American Ignorance of their own History

Americans seem to be blissfully ignorant about even the most basic facts of their own history. The signing of the Declaration of Independence is one example. Perhaps the most famous painting of the signing is John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776", commissioned in 1817 to be placed in the rotunda of the Capitol to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing in 1826. This painting was originally roundly criticized by John Adams when the artist asked him to comment on it. Adams said that it was very bad history because the scene depicted never happened.

Nevertheless, Trumbull had done some research and did include the important figures at the signing.

For some reason, however, modern Americans seem to be always confusing another painting with the signing of the Declaration. I have found this painting on a website for the Christian Science Monitor and the Catholic Museum of Art, and several others. It is familiar to most Americans.

The Catholic Museum caption says this about the painting. "In 1998, Victor Korolev, a Russian immigrant portrait painter worked for The National Museum of Catholic Art and Library. He was commissioned to paint “The Declaration of Independence.” Ironically, he wanted very badly to become a US citizen but was not able to get a visa to stay longer in the US. He had to return to Russia. Victor, a great artist did many paintings for the museum including Archbishop Bishop John Carroll.

       Victor’s version depicts the founding Fathers in different positions then John Trumball’s version at the Capitol in Washington, DC. In the center, we see Charles Carroll of Carrolton whispering in the ear of Ben Franklin. Thomas Jefferson stands behind him in a red coat. On Jefferson’s right sits John Adams. Leaning and writing on the desk is John Hancock. To the right of him stands a very tall and proud George Washington."

           So what's wrong here? First of all, George  Washington was not at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He was in the field leading the Continental army. Alexander Hamilton was not at the Declaration signing either. In fact, in this painting he is mislabeled as Charles Carroll. This painting is of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The figures are detailed here. Note the serious discrepancies in naming that the Catholic Museum piece makes.

The man identified as Jefferson in the Catholic painting is actually 40, William Jackson, the secretary. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written, so he did not sign it. Hamilton here is correctly identified. The man identified as John Hancock is also wrong. Hancock did not attend the Constitutional convention, in fact he was a bit leery of the whole idea of revising the Articles of Confederation.

          The Christian Science Monitor used the same painting in their quiz on the Declaration and labeled it the signing of the Declaration.

If the curators of art museums or national news magazines can't keep the histories of this country's basic documents, you can imagine what the knowledge is of the population at large. 

The Star Spangled Banner

This morning, September 14, 2014 was the 200th anniversary of the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the British in the War of 1812. The British had mounted a three pronged attack against American holding in the Chesapeake Bay area.

The first arm and second arms of the campaign were directed at Washington D.C., which the British captured and burned on August 24, 1814. The third arm went up the Chesapeake, aimed at taking Baltimore. Baltimore was defended on the river by Fort McHenry, which the British had to take before proceeding into Baltimore. On the evening of August 13, 1814, British ships approached the Fort and began bombarding it in preparation for its capture. The bombardment went on until the morning of August 14.

            On board one of the British ships was a young American who had been sent to negotiate the release of some prisoners held by the British. His name was Francis Scott Key.

Because he had seen the British ships, he was not allowed to leave the ship and was on board during the bombardment. There was considerable during the night of August 13 - 14, that the fort would fall. To his relief, when the sun came up on the morning of August 14th, Key saw that the flag was still flying over the fort and that the fort had not been taken.

Key reported the good news to the American prisoners below deck, but later in the day, decided to write a poem commemorating  the event. He called his poem "Defence of Fort M'Henry".

He first published his poem on August 20 when he was returned to shore. He intended to fit it to the rhythms of composer John Stafford Smith's "To Anacreon in Heaven", and English drinking song which had become popular in the United States.  Key had already used the song as a setting for his 1805 song "When the Warrior Returns," celebrating U.S. heroes of the First Barbary War. He renamed his poem, now a song, "The Star Spangled Banner" which became quickly popular and was often sung at patriotic gatherings.

                          It was recognized for official use by the United States navy in 1889. President Woodrow Wilson reaffirmed this use in 1916. The song was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution on March 3, 1931, which was signed by President Herbert Hoover.

                The story of the flag is also interesting. When the city of Baltimore became aware of the danger to the city by the British, they decided that Fort McHenry needed a proper flag flying over the fort. The commissioned a local flag maker, Mary Pickersgill to sew a flag 17 by 25 feet, and immense job. She worked day night for weeks sewing up the flag, but it was ready on time.  Her son later describes the work.

“The flag being so very large, mother was obliged to obtain permission from the proprietors of Claggetts brewery which was in our neighborhood, to spread it out in their malt house; and I remember seeing my mother down on the floor, placing the stars: after the completion of the flag, she superintended the topping of it, having it fastened in the most secure manner to prevent its being torn away by (cannon) balls: the wisdom of her precaution was shown during the engagement: many shots piercing it, but it still remained firm to the staff. Your father (Col. Armistead) declared that no one but the maker of the flag should mend it, and requested that the rents should merely be bound around. The flag contained, I think, four hundred yards of bunting, and my mother worked many nights until 12 o’clock to complete it in the given time.”

                                            

When they got finished sewing they had the flag for Fort McHenry

After the battle, the flag was retrieved and later sent to the Smithsonian Institute, where it is today.

Note that the flag has 15 stars, but also 15 stripes. When the first states, Vermont and Kentucky, were added after the original 13, they decided to add a new star for each state and also a stripe. Later when the 16th and 17th states were added, it became too bulky to add new stripes, so they reverted to the original 13 stripes, for the original 13 colonies, and only add stars for new states. 

            To give an idea of the size of this flag, a picture was taken in 1873 at a memorial service in Boston. 

Two Flags raised on Iwo Jima? It always amazes me how quickly history becomes myth. The famous flag raising on Iwo Jima is a classic case. We all recognize the Marine Corps Memorial in Washington D.C.

The statue is a recreation of the famous photo taken by Joe Rosenthal on February 23, 1945, which later won him a Pulitzer prize.

                 Joe Rosenthal

What most of us don't realize is that Rosenthal's photo was actually of a second flag raising to replace the first flag raised earlier that day. 

        That morning a squad of 40 marines was given the task of climbing to the top of Mt. Suribachi to keep the Japanese from using the peak for firing on American soldiers below. The Mountain was the highest feature on Iwo Jima and commanded a view of the entire island., seen in this photo. Their commander gave them a flag with instructions to raise it when (and if) they reached the summit.

The patrol reached the top of Mt. Suribachi with very little opposition and proceeded to attach the flag to a pole and raised it for those below to see. The patrol had with them a photographer from Leatherneck Magazine, S. Sgt Louis Lowery who took several  pictures of the first flag raising.

Shortly after the flag raising, the group was assaulted by Japanese soldiers, but they were fought off quickly. Now the story gets interesting. The flag was seen by Marines below and caused great celebration, the men cheering and the boats at sea blowing their horns. There happened to be traveling with the invasion fleet, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. As Forrestal stepped shore amid the cheering he said to the Marine commander that he wanted that flag for his office.

          The commander, not to be accused of disobeying orders, called together another group that was preparing to string a telephone line to the top of the hill, handed them a larger flag and told them to replace the one already up and bring it down to him.

             The second group climbed the hill, again without opposition, and notified those already on top that they wanted to replace their flag. Orders are orders, so the first flag was taken down as the second one was going up.

Joe Rosenthal had climbed up with the second group, and was informed by photographer Lowery that he, Rosenthal, had missed a great shot! Little did he know. Rosenthal got his camera ready just as the second flag was coming down, turned quickly and snapped the second one going up. Asked if he had got it, replied that he wished he could have seen their faces. He then got the group together and took another picture of them standing around the new flag.

He didn't even know that he had the historical picture in his camera until days later when the film was developed and he suddenly realized what he had taken.

The picture was sent to the newspapers and quickly became a national sensation. And just as quickly, the myths began to grown. The picture was interpreted as the victory celebration on Iwo Jima, that the battle was over and had been won. In actuality, the battle continued until March 16th, almost another month. During that time, three of the original flag raisers had been killed.

        The U.S. government quickly saw the financial benefit in the image and brought the three survivors back to the United States for a bond selling drive.

                                            Rene Gagnon         John Bradley      Ira Hayes     

The drive was a huge success and the three men were turned into overnight heroes as a war-weary nation celebrated upcoming victory in the Pacific theater.

There was a bit of confusion for a time because one of the dead soldiers honored turned out be misidentified. At first the names published included Henry Hansen, who had raised the first flag, but not the second. One of the living soldiers, Ira Hayes, knew that this was wrong, because it was actually his buddy Harlon Block, also dead, who had raised the second flag. When the misnaming became known, the government officials leading the bond drive told them all to shut up because the truth would hurt the bond drive. Only later did Hayes manage to get the confusion cleared up.

           Henry Hansen                                                                                  Harlon Block

The battle of  Iwo Jima was finally won and proved to be crucial in the defeat of Japan, but the flag raising was not a celebration of this victory, but an incident near the beginning of the battle. We were in such great need at the time for some sort of cheering news, that the flag raising, the second flag raising, was quickly turned into myth, as it remains today.

History Repeats Itself? Teddy Roosevelt and Vlad Putin

Does the current "crisis" in the Crimea have any historical precedents? Try this one on for size.

How about comparing U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt with Russian President Vladimir Putin? 

Same determined scowl. But how can I compare these two. One a respected U.S President, even carved on Mt. Rushmore, and a dictatorial Russian leader who wants to start World War 3... and is not carved on Mt. Rushmore? Let's look at the record.                                                                                                                    

In 1902, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt has decided that he wants to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama. The only problem is that Panama is part of the country of Columbia.

Negotiations between the U.S. and Columbia begin, resulting in the Hay–Herrán Treaty, signed on January 22, 1903 between United States Secretary of State John M. Hay of the United States and Tomás Herrán of Colombia. Had it been ratified, it would have allowed the United States a lease that was to remain in force in perpetuity on a six-mile wide strip across the isthmus of Panama (then part of Colombia) for $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000, both payments being in gold coin. It was ratified by the United States Senate on March 14, 1903. On August 12 of that year, however, the treaty is rejected by the Colombian Senate. Now what?

Roosevelt won't give up. There is a wonderful opportunity here, because the Panamanians are not happy under Colombian rule and an independence movement has started a revolt against the ruling country. Teddy sees his chance.

On November 2 he orders warships to Panama to maintain “free and uninterrupted transit” across the isthmus. The next day, November 3, a revolt breaks out in Panama against Colombian rule. The uprising is sponsored by Panamanian agents and officers of the Panama Canal Company, with tacit permission of the Roosevelt administration. The presence of the American Navy prevents Colombia from crushing the revolt.

On November 6, the United States recognizes the Republic of Panama.

Less than two weeks later, November 18, the United States negotiates the Hay-Buneau-Varilla Treaty with Panama to build the Panama Canal. The treaty gives the United States control of a ten-mile-wide canal zone in return for $10,000,000 in gold plus a yearly fee of $250,000. Pretty quick action by good old Teddy to get his canal.

If this sounds vaguely like what is going on in Russia today, it is. Contrary to what our government says and what our newspaper report, the Crimea is not an integral part of the Ukraine. In fact, Crimea was only added to the Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev, for reasons unknown. Before that it had been a separate state in Russia, from as early as 1783.

Maps of the old Soviet Union clearly show the two states as separate.

The Crimea was in many ways in the same relationship to the Ukraine that Panama was to Columbia, annexed unhappily to a foreign state.

When the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990's the Crimeans wanted to establish themselves as a separate state.  On 26 February 1992, the Crimean parliament) renamed the ASSR the Republic of Crimea and proclaimed self-government on 5 May 1992 and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.

Then things get murky. On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine. They agreed to remain part of the Ukraine, but with reservations. On 14 October 1993, the Crimean parliament established the post of President of Crimea with a council of 14. However, political turmoil continued. Amendments to the constitution eased the conflict, but on 17 March 1995, the parliament of Ukraine intervened, scrapping the Crimean Constitution and removing Yuriy Meshkov (the President of Crimea) along with his office for his actions against the state and promoting integration with Russia. After an interim constitution, the current constitution was put into effect, changing the territory's name to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

The problem is the the Crimea has a majority of ethnic Russians who were unhappy with Ukrainian rule. Leading to the current crisis.

Now the big question. When Putin sent troops into the Crimea to aid the separatist movement there, was he acting with almost the same reasoning as Teddy in 1903?

It is interesting to see how various cartoonists viewed the United States in Panama, and Mr. TR.

(note the shoveling of dirt on Bogota, capitol of Colombia)

Fairly easy in the cartoons to put Putin in as TR and change the name of Panama to Crimea (though journalists continue to insist that Russian troops occupied the Ukraine instead of the Crimean peninsula. 

Notice the label on the plank, the Roosevelt Doctrine. This was an addition to the Monroe Doctrine, which said that not only must Europeans stay out of the western hemisphere, the United States would use military force to enforce it.

Perhaps what Mr. Putin should do is proclaim a "Putin Doctrine" that says that all western powers are to stay out of affairs in Russia. Of course, we already have one of those proclaimed by our President Monroe. Fair is fair.

When we start talking about sanctions and so forth, and the danger of intervention of one nation in the affairs of another, we need to be careful what names we throw about. We could get the same names thrown back at us.

He Drew What??

Sometimes history throws us strange surprises. How many of us realize, and I didn't until just this week, that one of our favorite childhood authors started his career as a political cartoonist, and a fairly pointed one at that . See if you can spot his name in this cartoon about American isolationism during the 1930's.

That's right. It's Theodor Seuss Geisel. And not only did he do political cartoons he started even earlier helping peddle insecticides.

Geisel, or should we call him what he called himself, Dr. Seuss first took on America's unwillingness to confront Hitler during the 1930's

Does Uncle Sam look vaguely familiar in this cartoon?

One of his most bitterly attacked persons was none other than the hero of the 1920's, Charles Lindbergh, who was going out of his way to praise Nazi Germany. Dr. Seuss thought not.

Once the war started, he was unmerciful in his depictions of both Hitler and the Japanese.

He chided the United States for being taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor.

Though he sometimes slipped into racial stereotypes himself, like contributing to the internment of the Japanese.

One of the really interesting things about his work is that it attacked head on the problems of racism in this country, both in the war effort...

and beyond.

He went after things like voting rights,

unfair tax policies,

And attacks on the New Deal.

Once the war was over, he could finally turn to what we remember him best for, and which he did equally well at.

So, the next time you are reading to your children or grandchildren, you can recall his long and glorious history.