My wife and I just came back from a weekend in Philadelphia. Not only was the city dressed up for Christmas there was a very visible acknowledgment of the Hanukkah holidays. Nearly as many Menorahs were displayed as there were wreaths and trees, which should not be surprising considering Philadelphia’s Quaker roots and their reputation for religious tolerance.
Just outside of Philly can be found the Valley Forge National Historic Park, commemorating the place where the Continental Army spent the dismal winter of 1777 – 1778. Everyone knows this story of courage and fortitude and it has become not only a significant part of our historical memory it has also worked its way into the American mythos.
What follows are some of the most famous iconic pictures that America has to offer: different views of Washington praying at Valley Forge. Unfortunately they depict something that probably never took place. At the very least, no one has ever admitted to witnessing this event.
Even a cursory look at history plainly shows that Washington was not a Christian. Along with most of our nation’s founders he was a Stoic and a Deist. Deists are not known to pray for divine intercession (it dismayed some of his friends and family that Washington never uttered a prayer on his death bed) so these paintings more than likely represent a fiction
Not too long ago these depictions of Washington were correctly removed from school text books, the act of which had many social and religious conservatives up in arms. It was referred to as an excess of revisionist history yet it is obvious this was a corrective measure. The ‘re-visioning’ was originally and inaccurately done quite some time ago.
Why do so many Christians feel that it is necessary to push for the Christianity of men like Washington? If you have Christ, who else do you need?
“Every American considers it his sacred duty to have a likeness of Washington in his house, just as we have the image of God’s saints” – an anonymous European visitor to America in 1815 (reported by Marcus Cunliffe)
George Washington Praying at Valley Forge
I have recently finished reading a book called, “Founding Myths,” by a history professor named Ray Raphael. In this book, the author uses techniques similar to those used in biblical source criticism. These are applied to our national myths, and the iconoclastic figures who fill the pages of history.
One of the myths debunked by Raphael is that of the winter at Valley Forge. For example, the author cites weather records to show that the winter of 1777-1778 was actually a milder winter than usual–Philadelphia had 17 days with temperatures that dropped below freezing–and the average, at that time, was 25 days (Raphael, page 92-93).
(He also points out that two years later, 1779-1780, was one of the coldest winters on record).
Anyway, as Raphael points out, Washington was more of an expert at finding people to maintain crowd control among his troops than he was a great leader. In other words, he was apparently somewhat removed from his troops, and counted on others to drill and maintain order. Raphael points out that most of the story comes from Washington’s letters of complaint to Congress (page 99).
Okay–so what does this have to do with the beatification of George Washington? If things are seen how they really were, than George Washington was riding his horse through the mud-soaked fields and swamps of reality. His horse’s hooves would have been covered not only with mud, but probably a good amount excrement made both by humans and their accompanying animals. Perhaps he would have been shown eyeing some of the women who actually supplied the troops material (and other needs) rather than writing patient letters to Martha.
People–especially modern evangelicals–don’t want such images. We want our oligarchs to be removed from the fray of everyday mundane stuff.
Raphael cites the term “The Greatest Generation” to describe what people called the founders. He writes, “The phrase serves as a rallying cry, beckoning us to aspire to their greatness and admonishing us not to waver from our allegience to the nation these men created.” (page 129)
Why not add saintliness to these images?
Besides, this is what is pushed by Dobson, Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and of course by Christian Political Icon number One, Ronald Reagan.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 29, 2008
at 3:09 pm
Hey, I like Reagan. I’ve heard that his religious views were not entirely ‘orthodox’ either. And Buchanan, the Roman Catholic, would hardly have been allowed his current pulpit by the Protestants of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Anyway, I agree with you, although (IMHO) the patriotic Christianity that these fellows espouse is more of a tool to foster conservative social and political agendas than something they necessarily truly believe. In this case the end result – a philosophy of honor, courage and commitment as something that the nation can use more or. Which, I think is a pretty good idea until you start to become aware of the real history that does not always back up the myths.
For example: Washington sanctioned summary execution for deserters (and he did agonize over this). Is this within the authority of the supposedly volunteer popular army of a rebellious and illegal government? This type of action we abhor when committed by men like Che and Fidel (with good reason) but it does raise some interesting moral questions about the American Revolution. Something that is not often covered in school books because it sounds ‘unpatriotic’.
Kenneth Roberts, the historical novelist, once wrote a book called “Rabble in Arms” in which he convincingly refutes the anti-historical snow job performed on Benedict Arnold. I think that many of today’s conservatives would find themselves in complete sympathy with Arnold’s frustration over having to depend upon a double dealing and self-serving Continental Congress for provisions for his men, not to mention the political back stabbing that he was subject to. I can hardly blame him for ‘repenting’ and turning back to mother England. Even then we started to become the beast that we despised.
By: Christian Beyer on December 29, 2008
at 4:29 pm
Wow. Your comments trump mine any time.
Reagan? Sheesh.
Maybe I’ll stop by the school tomorrow.
What’s his name
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 29, 2008
at 4:55 pm
What? I agree with you and then I am accused of ‘trumping’ you? (I don’t know what that means. I suck at cards.)
Give me a shout first. I’ll send you my cell # via e-mail. We’ve got some training going on tomorrow but I’m not sure when it is.
By: Christian Beyer on December 29, 2008
at 5:01 pm
On the other hand, I don’t think Washington was the saint he has been portrayed to have been.
We might find his manners crude, his purse strings tight, and his business dealings shrewd and self-serving.
The D. C. history book at Y. _. T. says that Washington did not want the capital city to bear his name–but George did not mind buying half of the available lots and selling them to others–and I’m sure he did not do this as a non-profit venture.
I also read in the Raphael book that Washington was trying to acquire millions of acres in the “West” of Ohio. After the French/Indian War, Washington “claimed 35,000 acres as ‘bounty’ for his participation in the (war) . . . he purchased rights to an additional 8,000 acres on the cheap from fellow veterans. . . . He also became a partner . . . in the Mississippi Land Company, which sought 2,500,000 acre grant . . .
I guess he was quite a guy, but he seems to have had a lust for land, and a desire to be in charge of other people.
Hey, sounds like some modern evangelical pastors.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 29, 2008
at 5:05 pm
While it is true that for many the Revolution was somewhat of an extreme business venture, there was an AWFUL lot of popular animosity towards the British. What the school text books seem to overlook is that a lot of it had to do with the resentment that most Protestant sects felt for the Anglican church. Even in “Catholic” Maryland you could not hold office if you were not Anglican. This might help to explain why so many thousands of young men, with little to gain economically or socially, were willing to join the Continental Army (although there were fewer self-avowed religious folk around that time than any other)
Plus, a lot of them were promised things like money and land, things that many did not get.
By: Christian Beyer on December 29, 2008
at 5:21 pm
Well, the way I see it we would have been smarter to wait out the British, and been like the Canadians. By the 1820s, the British were only too happy to give self-rule to their white colonies.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 29, 2008
at 6:27 pm
It would have been interesting to see how they would have handled the problem of slavery. Perhaps our ‘civil war’ would have been the first American Revolution. With the North and the British united in opposition against a belligerent South things may have played out quite differently. And of course there would have been no ’state’s rights’ issues to deal with.
I guess we should leave this type of speculation to folks like Newt Gingrich and Harry Turtledove
By: Christian Beyer on December 29, 2008
at 6:34 pm
Why? We have many unanswered questions about both wars, civil and revolutionary.
As I said, this book “Founding Myths” (and others like it) try and uncover the truth behind the myths.
Many evangelicals would call this “revisionism” and “reconstructionism” because the critics make America look bad–or as bad as the enemy–but we are supposed to seek truth in order to be set free.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 29, 2008
at 8:41 pm
When I read the title I though you were writing about St. George, the patron Saint of England and was all ready to point out that he wasn’t some 18th century white guy but a Turk.
How embarrassed would I have been if I’d leapt in without reading what you’d written? It was very informative. Not know much about the man I’ll take your word for him.
By: hoverfrog on December 31, 2008
at 10:29 am
I am currently reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” and it is strengthening my belief that many of the Nation’s founding father’s werent even particularly good people, let alone the saints we make them out to be.
By: rogueminister on January 3, 2009
at 2:17 pm
Yeah, I’m going to have to read that. I’ve been holding off for years because Zinn goes against my patriotic grain. Which is all the more reason to hear him out.
By: Christian Beyer on January 3, 2009
at 7:04 pm
I dont have to worry about that since no one would accuse me of being very patriotic. Zinn is worth reading though because he is an excellent scholar and fantastic writer. I also list him as a person I aspire to be like, at least in many regards.
By: rogueminister on January 4, 2009
at 12:36 am