The Whites of their Eyes

by Matt Braun

  Just weeks later, on April 18, 1975, the two hundredth anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride, Gerald Ford came to Boston. Nixon had abolished the American Bicentennial Commission in 1973, replacing it with the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration. In August of that year, Nixon had resigned; Ford pardoned him in September. Now, in a speech at the Old North Church, Ford called on Americans to learn, by examining their history, that “the American experience has been more of reason than revolution.” Across town, at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians, Arthur Schleslinger Jr. spoke about his new book, The Imperial Presidency.47 In Concord, thirty thousand protesters, under the banner of the Peoples Bicentennial Commission, were camping out, while Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie played through the night. Rifkin said, “The theme of the demonstration is ‘Send a Message to Wall Street,’ and we want the corporations to know, by our mass presence at Concord, that people are fed up with them running the country.”48 By morning, over a hundred thousand people had gathered in Concord, awaiting the president.

  Meanwhile, the evacuation of Saigon was beginning. Ford had already authorized early airlifts. At ten o’clock on the morning of April 19, 1975, Ford arrived in Concord, by helicopter. In the two centuries since the shot heard round the world, the president said, “The United States has become a world power.” He boasted of American military might, decried isolationism, acknowledged the past, and argued for change, quoting Jefferson: “Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man.” He said he hoped that, at the Tricentennial, in a hundred years, people would look back at this day and see it as the first in a century of American unity. After Ford flew away and the protesters went home, one Globe reporter wrote, all that was left was trash, and a sign reading “The Revolution is Not Over.”49 Saigon fell eleven days later.

  Two months later, on June 17, 1975, during a two hundredth anniversary reenactment of the Battle of Bunker Hill conducted by the Charlestown Militia, someone hung an antibusing banner from a window of a house alongside Monument Square. It read, “We’re right back where we began 200 years ago.”50

  Originalism as a school of constitutional interpretation has waxed and waned and has always competed with other schools of interpretation. Madison’s invaluable notes on the Constitutional Convention weren’t published until 1840, and nineteenth-century constitutional theory differed, dramatically, from the debates that have taken place in the twentieth century. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court rejected originalist arguments put forward by southern segregationists, stating, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, that “we cannot turn back the clock” but “must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.” Constitutional scholars generally date the rise of originalism to the 1970s and consider it a response to controversial decisions of both the Warren and Burger Courts, especially Roe v. Wade, in 1973. Originalism received a great deal of attention in 1987, with the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.51 Bork’s nomination also happened to coincide with the bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention. “Nineteen eighty-seven marks the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution,” Thurgood Marshall said in a speech that year. Marshall (who went to Frederick Douglass High School) had argued Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and, in 1967, after being nominated by Lyndon Johnson, became the first African American on the Supreme Court. In 1987, contemplating the bicentennial of the Constitution, Marshall took a skeptical view.

  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 major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today.

  Marshall was worried about what anniversaries do. “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,” rather than the occasion for “a sensitive understanding of the Constitution’s inherent defects, and its promising evolution through 200 years of history.” Expressing doubts about unthinking reverence, Marshall called for something different:

  In this bicentennial year, we may not all participate in the festivities with flagwaving fervor. Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document.52

  Even as Marshall was making that speech, the banner of originalism was being taken up by evangelicals, who, since joining the Reagan Revolution in 1980, had been playing an increasingly prominent role in American politics. “Any diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian nation,” Jerry Falwell insisted. In 1987, Tim LaHaye, an evangelical minister who went on to write a series of best-selling apocalyptic novels, published a book called The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, in which he attempted to chronicle the “Rape of History” by “history revisionists” who had systemically erased from American textbooks the “evangelical Protestants who founded this nation.” Documenting this claim was no mean feat. Jefferson posed a particular problem, not least because he crafted a custom copy of the Bible by cutting out all the miracles and pasting together what was left. LaHaye, to support his argument, took out his own pair of scissors, deciding, for instance, that Jefferson didn’t count as a Founding Father because he “had nothing to do with the founding of our nation,” and basing his claims about Benjamin Franklin not on evidence (because, as he admitted, “There is no evidence that Franklin ever became a Christian”), but on sheer bald, raising-the-founders-from-the-dead assertion. LaHaye wrote, “Many modern secularizers try to claim Franklin as one of their own. I am confident, however, that Franklin would not identify with them were he alive today.”53 (Alas, Franklin, who once said he wished he could preserve himself in a vat of Madeira wine, to see what the world would look like in a century or two, is not, in fact, alive today.54 And, while I confess that I’m quite excessively fond of him, the man is not coming back.)

  Lincoln was a lawyer, Douglas a judge; they had studied the law; they disagreed about how to interpret the founding documents, but they also shared a set of ideas about standards of evidence and the art of rhetoric, which is why they were able to hold, over seven days, such a substantial and relentless debate. Falwell and LaHaye were evangelical ministers; what they shared was the art of extracting passages from scripture and using them to preach a gospel about good and bad, heaven and hell, damnation and salvation.

  “My faith is the faith of my fathers,” Mitt Romney declared in an address on faith, in 2007, just before the presidential primary season, during which Romney sought the Republican nomination. Romney’s Founding Fathers weren’t the usual ones, though. Historians of religious liberty have typically referred to four foundational texts: Madison’s 1785 “Memorial Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” (“The Religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man”), a statute written by Jefferson (“our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”), Article VI of the Constitution (“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”), and the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). Romney, though, skipped over Jefferson and Madison in favor of Brigham Young, John and Samuel Adams, and the seventeenth-century Puritan dissenter, Roger Williams, in order to accuse modern-day secularists of being “at odds with the nation’s founders,” and of having taken the doctrine of separation of church and state “well beyond its original meaning” by seeking “to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God.”55

  Precisely what the founders believed about God, Jesus, sin, the Bible, churches, and hell is probably impossible to discover. They changed their minds and gave different accounts to different people: Franklin said one thing to his sister, Jane, and another thing to David Hume; Washington prayed with his troops, but, while he lay slowly dying, he declined to call for a preacher. This can make them look like hypocrites, but that’s unfair, as are a great many attacks on these men. They approached religion more or less the same way they approached everything else that interested them: Franklin invented his own, Washington proved diplomatic, Adams grumbled about it (he hated Christianity, he once said, but he couldn’t think of anything better, and he also regarded it as necessary), Jefferson could not stop tinkering with it, and Madison defended, as a natural right, the free exercise of it. That they wanted to preserve religious liberty by separating church and state does not mean they were irreligious. They wanted to protect religion from the state, as much as the other way around.

  Nevertheless, if the founders had followed their forefathers, they would have written a Constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. Nearly every British North American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 charter explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between the Connecticut charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution. Following the faith of their fathers is exactly what the framers did not do. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when all but three states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.56

  Originalism in the courts is controversial, to say the least. Jurisprudence stands on precedent, on the stability of the laws, but originalism is hardly the only way to abide by the Constitution. Setting aside the question of whether it makes good law, it is, generally, lousy history. And it has long since reached well beyond the courts. Set loose in the culture, and tangled together with fanaticism, originalism looks like history, but it’s not; it’s historical fundamentalism, which is to history what astrology is to astronomy, what alchemy is to chemistry, what creationism is to evolution.

  In eighteenth-century America, I wouldn’t have been able to vote. I wouldn’t have been able to own property, either. I’d very likely have been unable to write, and, if I survived childhood, chances are that I’d have died in childbirth. And, no matter how long or short my life, I’d almost certainly have died without having once ventured a political opinion preserved in any historical record, except that none of these factors has any meaning or bearing whatsoever on whether an imaginary eighteenth-century me would have supported the Obama administration’s stimulus package or laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons or the war in Iraq, because I did not live in eighteenth-century America, and no amount of thinking that I could, not even wearing petticoats, a linsey-woolsey calico smock, and a homespun mobcap, can make it so. Citizens and their elected officials have all sorts of reasons to support or oppose all sorts of legislation and government action, including constitutionality, precedence, and the weight of history. But it’s possible to cherish the stability of the law and the durability of the Constitution, as amended over two and a half centuries of change and one civil war, and tested in the courts, without dragging the Founding Fathers from their graves. To point this out neither dishonors the past nor relieves anyone of the obligation to study it. To the contrary.

  “What would the founders do?” is, from the point of view of historical analysis, an ill-considered and unanswerable question, and pointless, too. Jurists and legislators need to investigate what the framers meant, and some Christians make moral decisions by wondering what Jesus would do, but no NASA scientist decides what to do about the Hubble by asking what Isaac Newton would make of it. People who ask what the founders would do quite commonly declare that they know, they know, they just know what the founders would do and, mostly, it comes to this: if only they could see us now, they would be rolling over in their graves. They might even rise from the dead and walk among us. We have failed to obey their sacred texts, holy writ. They suffered for us, and we have forsaken them. Come the Day of Judgment, they will damn us.

  That’s not history. It’s not civil religion, the faith in democracy that binds Americans together. It’s not originalism or even constitutionalism. That’s fundamentalism.

  CHAPTER 5

  Your Superexcellent Age

  CHRONICLING A GATHERING ON THE COMMON—THE

  CURIOUS HISTORY OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—

  COMMON SENSE—INDEPENDENCE—THE EVACUATION OF

  BOSTON—AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE BICENTENNIAL—SOME

  VEXING REMARKS MADE BY THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF

  ALASKA—AN AGE OF PAINE—THE FATES OF OUR SEVERAL

  CHARACTERS—AND A SURPRISING PROPHECY

  Boston Common was lined with vendors the day the Tea Party Express drove into town, on April 14, 2010. You could buy: “Fox News Fan” T-shirts; “Tea Party Tea”; “Don’t Tread on Me” flags; “Straight Pride” signs; a pin that read

  Spell-Check

  says

  OBAMA is

  OSAMA;

  a tote bag picturing a revolver and the caption “An Armed Society Is a Polite Society”; and, at a special day-of-the-rally discount, a copy of “The Constitution Made Easy.” Christen Varley’s Coalition for Marriage staffed a table. George and John Egan and Patrick Humphries were passing out Boston Tea Party information at two different tents. Scott Brown hadn’t come; the Senate was in session. Charlie Baker, a Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial candidate who had breakfasted with the Boston Tea Party over the weekend, hadn’t turned up, either. This was Sarah Palin’s party.

  Clustering around the bandstand, Cape Ann Tea Partiers jostled with Plymouth Rock Tea Partiers, every fourth hand carrying an American flag. A man in a hard hat, trying to make his way closer to stage, parted the waters by crying out, “The liberals are coming! The liberals are coming!” The Tea Party Express put on a musical show: “The Stars and Stripes Forever,” “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “America the Beautiful,” “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” In between numbers, the crowd broke out into chanting, “USA! USA! USA!” Someone on the stage cried out, “I heard there ain’t no party like a Boston Tea Party!”

  Next came a call to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

  “I pledge allegiance to the flag—”

  The original pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, the former pastor of Boston’s Bethany Baptist Church. Bellamy, a socialist, was the vice president of the Society of Christian Socialists; his sermons and lectures included “Jesus the Socialist” and “Socialism and the Bible.” He was also the cousin of Edward Bellamy, whose 1888 novel, Looking Backward, 2000–1887, imagined a man born in Boston in 1857 falling asleep in 1887 and waking up in the year 2000, to find a socialist utopia, a city with no more poor, with a public square—a Boston Common—on every corner, “open squares filled with trees, among which statues glistened and fountains flashed.”

  “—and to the Republic, for which it stands—”

  Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for children, to recite at school; it wasn’t meant for grown-ups. It was published in a Boston children’s magazine, the Youth’s Companion, in 1892, on the occa
sion of the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s discovery of America.

  “—one nation—”

  It became the national pledge in 1942.

  “—under God—”

  “Under God” was added in the 1950s.

  “—indivisible—”

  In the 1970s, white antibusing activists in Boston recited an antipledge: “We will not pledge allegiance to the order of the United States District Court, nor the dictatorship for which it stands; one order, under Garrity, with liberty and justice for none.”

  “—with liberty and justice—”

  At a meeting in Boston in 1976, a group calling itself the Bicentennial Ethnic Racial Forum drafted a new pledge, swearing allegiance to “one nation of many people, cultures, languages, and colors.” That went nowhere. The next year, Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis vetoed a law requiring teachers to lead schoolchildren in daily recitations of the pledge. His veto became a partisan weapon during the presidential campaign of 1988, the campaign in which “liberal” became a smear. “What is it about the pledge that upsets him so much?” then vice president George Bush asked at a rally, in a particularly effective attack on his “card-carrying member of the ACLU” opponent.1

  “—for all.”

  “Isn’t this sweet?” said a woman standing next to me, smiling. She didn’t wait for an answer. “I’m here to see Sarah. She’s so adorable.”