Kenneth C. Davis's Blog, page 110

Don't Know Much About® The Gulf of Tonkin Attacks

When Administrations Lie, Thousands Die.

That is today's history lesson on the date of a controversial "attack" on the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin off the cost of North Vietnam. That attack led to the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution a few days later and America's deepening involvement in the war in Vietnam.

Since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Vietnam War might as well be the Punic Wars to some people, here is a quick refresher.

America was already twenty years into its Vietnam commitment when Lyndon Johnson and Kennedy's "best and brightest" holdovers sought an incident to pull American firepower into the war with at least a glimmer of legitimacy. It came in August 1964 with two brief encounters in the Gulf of Tonkin, the waters off the coast of North Vietnam. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in one of the torpedo boat's sinking. American claims that the North Vietnamese fired first were later disputed. On August 4, 1964, the American destroyers reported a second engagement with North Vietnamese boats. There was never any confirmation that either ship had actually been attacked. (Weeks after this the late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died in 2009, expressed to Johnson doubts that the attack had occurred.) But these faulty reports would be exploited as a convenient excuse for the massive escalation of America's involvement in Vietnam.

In the civil war that was raging between North and South since the French withdrawal from Indochina and the partition of Vietnam in 1954, the United States had committed money, material, advice, and, by the end of 1963, some 15,000 military advisers in support of the anti-Communist Saigon government. The American CIA was also in the thick of things, having helped foster the coup that toppled prime minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963 and then acting surprised when Diem was executed by the army officers who overthrew him.

Among the other "advice" the United States provided to its South Vietnamese allies was to teach them commando tactics. In 1964, CIA trained guerrillas from the South began to attack the North for months in covert acts of sabotage. Code named Plan 34-A, these commando raids failed to undermine North Vietnam's military strength, so the mode of attack was shifted to hit-and-run operations by small torpedo boats. To support these assaults, the U.S. Navy posted warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, loaded with electronic eavesdropping equipment enabling them to monitor North Vietnamese military operations and provide intelligence to the South Vietnamese commandos.

According to Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History,

"Even Johnson privately expressed doubts only a few days after the second attack supposedly took place, confiding to an aide, 'Hell, those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.'"

Without waiting for a review of the situation, he ordered an air strike against North Vietnam in "retaliation" for the "attacks" on the U.S. ships. One bitter result of these air raids was the capture of downed pilot Everett Alvarez, Jr., the first American POW of the Vietnam War. He would remain in Hanoi prisons for eight years.

President Johnson followed up the air strike by calling for passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This proposal gave the President the authority to "take all necessary measures" to repel attacks against U.S. forces and to "prevent further aggression."

On August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the House unanimously after only forty minutes of debate. In the Senate, there were only two voices in opposition.

Congress, which alone possesses the constitutional authority to declare war, had handed that power over to a man who was not a bit reluctant to use it. One of the senators who voted against the Tonkin Resolution, Oregon's Wayne Morse, later said,

"I believe that history will record that we have made a great mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution." After the vote, Walt Rostow, an adviser to Lyndon Johnson, remarked, "We don't know what happened, but it had the desired result."

 

The recent debate over Presidential powers to commit troops without Congressional approval, as in the NATO action against Libya, is a reminder of the ways in which Presidents have taken the nation to war. It is also a reminder that those monumental decisions are sometimes  base on lies or shadowy misinformation. In the case of Tonkin, the "official version" was elevated to an attack on Americans.

You can read more about the Tonkin incident and the Vietnam War in Don't Know Much About History: Anniversary Edition, from which this post is adapted.

Don't Know Much About@ History: Anniversary Edition

Here is an older post with some suggested readings about the Vietnam War era.

These links are related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and recently declassified National Security Administration documents:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

CNN.com: "Why US is Not a Christian Nation"

As America celebrates its birthday on July 4, the timeless words of Thomas Jefferson will surely be invoked to remind us of our founding ideals — that "All men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator" with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These phrases, a cherished part of our history, have rightly been called "American Scripture."

But Jefferson penned another phrase, arguably his most famous after those from the Declaration of Independence. These far more contentious words — "a wall of separation between church and state" — lie at the heart of the ongoing debate between those who see America as a "Christian Nation" and those who see it as a secular republic, a debate that is hotter than a Washington Fourth of July.

Read the rest of the article here.

When Religions Collide

The Bible Riots

 

In a column written for CNN.com entitled "Why U.S. is Not a Christian Nation" that appeared on July 4th, I wrote about the history of early America as a secular republic.

Today, a few days after marking Independence Day and celebrating the events of 1776 in Philadelphia, I want to highlight a piece of "America's Hidden History" that underscores the dangers of an "official" religion and the irony of calling America a "Christian Nation."  The story is of a time when Christian sectarian violence led to bloodshed in the streets of Philadelphia.

Starting in n May 1844 and then again for several days following the 1844 Independence Day Parade, Philadelphia –the City of Brotherly Love– was torn apart by a series of deadly riots. Known as the "Bible Riots," the bloody street fighting and violence grew out of the vicious anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment that was so widespread in 19th century America. Families were burned out of their homes. Churches were destroyed. And more than two dozen people died in one of the worst urban riots in early American History. This video offer an overview of the "Bible Riots."

The story of the "Bible Riots" is another untold tale that I explore in greater in A NATION RISING, now available in paperback.

A NATION RISING -National Bestseller now in paperback

Historical Libraries, Societies and Museums: "Beam me IN!"

"BEAM ME IN, SCOTTY!"



Apologies to Captain Kirk and Star Trek. I know it's really, "Beam me UP, Scotty."



For more than 20 years, I have been traveling the country, visiting museums, historical societies, bookstores, libraries and teacher conferences to share my love for history, geography and all the subjects I have covered in the Don't Know Much About series of books and audios for children and adults.



Along the way, I have spoken at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., the New-York Historical Society and the American Museum of Natural History in New York, among other venues, sharing my love for history, writing and books. One of my messages is to encourage families to get out and visit historical sites such as Gettysburg, Fort Ticonderoga and other places where history happened. These places were so important to me as a boy, when my love for American History was shaped during family camping trips.



Now, with the power of computers, I want to visit your museum or historical society virtually. Will you invite me?



In fall 2011 and spring 2012, I will make a limited number of FREE Skype visits to select museums and historical societies to discuss American history.



In 60-minute sessions, I will give a brief talk about why we don't know our history, what we need to know, and why it matters. And I will also answer questions from your patrons.



If you and your patrons would like to participate, please make your request here, on the CONTACT PAGE of this website.



In your request, please propose a time when such a Skype visit would work for you and your patrons, planning out into Fall 2011 or Spring 2012 if such long-rang planning is needed to gather your audience.



Space is limited! Please enter your request by August 30, 2011



Meanwhile, I invite you to have a look at the revised, expanded and updated version of my book, Don't Know Much About History: Anniversary Edition, which was recently published in hardcover by HarperCollins, You can learn more about this new edition on this website.



I look forward to beaming into your museum or historical society and having a conversation with your patrons and members.



Best wishes,



Kenneth C. Davis

www.twitter.com/kennethcdavis

 

Don't Know Much About History -21 Years, Still Going Strong!

My how time flies!

When Don't Know Much About History was first published in 1990, it was simply meant to serve as a fresh new take on American history. Busting myths, with a dose of humor and real stories about real people, the book was conceived as an antidote to the dull, dreary textbooks we suffered through in high school or college.



A year later, on July 4, 1991, I learned that the book was on the New York Times paperback bestseller list, where it remained for a run of thirty-five consecutive weeks  – perhaps proving that Americans don't hate history, they just hate the dull version they got back in high school. There wasn't much advertising, splashy publicity or a "famous author." But teachers, students, booksellers, librarians, radio hosts and readers across the country embraced this offbeat, irreverent and quirky approach to history that asks simple questions like, "What is the Mayflower Compact?" as well as odd questions like, "Why is there a Statue of Benedict Arnold's Boot?"

The book went on to sell more than a million copies, and spawned a series of Don't Know Much About books. In 2002, Don't Know Much About History was revised and greatly expanded. Now, after a remarkable decade in American history, there is a newly updated edition –DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: ANNIVERSARY EDITION– that picks up where that earlier revision left off and brings American history through a churning period of war, calamity, and dramatic upheaval that culminated with the historic 2008 election of Barack Obama and his first year and a half in office.



So what's different about this new version? Like the original book and the previous revision, this 20th Anniversary Edition is organized along chronological lines, moving from America's "discovery" by Europeans to more recent events, including the first Gulf War, the end of the Cold War, the enormous repercussions of September 11, 2001,and the election of the nation's first African-American president.



The book's final chapter has been significantly expanded to include a review of the extraordinary events that have taken place since 2001, a period that has produced some of the most remarkable changes in America's history.



Much of this new history reflects on the response of the United States to the calamity of 9/11 and how that day has transformed American life and society, from the way we get through airports to fundamental American attitudes about the right to privacy versus a sense of greater security. The new material begins with an overview of 9/11 and what has been learned about that "day of infamy" after nearly a decade. This revision goes on to recap the response of the Bush administration to 9/11, with particular emphasis on the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, this added material includes discussions of these events and controversies:



• The emergence of same-sex marriage as a highly divisive, emotional national issue

• The failure of government at every level in responding to Hurricane Katrina, America's worst natural disaster

• The meltdown of the global economy and the "Great Recession" and the historic involvement of the government in rescuing companies, such as General Motors and Citibank, deemed "too big to fail"

• The surprisingly meteoric rise and election of Barack Obama and the first years of his administration



Besides adding material to cover events that have occurred since this book originally appeared in 1990, I have amplified some of the existing material. This sort of "historical revision" is a necessity because we learn things about the past all the time, often based on new scholarship, scientific advances, and ongoing discoveries that reshape our view of history. For instance, new light has been cast on familiar stories, such as the continuing archaeological dig that is revealing new information about the original fort at Jamestown, Virginia—first discovered in 1996—or the DNA evidence that strongly suggests that Thomas Jefferson had fathered the children of slave Sally Hemings— a nineteenth-century political rumor now treated as near certainty, even at Monticello, Jefferson's home in Virginia.



This revision also reflects the fact that court decisions can greatly alter American life. A bevy of judicial decisions around the nation during the past eight years has forced a major debate on same-sex marriage as well as the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals serving in the military. And in June 2008, the majority on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns in a historic reinterpretation of the Second Amendment and "the right to bear arms" that may impact gun-control laws in most American states.

Finally, history needs to be revised because even "old dog" historians learn new tricks. For instance, in researching and writing two of my recent books, America's Hidden History and A Nation Rising, I uncovered some surprising "hidden history" in such stories as the fate of the true first Pilgrims—French Huguenots who settled in Florida fifty years before the Mayflower sailed and were wiped out by the Spanish in 1565. Or the story of Philadelphia's anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant "Bible Riots" of 1844, another episode missing from most American schoolbooks. This revision now reflects these significant but overlooked events.



When I last revised this book in 2002, I concluded by writing:

And yet, how much had really changed? Congress still fights over obscure bills. Children still go missing. The stock market's gyrations transfix the nation. But something fundamental seems to have changed. Historians may look back at America in late 2002 as the Era of Broken Trust. In a very short space of time, Americans had lost faith in government agencies, including the FBI and the CIA. The church, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, was devastated by a string of revelations about predatory priests. Corporate bankruptcies and revelations of corruption involving Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, and WorldCom, among others, shattered America's faith in the financial security of the nation.

As we know, that paragraph has become, if anything, even more salient in 2011. The "Era of Broken Trust" I described at the beginning of the twenty-first century has only worsened as the events of the past decade have further eroded many Americans' belief and confidence in the nation's most basic institutions.



Perhaps the best summary of what this period in our history may mean is captured in something President George Bush told Good Morning America on September 1, 2005, during the Katrina catastrophe:

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Of course, that was not true, as ample evidence has shown. There had been plenty of cautions about the levees from the public officials, engineers, and academics who had warned of the dangers confronting New Orleans as its protective barrier islands were eliminated by development and the levees ringing a city below sea level were deemed insufficient in the face of a major storm. Similarly, many danger signs had been posted about a raft of other protective "levees" that have also been breached—the risks to the financial system, or the concerns about offshore drilling, and the dire warnings about going into Iraq without justification and without proper troop levels.



The Don't Know Much About series has always been about asking questions and getting honest, accurate answers. If there is any overarching lesson to be learned from history—especially from this recent history—is that we all have to ask a lot more questions, especially when it comes to making sure the levees will hold.



So thanks to you for twenty years of reading and asking questions.

THE NEWLY REVISED HARDCOVER EDITION (HARPERCOLLINS)

THE ORIGINAL AVON PAPERBACK EDITION (1991)

A Case of "Loving" Revisited

Last week's historic passage of a "gay marriage" law in New York state meant that six states and the District of Columbia now permit same sex marriage; a number of other states allow a form of civil union. The addition of New York doubled the number of Americans living in states with same sex marriage.

The passage of the New York legislation also means that President Obama has now come under new pressure to join the forces trying to win equal marriage rights throughout America.  This story, "Obama's Position on Gay Marriage Faces New Test" (New York Times, June 29, 2011), discusses that pressure. It also refers to a Supreme Court decision known as Loving — the case that ended laws prohibiting interracial marriage in America in 1967. I have written about the Loving case in the past, but thought it worth recalling what the case was about and what that decision meant. Here is a revised post –first written two years ago– about Loving:

As historical anniversaries go, April 10, 1967 may not seem like a date we all should remember. But that was the day that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Loving v. Virginia.  On June 12, 1967, the Court issued its ruling in the case, striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage ("miscegenation") in America.

Yes, a little over 40 years ago, Barack Obama's parents could not have married legally in the home state of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Richard Loving, a white man, married Mildred, a woman of African-American and Native American descent, in Washington, D.C. When they later traveled to Virginia, he was arrested and the Lovings were forced to leave Virginia. They brought suit which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court

The Court ruled that that anti-miscegenation laws, such as those in Virginia, violated the "Due Process Clause" ("No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." )  and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …"). In the unanimous majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Loving case deserves discussion in light of the recent decisions to allow same sex marriage in Iowa (a court ruling) and Vermont (a legislative act) and now New York. I have no doubt that this unresolved question is the greatest civil rights question facing America today. I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I am certain that this landmark case will be invoked as the battle over same sex marriage continues.

I also have no doubt that the country will –perhaps ever so slowly—catch up with Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, along with New Hampshire, the District of Columbia and New York in permitting same sex marriage.

Change in American history is often slow. And it usually comes from the bottom up –not the top down. Whether it was abolition, civil rights, or even independence itself, when it comes to most of the great social upheavals of our past, the politicians and "leaders" have generally had to be dragged kicking and screaming in the direction of change. It may be glacially slow, but it will happen, in part because there is a generational change that will someday make the existing same sex marriage prohibitions on the books seem as antiquated –and despicable—as the now-unconstitutional bans on interracial marriage.

Before her death in 2008, Mildred Loving, the woman of African-American and Native American descent who brought the suit against Virginia, issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the decision. She wrote:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

I can't say it any better than that.

 

There is a more complete discussion of the history of the Lovings, their case and its connection to the same sex marriage debate in the new, revised edition of Don't Know Much About History: Anniversary Edition.

The Flag and the Fourth

You will see plenty of red, white and blur bunting around as the Fourth of July approaches. The American flag inspires patriotism and pride. But a lot of legends too.

With its thirteen red and white stripes in honor of the original states, the U.S. flag has has changed a lot since 1777, when the "Stars and Stripes" became the official American flag. Now there are 50 stars representing the states. But the familiar symbol of America has a surprisingly obscure history. How much do you know about "Old Glory?"

True or False? (Answers below)

1. The original design, with 13 stars in a circle, was the handiwork of seamstress Betsy Ross.

2. The American flag is never lowered to honor visiting heads of state.

3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, composed in 1776, always included the words "one nation under God."

4. It is legal to burn the flag as a form of protest.

FLAG DAY is celebrated on June 14 in honor of the adoption of the American flag by the Second Continental Congress in 1777. In 1877, Congress ordered the flag to be flown from every government building on June 14 to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the official birth of the American flag.

You can find a good source of flag history and tradition at this website, US Flag.org:

http://www.usflag.org/history/flagevolution.html

Answers

1. False, probably. The Betsy Ross legend has largely been discredited. The likely father of the flag design was Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration from Pennsylvania and a member of the Continental Navy Board.

2. True. In a long-standing tradition, the flag is never dipped to any other nation's, including during the Olympics.

3. Double False. The Pledge was composed in 1892 and the words "under God" were added in 1953.

4. True. The Supreme Court has ruled that burning the flag in protest is speech protected under the Fifth Amendment.

America's Founding Fathers: A List of Fascinating Facts

The "Founding Fathers" were real men, not those faces chiseled in stone on Mount Rushmore. Or gods from Mt. Olympus. They argued, had political enemies, influential wives, stubborn streaks, debts, and health problems. Just like politicians today!  Below are some little known but fascinating facts you may not know about some of the men who were present at the birth of the nation –including some whose names you may not know!

Thomas Jefferson

•Known as a talented writer, Jefferson hated having his work edited. He sat and fumed while the Continental Congress debated his draft version of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was especially peeved when the delegates deleted his reference to slavery, "the execrable commerce."

•Jefferson instructed his slaves to hide the silver at Monticello, during the American Revolution, when the British came after him, led by turncoat Benedict Arnold.

•Jefferson died on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration, July 4, 1826.

There is a wealth of information about Jefferson at Monticello.

John Adams

•Adams knew that Thomas Jefferson was a good writer and wanted him to be added to the group that drafted the Declaration of Independence. Adams, a wily politician, knew he needed a Virginian on the Committee drafting the Declaration. Adams  later said Jefferson was ten times a better writer than he was himself.  Eventually Adams became Jefferson's political enemy, although they would reconcile in their old age.

•Adams was told by his wife Abigail Adams, to "Remember the ladies," meaning consider giving women rights in the new country being considered. Abigail wrote this to her husband while he was in Philadelphia working towards Independence, and Adams jokingly dismissed that idea, saying "he knew better."

•Adams believed America would celebrate July 2d as its great independence day –that was the day on which the Congress passed a resolution in favor of independence.

•Like Jefferson, John Adams died on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration.

Read more about John, Abigail and their  son John Quincy Adams at Adams National Historic Park.

John Hancock

•Hancock was one of America's richest men in 1776. Although the son of a poor minister, he had inherited a fortune from his uncle, a shipper and merchant.

•Known for his outsized signature on the Declaration, Hancock was one of two men who signed the finished draft version of the Declaration on July 4th 1776. Most of the others signed the parchment version later.

•Hancock was the first to sign—on an empty page—and forced the others to sign around the edges. He supposedly said it was so that king wouldn't need his spectacles, but Hancock was a man who thought highly of himself. That is one reason he was disappointed when George Washington was nominated to command the Continental Army. Hancock hoped to get the post, despite little military experience.

•Hancock was one of the few American Patriots who had a bounty placed on his head by King George III. Hancock was the man the British troops were looking for in Lexington in April 1775.

Read more about Lexington and Concord.

Benjamin Franklin

•Franklin had little formal education but went from printer's apprentice to wealthy and world-renowned writer and publisher –and inventor.

•Franklin was the most famous American in the world at the time of the signing of the Declaration due to his success publishing Poor Richard's Almanac and his later scientific and practical inventions, including the stove that bears his name, bifocals and the lightning rod.

•Some American clergymen thought that Franklin's lightning rod was "sinful" because it controlled something that they considered divine. But the lightning rod prevented many homes and buildings from being destroyed by fires set by lightning strikes.

•Though he later founded an anti-slavery society, Franklin kept slaves as household servants and took advertising for slave sales in his newspapers

•After Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence and said "Gentlemen we must all hang together," meaning they should be unanimous and all sign, Franklin supposedly said, "Yes, or we shall assuredly all hang separately."

•Franklin was so stricken with gout in his old age that he had to be carried to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 on a divan chair by inmates of a nearby jail.

•When Franklin died in April 1790, an estimated 20,000 people attended his funeral. Big crowd. But was about two-thirds of Philadelphia's entire population back then.

The Benjamin Franklin Memorial at the Franklin Institute has more on this fascinating characters.

Charles Carroll

•One of the lesser known Founders, Carroll was unique as the only Roman Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence; he came from Maryland. Many Americans of this era distrusted and disliked Catholics and there were even laws that kept them from holding property and voting in some states.

•Carroll was also the last surviving signer, dying in 1832 at the ripe old age of 95.

•From a wealthy plantation family, Carroll had studied abroad and was a French-speaker. With his cousin, John Carroll, a Catholic priest, and Benjamin Franklin, he went to Canada on a mission to convince Catholic French Canadians to join the American union. Their mission failed.

•Carroll later helped found the B&O railroad (of " MONOPOLY" board game fame).

Homewood, a Carroll family home, is maintained as a museum by the Johns Hopkins University.

James Wilson

•Another "forgotten Founder," Wilson is probably the most important signer of the Declaration many of us have never heard of. An attorney from Scotland, he not only signed the Declaration but was instrumental in drafting the Constitution.

•Wilson was attacked by a working class mob during the Revolution because he and fellow signer Robert Morris were suspected of hoarding supplies, such as wheat, to drive up prices. The incident, known as the "Fort Wilson Riot," shows there were powerful class differences in Revolutionary America.

•Wilson was one of the first Justices appointed to the Supreme Court, but is the only justice ever to be jailed. He lost money in land speculation, and was held briefly in debtor's prison and later fled from an arrest warrant. He died in shame.

A marker shows the location of the "Fort Wilson Riots"

John Witherspoon

•Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration and an influential clergyman and educator, was a renowned scholar who came to America from Scotland to run the College of New Jersey –later Princeton.  His prize students included James Madison and Aaron Burr.

•In addition to teaching a future President and Vice-President, Witherspoon's Princeton students include many Senators and Congressmen, cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices and state governors.

Francis Hopkinson

•Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration from New Jersey, wrote some of the first songs published in America.

•Hopkinson took credit for the design of the United States flag. The evidence is his request for payment of a case of wine.



George Washington

•Of course, Washington didn't sign the Declaration because he was busy commanding the Continental Army, a post he had been given in June 1775.

•Washington was a rugged, plainspoken frontiersman who is quoted as telling General Henry Knox to "Shift that fat ass, Harry, but slowly or you will swamp the damn boat," before crossing the Delaware. (Knox's account) Forget those hokey prayer vigils at Valley Forge!!

•Washington had the Declaration of Independence read to the troops then occupying New York City on July 9, 1776.

•Washington probably had mixed feelings about July 4th because on that date in 1754, as a young man in command of the Virginia colonial militia, he had been forced to surrender to a French army and sign a document that essentially was a confession of murdering a French diplomat. It was the first and only time he surrendered in his military career.

•False teeth? Yes, Washington only had a single tooth of his own left at his death. Wooden teeth? No. His dentures were made from ivory, bone and even human teeth.

•And the cherry tree tale? Also a legend created after his death. Washington's father died when the boy was eleven and George Washington rarely mentioned his father.

Washington's Mount Vernon plantation

America's "Other" Independence Day

"America's birthday is fast approaching. But let's not wait for July 4th to light the fireworks. There is another Independence Day on the horizon.

Juneteenth falls on June 19 each year. It is a holiday whose history was hidden for much of the last century. But as the nation now observes the 150th anniversary of the Civil War's onset, it is a holiday worth recognizing."

Read more at Smithsonian Magazine

 

Bloomsday (2011)

"Stately, plump Buck Mulligan. . ."

With those words, James Joyce (February 2, 1882-January 13, 1941) opened Ulysses, chosen in 1999 as the greatest novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library. The novel follows Leopold Bloom and Stephen Dedalus on their wanderings through Dublin on a single day –June 16 1904.

That makes today is "Bloomsday" and complete readings of the book take place all over the world. The date was significant to Joyce because it was the day on which James Joyce first had an outing with his future wife,  Nora Barnacle, model for the character Molly Bloom.

First serialized in a literary magazine between 1918 and 1920, the novel was published in its entirety in February 1922 in Paris. Considered obscene, the book was kept out of the United States, leading to a court battle in which Ulysses was cleared for U.S. publication in a landmark obscenity ruling in 1933.

When I was about 14, I was given a copy of The Dubliners, Joyce's collection of short stories about the city –and people– he loved and hated. I must admit I struggled with it at first. But that collection, and Joyce's autobiographical A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, are two books I count among the most influential in my life.

Think you know your Joyce? Try this quiz adapted from Don't Know Much About Literature, my first collaboration with my daughter, Jenny Davis.

Don't Know Much About James Joyce

"When you wet the bed first it is warm then it gets cold."  It may be hard to believe that the man who wrote that sentence (from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, 1916) also wrote Ulysses (1922) and Finnegans Wake (1939), two of the most infamously "difficult" works in the English language.  James Joyce (d. 1941) was born in Dublin in 1882, where his middle-class, Catholic community would inspire fiction like Dubliners (1912), the short story collection that he called "a chapter of the moral history of my country." From the concise realism of Dubliners, Joyce's fiction moved towards experimental uses of language and stream-of-consciousness narration.  Joyce's dense wordplay reaches a peak in Finnegans Wake, a work intended to be read aloud.  If you're up for "a rhubarbarous maundarin yellagreen funkleblue windigut diodying" James Joyce quiz, read on!

1.    What Christian term did James Joyce borrow to describe a "sudden spiritual moment" when "the soul of the commonest object" leaps out?

2.    What is the name of Joyce's main character in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses, and the posthumously published fragment, Stephen Hero?

3.    What genre of writing made up Joyce's first published work, Chamber Music (1907)?

4.    What famed psychiatrist wrote Joyce, "Your Ulysses has presented the world such an upsetting psychological problem, that repeatedly I have been called in as a supposed authority on psychological matters"?

5.    In the Irish ballad that inspired the title of Joyce's Finnegans Wake, what brings Finnegan, the dead Irishman of the title, back to life?

In 2004, NPR did this story about the 100th anniversary of "Bloomsday."

Here is a link to the James Joyce Centre in Dublin

Answers

1.    Epiphany

2.    Stephen Dedalus, inspired by the labyrinth builder of Greek myth.

3.    Poetry.  In fact, Joyce's collection of poems drew the attention of Imagists Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot.

4.    Carl Jung. Joyce's daughter, Lucia, was treated by Jung.

5.    The smell of whiskey.