By Edwin Cooney
Don’t let today fool you! Indeed, today may be the last day of 2007, but erase the very idea from your holiday-exhausted mind that just because this date is the last day of each and every year, that it shouldn’t be taken seriously or that its significance serves merely as a day of transition.
As is the case with every day of the year, today is somebody’s birthday, wedding anniversary, day of significant disclosure, or the beginning of a new capital venture. I know at least two people who were born on this date. One of them, unfortunately has been gone for about fifteen years—if my memory serves me well—and the other is fourteen years old today and hopefully has many happy years ahead of her. Not to be outdone, historians have found many reasons to take note of events which have taken place on December 31st.
Those who were born on December 31st include:
General George Gordon Meade in 1815 who led Union forces to victory over the Confederate General Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg from July 1st through 3rd in 1863;
Army Chief of Staff (and later Secretary of State) George C. Marshall (born 1880) who proposed the “Marshall Plan” for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II.;
Actor Jason Robards, Sr. in 1892;
Simon Wiesenthal, born December 31, 1908, the Polish national who successfully hunted down Nazi war criminals; and
Singer John Denver (born in 1943 as Henry John Deutschendorf), to name just a few.
Among those who died on December 31st while the rest of us were looking forward to the dawning of a new year and new opportunities:
Former Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov (however one feels about Soviet Communism, one can’t help but be fascinated when reading of that man’s life which covered the time between Monday, July 17, 1876 and Monday, December 31, 1951).
Others who died on the last day of the year include such luminaries as:
Thirty-nine year-old Michael Kennedy, son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, killed in a skiing accident December 31, 1997;
Country pianist Floyd Cramer who died of cancer at age sixty-four the same day as young Mike Kennedy;
Former IBM President Thomas J. Watson in 1994;
Professional football coach George Allen in1990;
Rock singer Ricky (born Eric Hilliard) Nelson who apparently free-based his way to eternity in the back of a chartered plane on the last day of 1985;
And, perhaps most tragically of all, baseball star Roberto Clemente who died while carrying relief help to the people of earthquake-shattered Nicaragua from his home in Puerto Rico on the last day of 1972.
Historical events for December 31 include:
The opening of America’s first bank which was called The Bank Of North America in 1781;
Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria to be Canada’s new capital on December 31, 1857; President Abraham Lincoln signed the legislation which paved the way toward West Virginia becoming our thirty-fifth state on the last day of 1862 (West Virginia statehood would not become official until June 20 1863);
The cornerstone of the Iolani Palace (the only royal palace in America) was laid on December 31, 1879;
The same day that Royalist Hawaiians were dreaming of their new palace, Thomas Edison was demonstrating his incandescent light;
Ellis Island was opened on the last day of 1890 as a receiving center for immigrants;
And December 31, 1897 was the last day that Brooklyn was a “city”: it was officially incorporated into New York City on Saturday, January 1, 1898.
Eight December 31st events have, I think, a special significance to 2007-2008 Americans:
The ball dropped for the first time at Times Square in the last seconds of Tuesday, December 31, 1907;
On the last day of 1914, Colonel Jacob Ruppert and Captain Tillinghast L’hommedieu Huston purchased the New York Yankees for $460,000 and began building the team into its present dynastic status;
On the last day of 1935, Charles Darrow patented the new game he called Monopoly;
In 1961, the Beach Boys staged their first performance;
On the last day of 1970, Paul McCartney filed suit to break up the Beatles;
On December 31, 1981, CNN Headline News opened for business;
December 31, 1991 was the last day in existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (The USSR);
And, finally, it was on Friday, December 31, 1999 that Panamanians gained control of the Panama Canal.
It’s perfectly natural for us to think of December 31st as a day of transition since we spend most of its hours in preparation for New Year’s Eve celebrations. However, December 31, like every other day, serves us best as we put its events into perspective.
Someone, I’ve quite forgotten who, once observed that history is inevitably written by the winners or victors of human events. While there is much to be said for that observation, the ultimate significance of military, political, or other human events is always up for reevaluation since such reflection brings forth those values which matter most to you and to me.
Thus, December 31st is certainly a fine day to reflect on the past, present, and future of all humanity, as national and international events will have a definite effect on our lives. However, our time can be best spent reflecting on our own individual past, present, and future as well as how our individual existence impacts other people.
As I observed at the outset, December 31 isn’t the least of days merely because it comes last on the calendar. However, it can be the least of all days if you and I waste it. What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
‘TIS THE SEASON!
By Edwin Cooney
Deck the halls with boughs of holly, Fa la la la la, la la la la,
Tis the season to be jolly, Fa la la la la, la la la la
It’s that time again—and I love it. Perhaps a little of the magic dwindles over the years, but only the tiniest bit of it.
I don’t anticipate where Santa might be at any hour on Christmas eve anymore—but I know he’s surely somewhere.
Mary, Joseph and the Christ child, Christmas carols, Santa Claus, stockings, Christmas cookies with hot chocolate or fruit juice are as much a part of my boyhood as the turkey on Thanksgiving, Jack O’Lanterns, doughnuts and apple cider on Halloween, and the importance of the baseball World Series. So since I believe that the history of a nation is the sum of all of our life experiences, I thought it might be entertaining as well as instructive to visit, however sketchily, the history of Christmas in America.
Most of us like to think that Christmas is as American as Christopher Columbus (who isn’t at all American), the Pilgrims, Ben Franklin and George Washington. However, such is not the case!
As you’ll recall, Massachusetts was settled first by the Pilgrims or Separatists -- who wanted to separate totally from the Anglican Church -- and then by the Puritans -- whose aim was to purify rather than leave the Anglican Church.
The Puritans, who became dominant in Massachusetts over the Separatists, eventually took over in England under Oliver Cromwell during the 1650s. They banned the celebration of Christmas partly because it was practiced by the former royalists and partly because they considered it a symbol of Popery, a leading characteristic of the much unreconstructed and therefore maligned Roman Catholic Church of that day.
By the 1660s, the Puritans had lost power in London and throughout the rest of England, but they were very much in power in Boston as well as throughout the rest of Massachusetts. Thus, Christmas was officially banned in Boston between 1659 and 1681. It should be noted however that while Christmas was banned in Massachusetts, it was celebrated in both the Virginia and the New York colonies.
After the British monarchy was restored, Christmas was once again celebrated in England although its restoration in Massachusetts took another twenty one years. Once William and Mary took over as more or less equal partners as British monarchs in 1688 and Catholicism was on the decline there, Christmas began to be practiced in a more secular way in Britain.
One of the casualties of our Revolutionary War at the hands of our founding fathers, incidentally, was Christmas. Christmas in the era of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, was considered an English holiday and was, publicly at least, unwelcome in the hallowed halls of liberty until the mid-nineteenth century.
Three writers, Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore -- both Americans -- and Charles Dickens -- an Englishman -- were primarily responsible for introducing Christmas as a family holiday to the American people.
Washington Irving, who traveled and wrote extensively from both Europe and Britain, published short Christmas stories in “The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon” as well as a story entitled “Old Christmas” during the late 1820s and early 1830s.
Most significant was the 1822 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” attributed to Clement Clarke Moore and Charles Dickens’ 1842 story “A Christmas Carol”.
Americans, with their eternal love of the underdog and sympathy for the reformed, fell hard for Mr. Dickens’ Bob Crachit and the crippled Tiny Tim, and readily forgave old Ebenezer Scrooge once he’d seen the error of his ways and showered the Crachit family with gifts and plenty of Christmas cheer.
As for Clement Moore’s Santa Claus, everyone could identify with a little old white bearded man whose little round belly “shook when he laughed” and whose pipe smoke “encircled his head like a wreath” as he joyfully delivered toys to little children.
Santa was everyone’s idea of Grandpa!
By the 1850s, German and Irish immigration had changed the face of America’s largest cities and had, most notably, tapped the strongest American incentive: the profit motive.
Thus, Christmas was truly on its way in America—led, of course, by Santa Claus!
Information describing how American presidents historically have celebrated Christmas is a bit sketchy. Apparently, Thomas Jefferson, despite his contempt for Britain and all its institutions and traditions—including Christmas—did privately celebrate Christmas at the White House in 1805. Andrew Jackson was said to have held private family Christmas celebrations as well.
The first president to set up a Christmas tree in the White House was Franklin Pierce. Franklin Pierce, the once handsome and energetic Democratic presidential candidate known as “Young Hickory of the Granite Hills”—after the great Democrat Andrew Jackson—was by then a listless, defensive, melancholy and defeated incumbent President. The year was 1856. Franklin and Jane Pierce were spending their last unhappy months in the White House. Tragically childless by now--and heavily burdened by political and administrative misjudgments—President Pierce purchased the first White House Christmas tree for the children of his Sunday school class.
Christmas was declared a federal holiday in 1870. It would be hard to imagine that President Ulysses S. Grant didn’t have something to say about that, but so far I haven’t found any reference to President Grant in the accounts of the establishment of Christmas as a federal holiday.
In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison installed a tree lit with candles on the second floor of the White House. He also purchased turkeys and gloves for members of the White House staff.
In 1895, First Lady Frances Cleveland attached the first electric lights to the White House Christmas tree.
In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge began the tradition of a National Christmas tree on the White House lawn. The following year, sadness prevailed at the White House despite President Coolidge’s re-election, due to the death from blood poisoning of President and Mrs. Coolidge’s sixteen year old son Calvin Jr. the previous July. Nevertheless, the ceremony was held with the participation of Calvin and Grace Coolidge.
Jacqueline Kennedy began the Christmas theme for the National Christmas tree in 1961 by decorating it with figures from Tchaikovsky’s ballet “The Nutcracker”.
In 2001, Laura Bush’s theme was “Home For the Holidays” which used replicas of the homes of previous presidents.
What do you suppose this all means? What do the forces of religion, politics and commercialism say about what we do? Which one of these forces have had the greatest beneficial effect on our celebration of Christmas? Which one of these forces have had the most detrimental effect?
The answers to the above questions I’ll leave up to you. However, I’ll close this week’s effort with my favorite presidential Christmas story.
It was December of 1921 and President Warren G. Harding faced a dilemma, a struggle between his conscience and his need to be politically effective. A small town Republican, he was sensitive to and even shared the suspicions of his fellow townsmen of what might be called foreign ideologies.
As president, possessing the pardoning power as he did, Warren Harding had received pleas for the release of Socialist party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs from federal prison. Debs had been convicted during the “Great War” of sedition for public opposition to the war once it had been declared by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Now the war was over. Since the League of Nations had been rejected by the Senate in 1919 and again in 1920, the U.S. government, under the direction of Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes had negotiated a separate peace treaty with Germany which President Harding had signed during a golf game the previous July.
Thus, Mr. Debs was no longer a threat to America’s national security. However, many of the president’s closest friends and political advisors were dead set against any sympathy for Debs whom they strongly believed had deliberately undermined the patriotic efforts of those who had made the “supreme sacrifice” in France during the war. To them, Debs as a labor leader, was little more than a life long trouble maker inspired lately by foreign ideologies and interests. One of those who drove home that point most vigorously was the president’s personal hometown buddy Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty. (Note: Mr. Daugherty himself would need presidential tolerance within a few years once he was indicted in the Teapot Dome scandal).
For President Harding, however, the question was whether or not justice would be further served by keeping a 66 year old pacifist in jail or whether the spirit of Christmas required him to be charitable. Earlier in 1921, outgoing President Woodrow Wilson had bitterly rejected pleas for Debs’ pardon.
Christmas was on a Sunday in 1921 thereby giving the celebration of the birth of Christ a special intensity. About the 20th of December, President Harding had made up his mind. Attorney General Daugherty was called in and told to prepare the necessary papers. They were prepared and sent to the federal prison in Atlanta.
By lunch time on Friday December 23rd, Eugene Victor Debs was in President Harding’s office. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Debs was home.
When asked why he had pardoned Debs, the President is said to have replied in words similar to these: “At Christmas time, a peaceful man ought to be home with his wife.”
While it is true that the pardon didn’t reinstate Mr. Debs’ citizenship to allow him to vote or seek public office as before, he could act as a political consultant, write, and lecture. Most significant, thanks to the conscience and humanity of Warren Gamaliel Harding, Eugene Victor Debs was once again a free man.
If any president has given a gift more noble and worthy of the spirit of Christmas, I haven’t heard of it.
Christmas, wow! What a season!!!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Deck the halls with boughs of holly, Fa la la la la, la la la la,
Tis the season to be jolly, Fa la la la la, la la la la
It’s that time again—and I love it. Perhaps a little of the magic dwindles over the years, but only the tiniest bit of it.
I don’t anticipate where Santa might be at any hour on Christmas eve anymore—but I know he’s surely somewhere.
Mary, Joseph and the Christ child, Christmas carols, Santa Claus, stockings, Christmas cookies with hot chocolate or fruit juice are as much a part of my boyhood as the turkey on Thanksgiving, Jack O’Lanterns, doughnuts and apple cider on Halloween, and the importance of the baseball World Series. So since I believe that the history of a nation is the sum of all of our life experiences, I thought it might be entertaining as well as instructive to visit, however sketchily, the history of Christmas in America.
Most of us like to think that Christmas is as American as Christopher Columbus (who isn’t at all American), the Pilgrims, Ben Franklin and George Washington. However, such is not the case!
As you’ll recall, Massachusetts was settled first by the Pilgrims or Separatists -- who wanted to separate totally from the Anglican Church -- and then by the Puritans -- whose aim was to purify rather than leave the Anglican Church.
The Puritans, who became dominant in Massachusetts over the Separatists, eventually took over in England under Oliver Cromwell during the 1650s. They banned the celebration of Christmas partly because it was practiced by the former royalists and partly because they considered it a symbol of Popery, a leading characteristic of the much unreconstructed and therefore maligned Roman Catholic Church of that day.
By the 1660s, the Puritans had lost power in London and throughout the rest of England, but they were very much in power in Boston as well as throughout the rest of Massachusetts. Thus, Christmas was officially banned in Boston between 1659 and 1681. It should be noted however that while Christmas was banned in Massachusetts, it was celebrated in both the Virginia and the New York colonies.
After the British monarchy was restored, Christmas was once again celebrated in England although its restoration in Massachusetts took another twenty one years. Once William and Mary took over as more or less equal partners as British monarchs in 1688 and Catholicism was on the decline there, Christmas began to be practiced in a more secular way in Britain.
One of the casualties of our Revolutionary War at the hands of our founding fathers, incidentally, was Christmas. Christmas in the era of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, was considered an English holiday and was, publicly at least, unwelcome in the hallowed halls of liberty until the mid-nineteenth century.
Three writers, Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore -- both Americans -- and Charles Dickens -- an Englishman -- were primarily responsible for introducing Christmas as a family holiday to the American people.
Washington Irving, who traveled and wrote extensively from both Europe and Britain, published short Christmas stories in “The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon” as well as a story entitled “Old Christmas” during the late 1820s and early 1830s.
Most significant was the 1822 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” attributed to Clement Clarke Moore and Charles Dickens’ 1842 story “A Christmas Carol”.
Americans, with their eternal love of the underdog and sympathy for the reformed, fell hard for Mr. Dickens’ Bob Crachit and the crippled Tiny Tim, and readily forgave old Ebenezer Scrooge once he’d seen the error of his ways and showered the Crachit family with gifts and plenty of Christmas cheer.
As for Clement Moore’s Santa Claus, everyone could identify with a little old white bearded man whose little round belly “shook when he laughed” and whose pipe smoke “encircled his head like a wreath” as he joyfully delivered toys to little children.
Santa was everyone’s idea of Grandpa!
By the 1850s, German and Irish immigration had changed the face of America’s largest cities and had, most notably, tapped the strongest American incentive: the profit motive.
Thus, Christmas was truly on its way in America—led, of course, by Santa Claus!
Information describing how American presidents historically have celebrated Christmas is a bit sketchy. Apparently, Thomas Jefferson, despite his contempt for Britain and all its institutions and traditions—including Christmas—did privately celebrate Christmas at the White House in 1805. Andrew Jackson was said to have held private family Christmas celebrations as well.
The first president to set up a Christmas tree in the White House was Franklin Pierce. Franklin Pierce, the once handsome and energetic Democratic presidential candidate known as “Young Hickory of the Granite Hills”—after the great Democrat Andrew Jackson—was by then a listless, defensive, melancholy and defeated incumbent President. The year was 1856. Franklin and Jane Pierce were spending their last unhappy months in the White House. Tragically childless by now--and heavily burdened by political and administrative misjudgments—President Pierce purchased the first White House Christmas tree for the children of his Sunday school class.
Christmas was declared a federal holiday in 1870. It would be hard to imagine that President Ulysses S. Grant didn’t have something to say about that, but so far I haven’t found any reference to President Grant in the accounts of the establishment of Christmas as a federal holiday.
In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison installed a tree lit with candles on the second floor of the White House. He also purchased turkeys and gloves for members of the White House staff.
In 1895, First Lady Frances Cleveland attached the first electric lights to the White House Christmas tree.
In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge began the tradition of a National Christmas tree on the White House lawn. The following year, sadness prevailed at the White House despite President Coolidge’s re-election, due to the death from blood poisoning of President and Mrs. Coolidge’s sixteen year old son Calvin Jr. the previous July. Nevertheless, the ceremony was held with the participation of Calvin and Grace Coolidge.
Jacqueline Kennedy began the Christmas theme for the National Christmas tree in 1961 by decorating it with figures from Tchaikovsky’s ballet “The Nutcracker”.
In 2001, Laura Bush’s theme was “Home For the Holidays” which used replicas of the homes of previous presidents.
What do you suppose this all means? What do the forces of religion, politics and commercialism say about what we do? Which one of these forces have had the greatest beneficial effect on our celebration of Christmas? Which one of these forces have had the most detrimental effect?
The answers to the above questions I’ll leave up to you. However, I’ll close this week’s effort with my favorite presidential Christmas story.
It was December of 1921 and President Warren G. Harding faced a dilemma, a struggle between his conscience and his need to be politically effective. A small town Republican, he was sensitive to and even shared the suspicions of his fellow townsmen of what might be called foreign ideologies.
As president, possessing the pardoning power as he did, Warren Harding had received pleas for the release of Socialist party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs from federal prison. Debs had been convicted during the “Great War” of sedition for public opposition to the war once it had been declared by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Now the war was over. Since the League of Nations had been rejected by the Senate in 1919 and again in 1920, the U.S. government, under the direction of Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes had negotiated a separate peace treaty with Germany which President Harding had signed during a golf game the previous July.
Thus, Mr. Debs was no longer a threat to America’s national security. However, many of the president’s closest friends and political advisors were dead set against any sympathy for Debs whom they strongly believed had deliberately undermined the patriotic efforts of those who had made the “supreme sacrifice” in France during the war. To them, Debs as a labor leader, was little more than a life long trouble maker inspired lately by foreign ideologies and interests. One of those who drove home that point most vigorously was the president’s personal hometown buddy Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty. (Note: Mr. Daugherty himself would need presidential tolerance within a few years once he was indicted in the Teapot Dome scandal).
For President Harding, however, the question was whether or not justice would be further served by keeping a 66 year old pacifist in jail or whether the spirit of Christmas required him to be charitable. Earlier in 1921, outgoing President Woodrow Wilson had bitterly rejected pleas for Debs’ pardon.
Christmas was on a Sunday in 1921 thereby giving the celebration of the birth of Christ a special intensity. About the 20th of December, President Harding had made up his mind. Attorney General Daugherty was called in and told to prepare the necessary papers. They were prepared and sent to the federal prison in Atlanta.
By lunch time on Friday December 23rd, Eugene Victor Debs was in President Harding’s office. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Debs was home.
When asked why he had pardoned Debs, the President is said to have replied in words similar to these: “At Christmas time, a peaceful man ought to be home with his wife.”
While it is true that the pardon didn’t reinstate Mr. Debs’ citizenship to allow him to vote or seek public office as before, he could act as a political consultant, write, and lecture. Most significant, thanks to the conscience and humanity of Warren Gamaliel Harding, Eugene Victor Debs was once again a free man.
If any president has given a gift more noble and worthy of the spirit of Christmas, I haven’t heard of it.
Christmas, wow! What a season!!!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
AMERICA, DOES THE WORLD ADEQUATELY APPRECIATE HER?
BY EDWIN COONEY
Among news commentator Paul Harvey’s many observations is this one from 1968 during a televised commentary on “The Amazing American”.
“…an amazing American likes to cuss his government, but he’ll fight any foreigner who does.”
Along with the admonition that this is something to think about, a very dear friend of mine recently sent me what you see below:
Their Silence is Deafening
When in England at a fairly large conference,
Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury
if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has
sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril
to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return
is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
* * * * *
Then there was a conference in France where a number of
international engineers were taking part, including French and American.
During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying
"Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done?
He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims.
What does he intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
"Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat
several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply
emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people
three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of
fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry
half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured
to and from their flight deck..
The US has eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
Once again, dead silence.
* * *
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference
that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies.
At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages,
Americans learn only English.
He then asked,
'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied
'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans
arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.
You could have heard a pin drop!
* * *
These diplomats know how to make a point!
Indeed they do, but powerful as it is, it’s only a point. Aside from confirming Paul Harvey’s long ago observation, the above begs a bit of perspective.
As an individual, like you, I wear many hats. Two of those hats are that of American citizen and that of student of history. As a citizen, I occasionally react negatively to what is said about or what happens to my country. As a student of history, I try my best to make sense of it all. It isn’t possible to totally separate emotion and intellect nor would a total separation of those two God-given gifts be at all healthy. I too cringe when the French or other nationals trash my country and its leadership. Like many of my fellow citizens, I tend to feel that the only people legitimately licensed to criticize America are Americans. However, I also cringe when Americans oversimplify America’s history or America’s motives as the above piece certainly does.
One of the most common themes, probably since the mid 1960s, when Americans get together to discuss the world situation, is how little the world appreciates America. (No wonder Britain gave up her empire!)
Such discussions usually take place among people who:
-- Feel that they pay too many taxes especially for foreign aid to unappreciative countries;
-- Have fought or have family members who have fought or served in our armed forces; or who believe that America went to war mostly out of the goodness of her heart in both world wars, Vietnam, twice in Iraq as well as in the Balkans.
However, America has never gone to war nor should she ever go to war out of the goodness of her heart. The lives and well-being of her sons and daughters are too valuable for mere sentiment.
What America came to realize beginning in the 1880s and 1890s was that she couldn’t be permanently prosperous or peaceful living in a world in which she couldn’t control the events at least to some degree. So, America wisely began to be competitive in world commerce and in world politics.
Nor is it historically accurate to assert (as the above commentary suggests) that America has never gone to war in pursuit of territory. Our early attempts to secure Canada from Britain, our wars with Mexico and Spain, and our treatment of Native Americans all destroy the legitimacy of any such suggestion.
As to whether America’s finest virtues are given adequate consideration and appreciation, the answer is simple. Of course America isn’t adequately appreciated. How can she be? Wise nations don’t plan their tomorrows using sentiment as the main element of their planning, strategic or otherwise. Neither Woodrow Wilson in World War I. nor Franklin Roosevelt in World War II. went to the rescue of other nations until our security was threatened.
The element in our national character which makes us quite special is our usual generosity toward the downtrodden as well as the vanquished. I think that comes from our own desire to be comfortable and from our own realization that we can’t really be comfortable if others aren’t.
As to the question of whether other nations might not be much better off if they adopted this aspect of our character, the answer is:...of course they would! As to whether or not Americans adequately appreciate what some nations have done for us, the answer is...of course we don’t!
The author of the above set of anecdotes obviously doesn’t take into account that if it wasn’t for eighteenth century royalist France, it is probable that our continent would have been colonized as well as turned into a confederation of nation states by a combination of the British, Spanish, French, and the Dutch. Furthermore, without our French allies, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock would likely have been beheaded on London’s Tower Hill, to the cheers of thousands of Britains, for treason against George III. Hence the French have an honored place in the very founding of America which seldom gains our attention today. As for France’s motive? It was her enmity toward Britain, nothing more!
Americans are rightly put off by reckless attacks on President Bush by French and other foreign nationals and we can be excused if we’re sometimes frustrated by actions that go against us in the United Nations. However, it’s a matter of record that youthful America pointedly didn’t show gratitude toward France for French assistance during the American Revolution.
In 1794, President Washington decided that America would take neither side in France’s war with Great Britain—and for good reason. America didn’t have the capacity to defend herself in case of attack by either power. However, the French definitely chose not to understand that decision. They insisted that America owed their country a debt and engaged some of our merchant shipping on the high seas. Thus, youthful America and France nearly went to war in 1798.
Then there is the original matter of American gratitude or appreciation. In the mid 1760s, the mightiest nation on earth sought to recover financially after having fought a seven year war on behalf of her thirteen North American colonies. In that war, which was fought against an alliance of France and tribes of American Indians, Britain spent millions of pounds sterling. Additionally, several of her finest soldiers, who were members of her proud nobility, lost their lives on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec and in the wilderness of western Pennsylvania. The war finally ended in 1763 and Britain believed that her colonies ought to defray some of the expenses made on their behalf. Sadly for Britain, the men and women whose property had been saved and whose safety had been secured weren’t even grateful.
Within thirteen years after that exhausting war, those colonists stopped calling themselves Englishmen and started referring to themselves as Americans.
Ingratitude like gratitude possesses no national citizenship papers. Ingratitude lives just as comfortably in America as it does anywhere else.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Among news commentator Paul Harvey’s many observations is this one from 1968 during a televised commentary on “The Amazing American”.
“…an amazing American likes to cuss his government, but he’ll fight any foreigner who does.”
Along with the admonition that this is something to think about, a very dear friend of mine recently sent me what you see below:
Their Silence is Deafening
When in England at a fairly large conference,
Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury
if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has
sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril
to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return
is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
* * * * *
Then there was a conference in France where a number of
international engineers were taking part, including French and American.
During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying
"Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done?
He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims.
What does he intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
"Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat
several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply
emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people
three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of
fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry
half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured
to and from their flight deck..
The US has eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
Once again, dead silence.
* * *
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference
that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies.
At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages,
Americans learn only English.
He then asked,
'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied
'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans
arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.
You could have heard a pin drop!
* * *
These diplomats know how to make a point!
Indeed they do, but powerful as it is, it’s only a point. Aside from confirming Paul Harvey’s long ago observation, the above begs a bit of perspective.
As an individual, like you, I wear many hats. Two of those hats are that of American citizen and that of student of history. As a citizen, I occasionally react negatively to what is said about or what happens to my country. As a student of history, I try my best to make sense of it all. It isn’t possible to totally separate emotion and intellect nor would a total separation of those two God-given gifts be at all healthy. I too cringe when the French or other nationals trash my country and its leadership. Like many of my fellow citizens, I tend to feel that the only people legitimately licensed to criticize America are Americans. However, I also cringe when Americans oversimplify America’s history or America’s motives as the above piece certainly does.
One of the most common themes, probably since the mid 1960s, when Americans get together to discuss the world situation, is how little the world appreciates America. (No wonder Britain gave up her empire!)
Such discussions usually take place among people who:
-- Feel that they pay too many taxes especially for foreign aid to unappreciative countries;
-- Have fought or have family members who have fought or served in our armed forces; or who believe that America went to war mostly out of the goodness of her heart in both world wars, Vietnam, twice in Iraq as well as in the Balkans.
However, America has never gone to war nor should she ever go to war out of the goodness of her heart. The lives and well-being of her sons and daughters are too valuable for mere sentiment.
What America came to realize beginning in the 1880s and 1890s was that she couldn’t be permanently prosperous or peaceful living in a world in which she couldn’t control the events at least to some degree. So, America wisely began to be competitive in world commerce and in world politics.
Nor is it historically accurate to assert (as the above commentary suggests) that America has never gone to war in pursuit of territory. Our early attempts to secure Canada from Britain, our wars with Mexico and Spain, and our treatment of Native Americans all destroy the legitimacy of any such suggestion.
As to whether America’s finest virtues are given adequate consideration and appreciation, the answer is simple. Of course America isn’t adequately appreciated. How can she be? Wise nations don’t plan their tomorrows using sentiment as the main element of their planning, strategic or otherwise. Neither Woodrow Wilson in World War I. nor Franklin Roosevelt in World War II. went to the rescue of other nations until our security was threatened.
The element in our national character which makes us quite special is our usual generosity toward the downtrodden as well as the vanquished. I think that comes from our own desire to be comfortable and from our own realization that we can’t really be comfortable if others aren’t.
As to the question of whether other nations might not be much better off if they adopted this aspect of our character, the answer is:...of course they would! As to whether or not Americans adequately appreciate what some nations have done for us, the answer is...of course we don’t!
The author of the above set of anecdotes obviously doesn’t take into account that if it wasn’t for eighteenth century royalist France, it is probable that our continent would have been colonized as well as turned into a confederation of nation states by a combination of the British, Spanish, French, and the Dutch. Furthermore, without our French allies, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock would likely have been beheaded on London’s Tower Hill, to the cheers of thousands of Britains, for treason against George III. Hence the French have an honored place in the very founding of America which seldom gains our attention today. As for France’s motive? It was her enmity toward Britain, nothing more!
Americans are rightly put off by reckless attacks on President Bush by French and other foreign nationals and we can be excused if we’re sometimes frustrated by actions that go against us in the United Nations. However, it’s a matter of record that youthful America pointedly didn’t show gratitude toward France for French assistance during the American Revolution.
In 1794, President Washington decided that America would take neither side in France’s war with Great Britain—and for good reason. America didn’t have the capacity to defend herself in case of attack by either power. However, the French definitely chose not to understand that decision. They insisted that America owed their country a debt and engaged some of our merchant shipping on the high seas. Thus, youthful America and France nearly went to war in 1798.
Then there is the original matter of American gratitude or appreciation. In the mid 1760s, the mightiest nation on earth sought to recover financially after having fought a seven year war on behalf of her thirteen North American colonies. In that war, which was fought against an alliance of France and tribes of American Indians, Britain spent millions of pounds sterling. Additionally, several of her finest soldiers, who were members of her proud nobility, lost their lives on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec and in the wilderness of western Pennsylvania. The war finally ended in 1763 and Britain believed that her colonies ought to defray some of the expenses made on their behalf. Sadly for Britain, the men and women whose property had been saved and whose safety had been secured weren’t even grateful.
Within thirteen years after that exhausting war, those colonists stopped calling themselves Englishmen and started referring to themselves as Americans.
Ingratitude like gratitude possesses no national citizenship papers. Ingratitude lives just as comfortably in America as it does anywhere else.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)