Published: June 29, 2012
In the early days of our nation, July Fourth wasn’t an official holiday at all. In fact, it wasn’t until 1938 that it became a paid day-off. So how did the Fourth become the holiest day on our secular calendar? Historian Pauline Maier offers some answers, and explains how radically the meaning of the Declaration has changed since 1776. James Heintze chronicles early Independence Day Bacchanalia. And historian David Blight reflects on Frederick Douglass’ arresting 1852 Independence Day speech.
kselward
I found several aspects of the piece on the Declaration rather sensational and disingenuous – a rather second year way of making things look important.
1. The fact that Jefferson did have editorial revisions in fact demonstrates the balance that you suggest did not occur. Of course Jefferson wrote this way – yet you assume that Jefferson’s comments reflected the true views of the people – in fact the rest of the writing team, reflective perhaps of the more widespread consciousness, rewrote it to take the Jeffersonian excesses out.
Later you state, “The grievances that made their nation-making war seem necessary may now look exaggerated, tediously self-interested, even boringly banal.” I think to many, when viewed with the many abuses of human rights in this world today, the grievances mentioned are not accurately termed banal. If any do think such, then they are fattened and sated too much with the protections the Declaration helped win for them.
You later state rather surprisingly, “But if the Declaration was propaganda that has now outlived its shelf life,” – who except academics in need of some unique spin on their work believe it was merely “propaganda” – most realize it was carefully crafted to articulate the essence of the call for liberty. Does anyone really believe the Declaration was meant to “convince” the French to fight for us? That is truly an insult to their more shrewd and calculating track record. They could have hardly cared less about what was in the Declaration.
Finally, you add that it “still helps explain the strangest thing about independence — that it was belatedly declared 15 months after the fighting began at Lexington and Concord.” Anyone receiving the most basic – or advanced – education in history has learned that it took that long for most of us to realize we were not “going back home” as temporary disgruntled runaways. This was not strange at all, but a rather natural course of events given the ethnic and economic ties we had to England.
You three are established historians. I am trying to give my kids a factual education in history that does not trash some really key concepts and disparage the courage of persons who really made perhaps the most fundamental step in self government since the Magna Carta. Reading this account caused our son and several other rising AHS freshmen to comment, “Sounds like it was just a lot of made up stuff to make an excuse for what they were doing. It was all just BS.”
Give me a little help, will you?
18th Century Guy
Dear kselward:
Thanks for writing. I’m sorry you found our piece so offensive. By all means do your own research and read the Declaration your own way: we don’t have any proprietary claim. I think you’d find if you studied the records of Congress that foreign–that would be French–recognition was very much the order of the day. But the document can and should be read in many ways, and with an open mind about the intentions of Jefferson and his editors and about how contemporaries might respond to it. Try to put yourself in their time and place: there’s nothing “natural” about rebellion against legitimate authority. That’s what the American Revolution was — and we’re inclined to think it was a good thing.
ehiles
I have enjoyed listening to the discussion with Pauline
Meier that every generation has to find its own equilibrium
with the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence -
the libertarian clause. It shows how the Declaration is a living
document and both or all political parties read it in a way to
support their views.
I attended the Naturalization Ceremony at Monticello and it was indeed once again a wonderful way to exemplify Jefferson’s ideals of democracy and independence from monarchs! The new citizens
reminded me of what is so special and lasting about the
United States.
Douglas
I think I may have found an article that explains why the 1812 overture has become a staple of july 4th celebrations. here it is http://www.postgazette.com/ae/20030704overtureae3.asp. I’m glad this was part of the discussion, I had always assumed that the 1812 in the 1812 overture referred to the War of 1812 or the Anglo-American war, and thats why it was played on July 4th. Well you learn something everyday.
Mark Plagakis
With much interest, I’ve read the works of Kenneth Roberts: Oliver Wiswell nad Rabble in Arms. To what extent did Clas Warfare enter into the American Revolution?
Todd
Best research reveals that the “1812 Overture” became a staple of July 4th celebrations sometime after 1812.
Don Argus jr
Congratulations and thank you for a excellent, thoughtful program, which we heard on KUOW. We appreciated the discussion of the history of the holiday, and were blown away by the reading of the Frederick Douglass speech.
However, you missed the point entirely of the pastor who called in saying his parishioners want to incorporate the Fourth into worship services, and that he is uncomfortable about that.
You guys didn’t seem to understand the issue. Christianity is not about the United States of America. We Christians are to follow Christ, not the nation-state. Along with Jews and Muslims, we are to have no gods but God. Corrupting our faith to the service of nationalism is idolatry, even heresy. Early Christians understood this when they refused to worship the Emperor.
“Patriotism” has become for many Americans a civil religion, one that American Christians often conflate with their Christianity. We need to sort this out; the separation of Church and State is necessary to protects each from the corrupting influence of the other.
cindy
While driving home after playing a Salute to the U.S.A. concert at Blossom Music Center (outside of Cleveland, Ohio) I listened to the discusson about the playing of the 1812 Overture, and had to comment.
Loras Schissel, our conductor and commentator for the evening told the audience that Arthur Fiedler brought the playing of that piece into popularity after programing it for the Boston Pops July 4th celebration in 1976. The piece lends itself well to cannon fire, with an appropriate segue into the post concert fireworks display.
Happy 4th all!
John, Arlington, VA
I like this article the best:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/309550/the_fourth_of_july_and_the_1812_overture.html?cat=37
Matt
I have to ask that your group revisit the proposition, initiated by an early caller, that the American Revolution was merely replacing one oligarchy with another. I feel that so oversimplifies the matter as to be an insufficient and even inaccurate characterization of the revolution.
While it is true that many of the “forefathers” were wealthy landowners, the fact is that they placed their wealth, their fortunes and their very lives on the line for an ideal with scant chance of success. They followed French and English philosophical ideals — indeed, they were ideals — far from supportive of concentrations of power and authority. By the end of the revolutionary war, Washington was sufficiently popular to assume extraordinary power and authority, and he refused. There are many other examples of idealistic intellectual interchange and struggle very much in contravention of concentration of power and authority of the few over the many.
It is true, slaves, Native Americans and even the unlanded population were left far outside the ideal, but the ideal so much fought over and fought for ultimately has been a foundation for their progress.
Matt (also a former Clevelander)
Dale Mayer
Thank you for a multitude of new thoughts about our country, for Frederick Douglas’ “speech” and for those familiar old tunes interspersed… they brought back lots of July 4th memories for me. The most powerful one was during WW II when we lived in a small town in Westchester, Briarcliff Manor. Almost everyone in town was In the parade — we all had some official part on the Home Front. My father was an Air Raid Warden. I was a bicycle messenger during practice blackouts. My mother rolled bandages for the Red Cross. My two younger brothers watched although Paul (13yrs) thought he should have been in the parade. He made balsa wood model planes – of German bombers and fighters. They hung over his bed so he could learn their shapes and be able to identify them when they came over.
Lisa
Please don’t play dumb. The three of you have PhDs in US history. You know very well that you can devote an hour to the 4th of July. Historians of the 20th century are not totally ignorant of the 18th century. When you play dumb, you assume that I am dumb. I am many things, but dumb is not one of them.
For that matter, I hope you’re pretending to see the Revolution as a war between the Americans and the British. When you do that, you imply that loyalists were not Americans. Many, many, many Americans opposed the Patriots. It’s much more accurate to describe the Revolution as a civil war. Don’t let nationalism cloud your analysis.
Townes Duncan
I just heard the podcast and was intrigued by the discussion of how the 1812 Overture came to have a place in so many July 4th celebrations. The Boston Pops is the first example I can remember, as described in the article linked to an earlier comment. I assumed when I heard the Pops do it that idea had come from a cereal commercial for, I think, Kellogs Rice Puffs or some similar cereal that ran in the early 70′s– the point of the commercial being that the cereal was “shot from guns”. to the tune of the 1812 Overture.
JB
Keselward’s response is disturbing. This person has no business teaching freshmen or anyone. The last thing you should be trying to give your children (your students?) is a “factual education,” because there is no such thing. To suppose there is something as a “factual education” is naive. If you are teaching high school freshman, I assure you that their response is not only normal but indicative of the reality that history does not produce one, nice, neat answer that we can put in a box.
As an instructor of history your job is to encourage students to wrestle with different and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the past based upon evidence, not to sanitize or simplify concepts that are difficult. Facts, as any college history major should be able to tell you, are used to build arguments. They have no inherent meaning in and of themselves. All we have are better or worse arguments.
Right now, by pushing students towards easy, factoid answers, Keselward is only encouraging cynicism, anti-intellectualism, and closed-mindedness. I also suspect Keselward is promoting a particular nationalist agenda–no doubt nicely expressed in whatever textbook he or she is using–and is upset that the radio program did not support that simple, nationalist vision of the past.
History is an analysis or interpretation of the past. It is not fixed; it is not a series of undisputed or celebratory facts. I hope that Kselward keeps listening to this program and eventually comes to see that history is all interpretation and critical thought based upon evidence.
When Kselward’s freshman attend college, assuming they will, I can only hope that any absurd notions of “factual education” are knocked out of their heads. Kselward is doing these freshmen no favors and certainly not preparing them for college-level study of history.
The American History Guys’ response to Keselward was level-headed and pitch-perfect. But it doesn’t express the anger that those of us whose children have to suffer bad history teachers feel when presented with this kind of teacher.
Tom Mason
I truly enjoyed the Fourth of July program – with one exception. When the caller commented that the Founding Fathers took Indian land to pay off the soldiers, our Hosts sniggered and indicated this might be a controversial viewpoint. Not so! British Parliament had just passed an Act forbidding the Indian lands to Colonial settlement (as depicted in Mel Gibson’s Swamp Fox). This is a primary flow of the Revolution, not a side-issue.
Steve G
Pardon me if I digress – it’s interesting to think that we Americans have always celebrated our nation’s independence with simulated shell-shock.
H. Troid
This episode has not appeared in the RSS feed for ‘Backstory’.
Just fyi. Keep up the great work!
Tony (BackStory Producer)
Thanks, H. The problem has been fixed — our Independence Daze episode should have showed up in your podcast feed yesterday. Let us know what you think!