Considering Memorial Day

I was thinking about what next to blog about, when I started wondering about the origins of Memorial Day. I was fairly certain that it originated around the time of the Civil War, but I wasn't sure. So I did what any computer literate person would do: I "googled" it. To be more precise I typed "Memorial Day history" into the search bar, and Google came up with about 32,900,000 results. The first (unsponsored) hit was one entitled, well, Memorial Day History. It's fairly well done, albeit with perhaps a little too much information for me. It also encourages you to sign a petition for a "Traditional Day of Observance" for Memorial Day (I'll say a little about this sort of cause later). However, if you want more of a history lesson, and don't mind a little soliciting for a cause, it's a pretty good start.

I found that I was correct, however, at thinking the time period in which Memorial Day originated was the Civil War era. More commonly called "Decoration Day" before the end of World War II, the official start of Memorial Day was in 1868, by an order (General Order no. 11) of General John Logan, and it was observed May 30th of that year. That day flowers were placed upon the graves in Arlington National Cemetery of both Northern and Southern soliders who had died in the Civil War. What is perhaps unsurprising is that, while all the Northern states had adopted the Decoration Day/Memorial Day observance by 1890, Southern states didn't adopt it until after the next major war: World War I. Up until this point, the holiday had only commemorated those who had died in the Civil War; after World War I, this changed, so that Memorial Day commemorated any American soldier who died in any war. Of course, in addition to Memorial Day, many Southern states also celebrate another day to honor their Confederate dead exclusively. (Again, unsurprisingly.)

Another thing I wondered about Memorial Day is: why the red poppies? Well, that comes from a 1915 poem by Moina Michael, inspired by "In Flanders Fields":

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

After she wrote this, she started to encourge people to wear red poppies on Memorial Day, selling them and giving the money to soldiers who needed it. This tradition also started to spread to other countries, particularly early on to France and Belguim. Selling artificial red poppies made by orphans or disabled veterans in order to help them out became a tradition in those countries as well as in the United States. Moina Michael was honored in 1948 with a postage stamp.

In perusing some of the things written about Memorial Day, I became aware that, like many national celebrations and commemorations, the observance of the holiday as it was originally intended - to remember and honor our American heroes fallen in battle - appears to have been diminshed. Many of the sites I consulted bemoaned the 1971 passing of the "Uniform Holidays Bill", which created the national holiday three day weekend for several holidays. However, most of these have been returned to their original days of observance (for example, Veterans Day on November 11th). Memorial Day most likely remains part of the three day weekend tradition because a number of people see it as marking summer vacation season.

Why might this be a bad thing? Well, the argument on many of the sites - and in several national movements (one of which I mentioned on the site in the first paragraph) - including a page called "A Memorial Day History Lesson", is that the three day weekend at the beginning of summer have made people more intent on their holiday plans for the beach or the mountains or their staycation than on the commemoration of those who died to make and keep our country free. In a way, that may be true. However, in my humble opinion, it's not necessarily the three day vacation that stands in the way of proper Memorial Day observance. It's the wider and more prevailing decline of the appreciation and interest for history and commemoration of national holidays among the citizens of this country in general. For example, if one took a look at statistics of visits to National Memorials, museums, and other historical sites, one would see a fairly dramatic drop in the past few decades from what visitation used to be. And those who still go hope to be entertained and amused; if they aren't, they don't stay very long, or they don't go at all. Conversely, in years past, people visited national historical sites with the air of pilgrimage and reverence. That is rarely ever the case these days.

Honestly, I don't think taking away the three day vacation is going to do anything to change the disinterest and sense of detachment that Americans feel to the traditions of Memorial Day. Will they stop and commemorate on a random day in the middle of the week any better than they do on this three day weekend? To me that's looking at the issue from the wrong angle. The problem is not one of timing, it's of making citizens feel connected to their own roots, history, and national celebrations. If Americans felt a deeper appreciation and attachment to the holiday as a whole, I don't think it would matter where they were vacationing or what they were doing, they would stop and honor the fallen soldiers of this country.

In this era where so many talk of "patriotism" and national pride, is there a real movement toward appreciation for this country and its history in all its richness and diversity, or is this talk just that - talk? From what I've seen, it appears, sadly, to be the latter.

One Nation, Yes - But One Viewpoint?

As I was rereading the article from the Guardian, "Texas School Board Rewrites US History with Lessons Promoting God and Guns", I came across one of the things that had been bothering me for several days now. Cynthia Dunbar, one of the Texas conservatives who has been elected to the state's Board of Education, supports the belief "in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy". She also wrote a book in 2008, entitled One Nation Under God. In this book she says "The only accurate method of ascertaining the intent of the founding fathers at the time of our government's inception comes from a biblical worldview.... We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world." Dunbar wants the curriculum and textbooks in Texas public education to reflect this view.

Here is an important caveat: I have not read Dunbar's book. I don't know what details are there or are omitted. However, most other people won't read Dunbar's book either. What they will read is what she says about her book and what other people quote from her book. This is what I want to address.

The are several things that Dunbar seems to think are "very clear", but with which I (and I'm thinking most historians and any other careful student of history) take issue.

1. "We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world." She says this in the context of the "intent of the founding fathers".

Okay. Sure, John Winthrop said in this speech to the other Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony that New England was meant to be like the Biblical "city on a hill", an example of what a truly godly community was supposed to be, and a way to show up the still too popish (Catholic-acting) Church of England. The Beacon Hill area in Boston was named so because of this speech. The oration was called "A Model of Christian Charity". The year was 1630.

This leaves me with some questions. Does this mean that Governor John Winthrop was a founding father? He had nothing to do with the founding of the United States, just the founding of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Let's leave that question for a moment. One could say that since many elements of Puritan society worked their way into what would become American society around the age of the Revolution, this worldview was part of American beginnings.

But was it the "intent of the founding fathers"? More about that later on.

2. Dunbar says that there is a myth of the separation of church and state in the US. Since she talks about the Puritans as being the guiding light of the nation, I will talk about them as well. THE PURITANS BELIEVED IN SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Yes, true, according to the Puritans both the government and the church were created by God to enforce the divine will. The government taxed all people - whether church members or not - and supported the church in part with this money, and one had to be a member of the church in order to vote. But this was still a huge step away from England and the Church of England, where the Heads of State were also in charge of the church (ministers in New England could NOT hold public office), the government could tell churches what to do (they could NOT in New England), and the government could take away both civil and religious privileges (again - this was not true in New England).

As for the United States, the first amendment, the one regarding the separation of church and state, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This says that there will be no established - state - religion, and that no one can be kept from practicing the religion of their choice (insofar as it does not harm anyone else's basic rights). The colonists had fled from England and other European nations so that they wouldn't be told what to do. They weren't going to give that up just because they were now their own nation. It seems to me that if the Constitution took any lesson from the Puritans, it was the keep church and state separate.

So, tell me, how is that a myth?

3. I told you I'd say more about the "intent of the founding fathers": Dunbar is also quoted as saying "There's been this amorphous changing of how we look at religion and how we define religion within American history. One concern I have is that the viewpoint of the founding fathers is very clear. They were not against the promotion of religion. I think it is important to present a historically accurate viewpoint to students."

Ahem. The viewpoint of the founding fathers is very clear? I'm sorry, but if that were the case, why have we all been arguing about it for over two centuries now? Worse - and I know she is not the first, nor the only, person guilty of this - is the assumption that the "viewpoint of the founding fathers" was all the same. One of the principle failings of many people who try to base their arguments on history is to assume that everything in the beginning was clear and simple and one, and that through the years it has become confused and chaotic and multiple - "this amorphous changing of how we look at religion and how we define religion within American history." Dunbar maintains that there was one clear viewpoint of the founders and that history has screwed up how we look at it.

But, anyone who has really studied the founders - and even some people who have only had a cursory introduction to these fellas - knows that they were a motley bunch. Some were Christians, sure. Puritans, Anglicans, Baptists, New Lights, Old Lights, etc. Some were deists - meaning they thought of God as a sort of creator, a mechanic, who put all the elements of the universe into place, wound it up, and then let it go, and everything that happened since then has been up to the creation. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and he also cut up the New Testament, taking out any parts that didn't make sense to him, and put them back together to make his own New Testament. Some of the founders were Freemasons - Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to name just two of the more famous - and much of the symbolism on our money and Capitol buildings is that of the Masons. Some founders were Quakers, whom many Christians in the nation looked down on. Some weren't very religious at all. The Puritan viewpoint was only one of many in the American colonies at that point. In fact, when the colonies came together to write the Declaration, and then those new states came together to write the Articles of Confederation (our first government) and then the Constitution, religion was only one of the many - many - things upon which they didn't agree.

There goes the view that everyone was in agreement at the founding of our nation - up in smoke. It seems the only thing on which they could agree was to let everyone have the freedom to disagree. And even if they, as a whole, in their "very clear" viewpoint, "were not against the promotion of religion", which religion are we talking about? I, for one, think it's "very clear" that Dunbar's definition of "religion" is Christianity, and the very conservative kind at that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against talking about religion and Christianity, Puritanism and the Church of England, the Great Awakenings, New Lights, Old Lights, and what have you in a history classroom. In fact, I'm all for it. What I am against is skewing that history by giving students a pre-packaged interpretation. Tell them the facts. Even tell them even some ways that the facts have been interpreted in the past (also known as historiography). If they come to the conclusion that history points to Christianity as being the best way for them to live, they are certainly free to think that. But don't do their thinking for them.

It all started with some indignation - and a suggestion....

Recently, a friend of mine posted an article from a British news website to her Facebook wall. It was about the decision of the Texas State Board of Education to change the social studies and history curriculum and textbooks. If you haven't read it, you should: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

When I read this, I was indignant, and, even more so, I was livid. There are plenty of things wrong in general with almost all history textbooks out there, but, really? So I reposted the link on my own Facebook wall, expressing as well that indignation.

That was a few days ago. Today, I received a suggestion, after another friend had been reading about the same thing, that I start a blog about history. Mainly because A) I seem to spend a lot of time procrastinating, and I could use that procrastination time a little more productively, and B) I know a little something about the subject. She suggested that each entry would be history related, and I thought it was a pretty good idea. I mean, I really do procrastinate quite a lot. Not that I like it. But I do like history. No, love it, and it would be fun to pass on some of the things I've "read, considered and reconsidered".

I'll probably start with a few entries on what the Texas School Board of Education proposed to do to their textbooks and curriculum. But after that - who knows....?