776" are written on the back of the parchment version now displayed in the National Archives.

Read more about the Declaration and American History all week at www.dontknowmuch.com

Celebrating Emancipation on Juneteenth (VIDEO)

2010-06-21T15:53:01-04:00

On June 19, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger informed slaves in the area from the Gulf of Mexico to Galveston, Texas, that they were free. Lincoln had officially issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, but it had taken two more years of Union victories to end the war and for this news to reach slaves in remote sections of the country. According to folk traditions, many of the newly freed slaves celebrated the news with ecstasy. Many of them began to travel to other states in search of family members who had been separated from them by slave sales.

The announcement was met with joy and celebration. And an American tradition -- celebrating freedom on "Juneteenth" -- began.

Watch my "Don't Know Much About Minute" video on the Juneteenth holiday here:

That spontaneous celebration -- commonly called Juneteenth -- became prominent in many African-American communities, but never gained any official recognition. Recently it has been recognized by several states as a day celebrating emancipation. There is a movement to gain national recognition of Juneteenth as a way of marking the end of slavery in America.

Here is a link to the National Archives site about the Emancipation Proclamation, formally announced by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863.

Click here for a previous post with more of the history of Juneteenth.