BLOG, or DIE. A historian's journey through the Revolution

Re-evaluating the U.S. Constitution

Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:31:30 -0500

There is perhaps no other document in the history of American politics that is more hotly contested than the U.S. Constitution. For centuries historians and pundits alike have argued over the Founder’s intent and some have even questioned the Constitution’s validity in modern society. Each election-season candidates on both sides of the political spectrum refer to the Constitution in support of their platforms while the American public, whose vast majority has never even read the document, are led to believe that it contains a timeless wisdom that is essential to maintaining a functioning democratic republic. Unfortunately, the term ‘dysfunctional’ seems more appropriate when describing America today.

Some politicians, mainly those on ‘the right,’ claim that in order for the nation to return to its previous level of prominence, an unwavering allegiance to the guiding principles of the Constitution is absolutely necessary. The Tea Party movement in particular maintains this stance. There is also a more liberal, progressive portion who does not accept the inherent premise that all of the country’s problems can be remedied by simply returning to political philosophies from 1787. They call for reform in order to meet the ever-changing demands of today’s world.

There is a trend among those who have studied both the origins of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting course of American history which proposes that the system put in place by the Founders was never really as ingenious as we were led to believe, nor was it an unquestionable and infallible system of governance. In other words, America has always been ‘dysfunctional’ in many regards therefore the U.S. Constitution is not exactly superior. The liberties and freedoms that we enjoy today came as the result of great struggle and sacrifice of those who came after the Founders. We tend to forget that America was originally established by wealthy white men, for wealthy white men.

Progressive historians are not the only ones who have taken a more critical stance on the origins of the U.S. Constitution. There have been some highly-respected and brilliant politicians who were gutsy enough to acknowledge the Constitution’s flaws and antiquated principles. One of the most noteworthy of these was Thurgood Marshall who gave a highly controversial speech that was critical of the Founders and the U.S. Constitution. Marshall was one of the few voices pointing out that the original Constitution required numerous amendments and came to a crisis that required a Civil War to solve.

In a period of blind-obedient flag waving and patriotic rhetoric, Marshall’s comments were both disruptive and thought-provoking. They still are today. On May 6, 1987, Marshall presented his bicentennial speech at The Annual Seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association. (Read entire speech here). Two main points in that speech outlined the popular misconceptions over the document:

Like many anniversary celebrations, the plan for 1987 takes particular events and holds them up as the source of all the very best that has followed. Patriotic feelings will surely swell, prompting proud proclamations of the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice shared by the Framers and reflected in a written document now yellowed with age. This is unfortunate, not the patriotism itself, but the tendency for the celebration to oversimplify, and overlook the many other events that have been instrumental to our achievements as a nation. The focus of this celebration invites a complacent belief that the vision of those who debated and compromised in Philadelphia yielded the “more perfect Union” it is said we now enjoy.

I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite “The Constitution,” they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago…

…The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the People” no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of “liberty,” “justice,” and “equality,” and who strived to better them.

And so we must be careful, when focusing on the events which took place in Philadelphia two centuries ago, that we not overlook the momentous events which followed, and thereby lose our proper sense of perspective. Otherwise, the odds are that for many Americans the bicentennial celebration will be little more than a blind pilgrimage to the shrine of the original document now stored in a vault in the National Archives. If we seek, instead, a sensitive understanding of the Constitution’s inherent defects, and its promising evolution through 200 years of history, the celebration of the “Miracle at Philadelphia” will, in my view, be a far more meaningful and humbling experience. We will see that the true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.

I could not agree more.

NOTICE: Postings will be sparse for the...

Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:23:43 -0500

NOTICE: Postings will be sparse for the next couple weeks as I will be hosting a great friend who is coming to town to conduct research at the National Archives. Maroon David is the recipient of the 2011 Littleton-Griswold Research Grant for Research in U.S. Legal History and is currently working on his dissertation “Off the Land: The Homestead Act and the Politics of Dispossession, 1862-1893.” We’ll be spending some down time on the local battlefields and I will share some insights from that experience here.

Which reminds me...we are now booking spring AABT tours for 2012.

When 'the Right's' version of history is wrong

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:09:19 -0500

Here is a follow-up to yesterday's post featuring David Barton…

They're not fooling anyone

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:24:28 -0500

WallBuilders web banner outlining their mission

When I was a senior in high school my history teacher asked us to write a paper about someone other than an American who had a definitive impact on history. Taking the villain route I wrote about Joseph Goebbels who was the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. I used Goebbels diaries as my main source, which to this day remains one of the most fascinating and disturbing things I’ve ever read. As one of Adolf Hitler's closest confidants, and as a man who killed six of his own children before committing suicide, Goebbels was equally as insane as he was intelligent. He was also a powerful propagandist who preyed upon the German population’s yearning for national pride. Without him, Hitler would not have cast such a spell over his people.

Goebbels proved that you can convince anyone of anything if they are woefully ignorant, or in desperate need of something to believe in. One of Hitler’s most powerful tools for capturing the hearts and minds of the German people was the manipulation of history to support his political agenda. By skewing the facts, misinterpreting meanings, and propagating fiction, the Nazi’s were able to create an alternate history of Germany’s origins. This fantasy later evolved into a form of patriotism that reinforced the Fuhrer’s vision for a supreme Aryan society.

Today, we have our own version of historically-slanted political marketing that is being disseminated by right-wing propagandists masquerading as historians. No one practices this crime more blatantly than David Barton‘s WallBuilders whose version of history paints America as a right-wing, ultra-conservative Christian nation that is embattled in a culture war for the very soul of the country. And although I am not equating the underlying efforts of this organization to the murderous evils that were perpetrated by the Nazis, I am comparing their practice of using history to support a political agenda. Just as Goebbels falsified Germany’s past; Barton and Co. have manipulated America’s for political gains. (What is really sad is the number of gullible folks who have been roped into believing it, although one peek at a Tea Party rally or Glenn Beck audience may explain why).

Unlike Goebbels, David Barton started out as a fundamentalist evangelist. He is a Texas minister, founder of WallBuilders and former co-chair of the Texas Republican Party. His books are dedicated to the idea that America should reject the concept of separation of church and state and institute Biblical law. He also maintains the notion that the Founding Fathers would be ardent supporters of the conservative movement if they were around today. Of course academically certified historians call Barton a Christian “revisionist” and constantly question the source of his many out-of-context quotes of American notables in his works. Not surprising, Barton rarely answers his critics with any credible sources for his historical claims.

Why should he? He is the unquestionable darling of the conservative and evangelical movements and the personal historian for right-wing mouthpieces Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee. In other words, there are plenty of rubes that adore him – and that makes him dangerous. Despite Barton’s lack of academic credentials and his sloppy scholarship, he has managed to create an important niche by traveling all over the country telling audiences that the Founding Fathers were evangelicals just like them, and intended to create a nation of, by, and for Christians.

In a report published by the People for the American Way Foundation titled *David Barton: Propaganda Masquerading as History those in the know take Barton to task: Academic historians, according to the New York Times, give Barton’s work at best a “B minus,” noting that while the historical facts he cites are more or less accurate, his biased interpretation of them is not. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty said that Barton’s work is “laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact” and the Texas Freedom Network calls him “a pseudo-intellectual fraud whose twisted interpretations of history are little more than propaganda.”

In 1995, Republican Senator Arlen Specter wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that many of Barton’s arguments “range from the technical to the absurd” and that they “proceed from flawed and highly selective readings of both text and history.” Specter went on to state that Barton’s “pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people.” (*See a list of Barton’s most ridiculous historical claims.)

WallBuilders mission statement reads:

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built – a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that “the propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.” (Sounds like a blogger I know.)

This claim, like most of Barton’s claims, is absolute B.S. Their true mission statement should read like this:

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to promoting David Barton’s book sales while manipulating American history in order to push our own conservative agenda on a highly gullible and susceptible portion of the American populace. By making up our own version of our nation’s origins and lacing it with outrageous religious claims, we hope to influence voters into supporting our own right-wing candidates, who in turn will support our own special interests upon their election into office. By mixing 1-part textbook and 2-parts bible, our special brand of psuedo-christian American history makes even heathen bastards like Thomas Jefferson look like devout, bible-thumping altar boys. PS. We vote like Jesus would.

For irrefutable proof of Barton’s dishonesty, I refer you to a 9-part video blog by Chris Rodda, author of the book, Liars of Jesus. In the video, Rodda attends a religious gathering featuring David Barton. At the conclusion of the meeting, Rodda approaches Barton and presents him with a copy of her book. A few months later, David Barton, on his radio program, mentioned Chris Rodda and portrayed the meeting as one in which Barton completely and utterly confounded the quote, "clueless" Rodda by expounding upon his wealth of historical knowledge. Rodda counters this claim by meticulously picking apart dozens of Barton's material with...get this, actual facts. (It is virtually impossible to watch this video series in its entirety and not come to the same conclusion.)

As a historian and as a Christian, I find the intentional politicization of my faith and the manipulation of my nation’s historical origins to be extremely offensive. I say watch out for the “David Bartons and WallBuilders” of the world. They are just as dangerous at skewing public perspective as the Goebbels. Stand up to them by speaking the truth in matters of both history and faith.

Have a drink on me

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:11:57 -0500

Referred to in historic literature as “the Green Fairy” Absinthe is described as a distilled, highly alcoholic (45–74% ABV / 90-148 proof) beverage. Its legacy has been one of controversy and its reputation as a mysterious, addictive, and mind-altering potion has caused it to be periodically banned in many countries. Absinthe has also served as the subject of numerous works of fine art, films, video, music and literature since the mid-19th century and has spawned an ever-growing subculture of 21st century Absinthe enthusiasts.

Numerous artists and writers living in France in the late 19th and early 20th century were noted Absinthe drinkers who featured the alcohol in their work. These included Emile Zola, Vincent van Gogh, Édouard Manet, Amedeo Modigliani, Arthur Rimbaud, Guy de Maupassant, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, and Paul Verlaine. Later artists and writers drew from this cultural well, including Pablo Picasso, August Strindberg, Oscar Wilde, and Ernest Hemingway.

Aleister Crowley was also known to be a habitual Absinthe drinker. Emile Cohl, an early pioneer in the art of animation, presented the effects of the drink in 1920 with the short film, Hasher’s Delirium and mystery novelist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote that his renowned detective Sherlock Holmes indulged in the pleasures of Absinthe from time-to-time. Since its resurgence in recent years, modern artists such as musician Marilyn Manson and actor Johnny Depp are unabashed Absinthe drinkers with Manson actually producing his own line of the alcohol.

Despite the fact that there is no scientific proof, Absinthe continues to be frequently and improperly described in modern times as being hallucinogenic. This is entirely false (I think) and at least partly rooted in the fact that following some ten years of experiments with wormwood oil in the 19th century, the French psychiatrist Valentin Magnan studied 250 cases of alcoholism, and claimed that those who drank Absinthe were worse off than those drinking ordinary alcohol, having experienced rapid-onset hallucinations. Such accounts by opponents of Absinthe were cheerfully embraced by famous Absinthe drinkers, many of whom were bohemian artists or writers. Their frequent physical and emotional breakdowns were then blamed on Absinthe, although alcoholism, drug abuse and in some cases, mental-illness was more likely to blame.

As a cocktail connoisseur myself, I have been recently gifted with some Absinthe and will be consulting a close friend with a doctorate in history (and more impressive, the science of bartending) as to the proper preparation and consumption of the liquid. If it was good enough for those folks listed above, it’s certainly good enough for me. And I do hallucinate, I promise to write, or paint, or compose something brilliant. Cheers!

Image: Drinking Bacchus by Guido Reni (1575-1642)

Two NEW books...

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:11:53 -0500

Eric and I have been busy going over the proofs for our upcoming book You Stink! Now that I am seeing the final layout (with the photos and tables inserted), I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this book has far exceeded our expectations. I can also say (now that I’ve read it cover to cover), that it is the best thing in print that I’ve ever been a part of. Plan on lots of speaking engagements and publicity to follow the release of this one folks. It’s something special.

In other news, I was just informed by the good folks at The History Press that my book on the Civil War in Spotsylvania County is being re-released as an eBook for Kindle and all those other electronic thingamajigs. Details to come.

Being honest about Abe

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:17:11 -0500

There is quite a lot of chatter going on around the CW blogosphere in regards to Abraham Lincoln getting an official holiday here in Virginia. Kevin Levin has a great discussion going on over at Civil War Memory that includes an individual who is actually involved in the crafting of the legislation. I will refer you to his post, but wanted to share my quick-take on the matter.

The counter-argument that many folks are using is why should Lincoln deserve a holiday in Virginia? The implication is that he was ‘against’ the Old Dominion. This is NOT true. He was against the portion of Virginia that seceeded from the nation, the Confederate States of America to be exact. That is not the entire population of the state. What about all the enslaved African Americans that were freed by his actions? What about the loyalists who wanted to preserve the Union? Lincoln was actually ‘for’ them.

If we can celebrate Lee and Jackson for defending the Confederacy on behalf of whites, why can’t we also celebrate Lincoln who defeated the Confederacy on behalf of blacks? And if the proud descendants of Virginia’s Confederate Veterans can celebrate their heroes – why can’t the proud descendants of Virginia slaves likewise celebrate theirs? The door swings BOTH ways in my opinion. Whether you’re a Lincoln fan or not, to imply that he did not have a positive impact on Virginia that is worthy of remembrance is wrong.

Taking Stonewall down off the pedestal

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:44:55 -0500

It’s certainly no secret that my affection for the life and legacy of General Thomas J. Jackson has been a major influence on my life both privately and professionally:

My first book (published back in 2005) was a religious biography on Jackson titled Onward Christian Soldier. Since then I've penned at least a dozen or so articles and have presented three lectures and a banquet address on him; I once taught an 8-week bible study class on Jackson’s piousness at my church; I started a web portal for Jackson-related information titled The Jackson Society; I’ve worked on multiple Jackson-specific studies for Mort Kunstler paintings; Jackson is featured (or at least mentioned) in 5 of my Civil War books; I have received awards from the UDC and SCV for my published works on Jackson; I am often requested for private tours to the Stonewall Jackson Shrine; I own and probably have read more books about Jackson than any other subject; my personal license plate says STOWNWL; and my youngest son is named after the good general.

Cleary I am fascinated with the guy and have spent a considerable amount of time studying him. That said, I now find myself at a point where I must suspend my own idol-worship practices and accept the painful reality that Stonewall Jackson is not hero material. Why? Because I can no longer gloss over the dark realities of this man’s life that I was once captivated by. I can no longer compartmentalize the dreadful cause in which he stood for. In other words, I can’t continue to disregard the sins on which Thomas Jackson’s memory has been founded and fortified. The legacy of Stonewall Jackson may be thick with inspiring religious fervor and military brilliance, but at the heart of it all is a man who ferociously fought for the perpetuation of slavery. How can anyone reconcile that?

Simply put, Thomas Jackson played a central role in a movement that was founded on what we would consider today to be political treason and prejudice. Jackson himself was a complex participant, a walking contradiction of sorts in regards to politics and race. A Christian man, he founded a Sunday school for slave and free blacks in Lexington, yet at the same time, he conducted incredibly successful military campaigns that served a cause vehemently against granting their freedom. One act does not excuse the other.

Jackson’s untimely death is also said to have created an irreplaceable void in the South’s high-command. Therefore one can only conclude that if he had lived beyond the Spring of 1863, the potential for a Confederate victory would have been bolstered – a victory that would have ultimately maintained the institution of human bondage as the primary cog in the economic-engine of the agricultural south.

The reality is that Thomas Jackson “stood as a stonewall” against his own government and repeatedly defeated a Union Army who were pursuing the liberty and freedom of enslaved African-Americans. Yes I get the State’s Rights and defending Virginia soil counter-arguments and absolutely agree that it was an important aspect of the southern cause, but the question I now ask is what “rights” were they defending? The answer is the right to independently govern a society that maintained the institution of slavery. Once again, you can’t get around that no matter how hard you try.

It’s very easy to get caught up in all of the reverence and awe that has been showered upon the Confederacy’s heroes over the last 150 years. With countless monuments and markers testifying to their courage and tenacity, as well as book after book elevating them to a deity-like stature, Stonewall Jackson is a perfect example of a manufactured American titan. His persona has been carefully crafted and handed down for generations. We are taught that he was an Old Testament Warrior who died defending the sanctity of the Old Dominion. He is still worshipped and adored by folks on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line and his likeness is just as much a part of our pop-culture as any other historical figurehead.

I am experiencing what I can only refer to as a conflict of conscience and I am looking at Thomas Jackson and his peers in a much different light nowadays. Much like our Founding Fathers, I believe that we must make a concerted effort to reconcile ourselves to the fact that these Confederate icons were not gods, nor are they truly worthy of the elevated statuses that we project on them. They were men. We must acknowledge their humanity and this includes their faults. Perhaps hardest of all, we must accept the fact that they fought for the wrong side.

Stonewall Jackson was a brilliant military commander, a faithful deacon, a loving husband and a brief doting father. These are traits to admire. He was also a socially awkward individual with little people skills, a terrible teacher and communicator who was disliked by most of his subordinate generals and in some regards a fanatically religious egotist who truly believed himself to be conducting the will of God. He was also by textbook definition a military traitor and a racist who voluntarily chose to fight for a deplorable cause. These are not traits to admire.

Professionally speaking, I will continue to be fascinated by this man and I am sure that he will return periodically as a subject in my work. He certainly remains a mainstay in my all-access battlefield tours. Personally speaking however, I no longer find myself emotionally-attached to or quite so enamored by him. That bias is gone. Jackson is no longer a “hero” to me. None of them are. I still respect the Confederacy's conviction, but I can no longer celebrate its cause.

Some of the most respected historians I know preach the notion that one must remain completely objective and impersonal if they really want to accurately convey their subject matter. A NPS chief historian told me once that the minute you become smitten with your subject, your interpretation is skewed. Another friend who is a professor at a major university stated that the second you start writing to bolster your own affections for an individual you are no longer a historian, you are a disciple. I've certainly been guilty of that when it comes to Stonewall Jackson.

The hardest part of studying history is accepting the fact that the people you once admired were not really that admirable afterall. I believe it’s time that we take Stonewall down off the pedestal and recognize him for all that he truly was, good, bad, or indifferent – not at all the infallible and mythical figure that some of us have helped to perpetuate for over a century.

I think the best explanation for what I am feeling was posted in an article titled “Confederate Apologists” over at Vast Public Indifference:

When our focus is on honoring the men who fought and died, no doubt bravely, without ever really grappling with what they were fighting for, we don’t learn anything. When we implicitly deny the horror of slavery and the continual betrayal of African-Americans during and after the war, we are setting ourselves up to accept racist fantasies in the present. When we fawn over Southern leaders like Lee and Jackson as models of American manhood, what we are really doing is yearning for a white, Christian, patriarchal past in which women and slaves knew their places and real men were subordinate only to God.

NEW book now available!

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:55:48 -0500

It has been over three years since I’ve been able to announce the pre-order availability of one of my books. I am especially fond of this project as I got to co-author it with one of my favorite Civil War historians, Eric J. Wittenberg.

Years ago I caught Eric on PCTV participating in a Gettysburg College panel discussion on cavalry operations. I went on to review several of his books for The Free Lance-Star. Now just a few years later, I am sharing a cover credit while helping to fulfill an idea that Eric's been carrying around since 1974.

I am also thankful for the opportunity this project has given me to revisit my earliest writing days at Baseball-Almanac. Eric and I anticipate doing a lot of publicity surrounding this title to include media appearances, speaking engagements and a website. The official release will be this spring, but you can pre-order it now from The Kent State University Press.

You Stink! Major League Baseball’s Terrible Teams and Pathetic Players
by Eric J. Wittenberg & Michael Aubrecht

There are countless volumes celebrating the best teams in professional baseball. Unfortunately, winning represents only one side of the game. For every champion’s record-setting season, there has been an equally memorable story of defeat. These teams and their shameful contributions to America’s national pastime have been a neglected topic in the annals of baseball history. Until now. In “You Stink!,” two fanatical historians (or historian fans), Michael Aubrecht and Eric Wittenberg, give credit where it is far overdue with a statistically backed, satirical look at the worst teams and individuals ever to set foot on a diamond. “You Stink!” includes franchise origins, detailed stats, player profiles, photos, and more, as well as a collection of long-format essays in a “Hall of Shame” that recognizes some of the worst moments ever witnessed on a ball field.

CONTENTS:
Foreword by Dave Raymond (The Philly Phanatic)
Introduction: Monument to Mediocrity

TERRIBLE TEAMS:
NOT LOUISVILLE SLUGGERS: The 1889 Louisville Colonels
BAD NEWS BROWNIES: The 1898 St. Louis Browns
SQUASHED LIKE A BUG: The 1899 Cleveland Spiders
“ET TU, BRUTE?”: The 1904 Washington Senators
THE CURSE CONTINUES: The 1932 Boston Red Sox
EVEN THE BABE COULDN’T SAVE THIS ONE: The 1935 Boston Braves
FROM DYNASTY TO DESPAIR: The 1916 Philadelphia Athletics
62.5 GAMES OUT OF FIRST PLACE: The 1942 Philadelphia Phillies & A MLB RECORD 23 STRAIGHT LOSSES: The 1961 Phillies
AT LEAST THEY WERE CONSISTENT: The 1950-1954 Pittsburgh Pirates
THE WORST RECORD OF THE MODERN ERA: The 1962 New York Mets
ONE YEAR OF WRETCHEDNESS: The 1969 Seattle Pilots
IN NEED OF FORGIVENESS: The 1973 San Diego Padres
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED: The 1988 Baltimore Orioles
A COMPLETE MASSACRE: The 1991 Cleveland Indians
SCAREDY CATS: The 2003 Detroit Tigers

HALL OF SHAME:
Worst Season: FROM HEROES TO ZEROS: The 1884 Wilmington Quicksteps
Worst Investment: MONEY FOR NOTHING: $100M 2008 Seattle Mariners
Worst Collapse: ROTTEN TO THE (BIG APPLE) CORE: The 2007 New York Mets
Worst Pitching Staff: SCORING TEN RUNS A GAME BUT STILL LOSING: The 1930 Philadelphia Phillies
Worst Scandal: CHEATERS NEVER WIN: The 1919 “Black Sox” Scandal
Worst Call: *61 IN ’61: Maris Gets the Asterisk
Worst Team Year in and Year Out: ABANDON SHIP: The Pittsburgh Pirates and 17+ Straight Losing Seasons

TOP 10 WORST PLAYS:
1. Buckner’s Blooper
2. Fred Merkle’s Boner
3. Pete Rose Ruins Ray Fosse
4. George Brett’s Pine Tar Incident
5. Cap Anson’s Racist Reluctance
6. Players’ Strikes (’72, ’81, ‘94)
7. Mickey Owen's Passed Ball
8. Babe Slugs Umpire Brick Owens
9. Disco Demolition Debacle
10. Brooklyn Dodgers Go West

WORST PLAYERS:
BATTER: Bill Bergen
PITCHER: Jim Hughey
CATCHER: John Humphries
FIELDER: Tony Suck
GRAND “CHAMPION”: Clarence “Choo Choo” Coleman
OWNERS: The Not-So-Mighty Quinns

DISAPPOINTMENT ON THE DIAMOND: A Timeline of Terribleness
NOTABLE QUOTABLES: Lines about Losing…

*This book is 330+ pages and features over 50 photographs.

America’s first “Sexual Revolution”

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:54:15 -0500

Often referred to as the “oldest profession on earth,” prostitution has been a mainstay in and around military encampments since biblical times. Today the act of trading sex for money remains a seedy yet implicit part of the social interaction between many of the world’s occupying troops and the regions in which they inhabit. As many of these armies are often located in third-world countries or destructive war zones, the economically challenged and impoverished civilians that surround them are left with few alternatives for generating income. Out of desperation many women turn to selling their bodies to locally stationed soldiers and sailors in order to feed their families. As a result, many of these ports and bases are known primarily throughout the military community for their brothels.

American armies are certainly no stranger to eliciting the services of prostitutes. From the Revolutionary and the Civil Wars, through WW2, Vietnam, and even today, U.S. troops always have, and always will, pay for female companionship. When George Washington was a young military man brothels could be found in port cities like New York; Philadelphia; Charleston, S.C.; and Newport, R.I. Prostitution was also ubiquitous in Philadelphia’s “Hell Town,” the prototype for the red light districts that would spread across America in the next century. Philly’s most famous resident Benjamin Franklin himself admitted to hiring his share of strumpets, as he called them.

In The Urban Geography of Commercial Sex: Prostitution in New York City, 1790-1860: The Other Americans: Sexual Variance in the National Past, Dr. Timothy Gilfoyle writes that, “For much of the eighteenth century, ‘courtesans’ promenaded along the Battery after nightfall. On the eve of the Revolution, over 500 ‘ladies of pleasure [kept] lodgings contiguous within the consecrated liberties of St. Paul’s [Chapel].’ A few blocks north, at the entrance to King’s College (later Columbia University), Robert M’Robert claimed that dozens of prostitutes provided ‘a temptation to the youth that have occasion to pass so often that way.”

The introduction of prostitution in American military encampments came during the nation's first fight. Droves of “Lewd women” as they were referred to, flocked to the tents of the Continental Army whether they were in winter quarters or on campaign.

Prostitutes were a worrisome presence to army leadership, particularly because of the possible spread of venereal diseases. According to the book Belonging to the Army by Holly Ann Mayer, dealing with prostitution was an ongoing problem: “Reports regarding the incidence of venereal disease among male soldiers present a serious matter for a military force too often far below quota in numbers of fighting troops.” Mayer also states that “commanders tried to prevent the spread of social diseases and ... social and military disorder by banning prostitutes from their camps.” No doubt those women who sought follower status in the army avoided acts of prostitution to preserve their place in the Continental community, since they full well knew they would be drummed out of the service if caught.

Despite the health risks some army officers encouraged the presence of prostitutes to help maintain morale. They also turned a blind eye to their troops midnight patronagie of nearby brothels. Often men would sneak out to visit local whore houses after their commanders retired for the night. In New York, this covert act was referred to as visiting “the holy ground,” while in Virginia their seedy destinations were called “disorderly houses.”

Even Valley Forge, the most famous of all Continental Army encampments was not immune to the pleasures of the flesh. Despite the fact that General George Washington himself had set strict standards that prohibited the fraternization between single men and women, local prostitutes were able to infiltrate the camp. (Ironically little has changed as there are currently 22 escort services operating in and around the Valley Forge area.)

Despite their reputation as a more liberal society the French in particular found the wide-spread prostitution in the Colonies quite perplexing. As the French Army arrived in America to assist the fledgling Continental Army from inevitable annihilation, many of them recorded their personal impressions of the locals in their journals. One French officer, Comte de Clermont-Crevecoeur, while in Newport, Rhode Island, wondered why there were so many prostitutes, “in a country so new where vice should not be deeply rooted…” He attributed this epidemic to the peculiar practice of “Bundling”:

Bundling was an activity granted by parents that permitted a young man who declared himself to be in love with a girl to shut himself up in a room with her, lavishing tender caresses upon her in bed, but “stopping short of those reserved for marriage alone; otherwise he would transgress the established laws of bundling.” A truly virtuous woman would resist and conform to the letter of the law, while “those more amply endowed by nature in this respect succumb to this tender sport.” What’s more, a couple could play this game for five or six years or longer before deciding to marry, without committing finally to wedlock. If a girl was seduced and had a child, it was not she who was disgraced, but the man. Respectable houses were closed to him, and he could not marry into one of the better families.

A married woman, he continued, was very faithful to her husband, even though she might have led “a most licentious life” in the years before marriage. Men didn’t seem to mind this; they were not fussy and believed a girl should be free until she was married. If a married woman committed adultery, the husband announced his wife’s “delinquency” and published it in the papers, stating that he would neither pay her bills nor be liable for her debts. Yet even if the situation deteriorated to that stage, adultery was no excuse for dissolving a marriage—the laws did not permit it, and the husbands were quite patient about waiting for their wives to repent. (– Pages 81-82)

Some scholars acknowledge the impact of prostitution on the Colonials during the American Revolution, but also believe the English army was far more frequent in the practice of it. According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Duquesne University history professor Holly A. Mayer has developed years of research on the “camp followers” who accompanied the army during the Revolutionary War. She’s the first to acknowledge that there is a long-standing relationship between prostitution and the military. “You can go outside any Army post today, and you’re going to find three things: bars, car dealers and some sort of prostitution service.” But prostitution depends on cash, and by and large, soldiers in the Continental Army were too poor to offer prostitutes much steady employment, she said. “If prostitutes were going to follow any army then, they would have followed the British Army, because they got paid in good, hard currency.”

Regardless of their loyalties many prostitutes followed whatever army was closest in pursuit of their purse. These ladies of the night continued to provide sexual services to both sides of the conflict until the British Army’s surrender at Yorktown in 1781. Despite the post-war departure of the English, French and Continental troops, prostitution among the local standing military continued intermittently during the War of 1812 and remerged in force at army encampments on both sides during America’s Civil War.