Rant Can’t Ruin Fourth

by Allan Appel | July 7, 2008 8:41 AM | | Comments (8)

nhijuly4%20009.JPGYou would think this man, on the right, Frank Mitchell, might have been a tad uncomfortable at the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR)-organized ceremonies July 4th at the Grove Street Cemetery.

Mitchell is something of an American history aficionado. He is a student of several Yale professors, now buried at Grove Street, who had been founders of Yale’s Afro-American Studies department. He’s a regular attendee of the annual July 4 Grove Street event. He said the ceremonies usually are “patriotically neutral.” The event is a celebration of Roger Sherman, buried at Grove Street, and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence. It launches New Haven’s July 4th festivities with historical heft.

nhijuly4%20004.JPGThis July 4th’s event featured a smoky musket volley courtesy of the 6th Connecticut Regiment re-enactors and the drum and fife music of the Second Company Governor’s Foot Guard , and the moving calling out of the names of the signers. Nevertheless it also featured an exclusionary aspect.

The proceedings were initiated by a talk delivered by John White, of Cheshire. White describes himself as an author, amateur historian, and an aspiring member — that is not yet a member — of the sponsoring organization, the David Humphreys Branch of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).

He gave a ten-minute talk on what he described as the principles of American government and liberty. Others among the 100 listeners eager for the musketry and fifes to begin called it a bit of a rant.

Others turned their backs as White cited phrases in the texts of the country’s founding documents that would be evidence of the founders’ beliefs in a divine power or providence. He said the sovereignty of “We the People” was in effect derived from God — and while it was a god of no particular denomination, still God.

He concluded by saying that while “the war for independence is over, our revolution goes on, and justice and constitutional republican government, under God, must go on — this is the American spirit — to embrace the earth.”

Mitchell said that each year’s ceremony was slightly different, and that this speech, especially its religious overlay, was unusual and, he implied, not particularly welcome. “Maybe it’s because of the election,” Mitchell speculated, as he stood listening to the past president of the branch and the state SAR, Marshall Robinson, preside over the recognition of Roger Sherman. “Maybe next year it will get back to normal.”

nhijuly4%20007.JPGPerhaps Mitchell might have been a little more disturbed had he heard Marshall Robinson answer a reporter’s question about what to him, Robinson, was the essence of patriotism, beyond, of course, the wonderful uniforms and evocations of the ceremony.

“Well,” said Robinson, as we walked from Sherman’s stone to that of the eponymous David Humphreys, “it’s of course love of country. I mean look who they’ve given us,” he said, “as president lately. A white trash draft dodger and now they’re trying to give us a Muslim.”

“You don’t really believe Obama is a Muslim, do you?”

“From everything I read on the Internet, I do. And you can quote me on it.”

When this conversation was conveyed to Mitchell, he replied with impressive equanimity:

“He should know that Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. Many of the members of the UCC church were founders of America. Many are buried here where we’re walking.”

Mitchell went on to say that he felt comfortable among the stones not only of his African-American studies professors who are buried here — he cited Sylvia Boone and John Blassingame - but also the gravestone of Hannah Gray, a poor woman who lived on Dixwell Avenue and set aside money to send the first black divinity students to Yale.

nhijuly4%20011.JPGIt was against the gravestone Simeon Baldwin that Mitchell was leaning most notably when Robinson spoke at Sherman’s nearby stone. Baldwin, Mitchell said, was the grandfather of Roger Sherman Baldwin, the lawyer who argued, successfully, for the release of the abducted Africans in the Amistad case.

The ceremony has been organized for the past 57 years by the SAR Humphreys Branch. Although Grove Street is the final resting place of some 100 Revolutionary War veterans, the only signer of the declaration buried there is Roger Sherman. He was a signer of not only the Declaration but also of the three other foundational documents of the republic, to say nothing of a stint at that other tough job, being mayor of New Haven.

nhijuly4%20008.JPGAt Roger Sherman’s gravestone Tim Wilkins, of the Sons of the American Revolution read the names of the other 53 signers, state by state. As each state was called, a representative of Troop Five of the Boy Scouts (Wallingford) walked out with the state flag.

Wilkins, who traces his family both to the second wave of boats to Jamestown and to the Mayflower, said, “by calling the names aloud, we’re evoking them, making them come alive again; it’s not only a public statement of respect for what these people did, but to bring that into our own lives today.”

As the ceremonies ended, Captain Swartwout of the Sixth Connecticut Regiment re-enactors finished reading the Declaration of Independence. Another audience member, Bob Oliver, a former New Haven alderman, suggested, “Patriotism should never be used as a club to beat up others with.”

Mitchell nodded in agreement. “I hope next year the ceremony will be back to normal. If not, maybe we could start one of our own.”

Members of the Sixth Connecticut shouted “Huzzah, Huzzah, Long Live the United States of America,” and threw their hats into the air over the Grove Street Cemetery.

nhijuly4%20001.JPGTim Wilkins, of Woodbridge, on the right in the photo with Doug Lemay of New Haven, and a long-time SAR member and official at the event, agreed. “Yes, that initial speech could have been better chosen. I was uncomfortable too.”







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 9:25 AM

Cut the crap. The United States was founded and organized under the Enlightenment pricipal of "reason", not god. Stop propogating a right wing myth.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | July 7, 2008 12:24 PM

btw, 'tis true that the word "God" does not appear in the text of the Constitution, nor in the Articles of Confederation, but "Nature's God" appears in the Declaration.

That implies what, exactly...

Posted by: david streever | July 7, 2008 4:37 PM

I hope they don't accept such a poor historian into their group.

Apparently, it's not just his grasp of history, but also his ability to conduct research that is a problem.

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 6:20 PM

AC,

I think that the phrasing of the DofI implies that, when one only has only a few weeks to write a document (with the distinct potential of getting one's ass handed to one by the most powerful army and navy on earth)... the wording is not quite as tight as the Constitution which was written much later with the luxury of time and the comfort of a win.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 7, 2008 8:28 PM

Most scholars agree that the phrase "Nature's God" refers to the undefined and largely unknowable creator that Jefferson believed in. This being should not in any way, shape, or form be confused with the traditional Christian god. In fact, Jefferson explicitly rejected the idea of Jesus' divinity, considering him instead a great human teacher. Jefferson actually published a version of the Bible (which he titled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth") from which he edited out all mentions of Jesus' supernatural acts, leaving his teachings intact.

Jefferson's thinking was above all else ruled by reason. Rational thought told him the accounts of miracles in the Bible had to be myth; the same rational thought, ignorant of the scientific advances to occur during the following two hundred years, led him to the apparently reasonable conclusion that the universe was the product of a creator. While Jefferson, like most other mainstream people of his day 'believed' in a ''God," he had no patience for revealed religion. He believed faith to be a private matter.

Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Robinson are largely misinformed and have bought into the myth that the U.S.A. was conceived as a 'Christian nation,' when the framers of the Constitution explicitly rejected any semblance of divine right.

On a side note, Obama is not a Muslim, Mr. Robinson, as you can read on the Internet. And what's worse? A hillbilly draft dodger, who pulls himself out of a hick town in Alabama to become the President of the United States? Or a full-fledged Yankee blueblood draft-dodger, the son of a President, the grandson of a U.S. senator, who puts on a cowboy hat and pretends to be a hick from Texas? Isn't Clinton's story the American Dream?

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | July 8, 2008 11:23 AM

WK:

Thank you for that post, especially re: Jefferson et al.

As to your final paragraph, Obama -may- be considered a Muslim apostate, but simply the knowledge that the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas have expressed delight were he elected appears to me at least to be much more pertinent than the Muslim world's possible reaction to his alleged Islamic training in youth.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 8, 2008 9:47 PM

You're welcome Alphonse.

Regarding the Muslim question: The Oxford English Dictionary defines "apostate" as, "one who abjures or forsakes his religious faith, or abandons his moral allegiance; a pervert." Since nothing in Obama's biography indicates that he ever considered himself a member of the Muslim faith, by definition, he is certainly not a Muslim apostate.

On the Hamas and Hezbollah matter: I imagine most thinking people condemn the violent actions of these two groups. But some context is called for, here. They, and their supporters, consider themselves political entities, albeit ones willing to use force to achieve their goals. But hey, so is the U.S. government!

Are these guys part of a terrorist organization? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

Or this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Dale_Green

How about NATO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

You get the idea. One of the things I admire most about Barack Obama is his expressed willingness to talk--not capitulate to, not support, not approve of--to political leaders currently at odds with U.S. foreign policy. What foreign leader wouldn't welcome that assurance?

This presidential election has the potential to be a really ugly one. Let's start agreeing to conduct the debate on honest, legitimate grounds and not by pandering to ignorance and racism, okay?

Posted by: MattUva | July 9, 2008 10:18 PM

"On the Hamas and Hezbollah matter: I imagine most thinking people condemn the violent actions of these two groups."
if only Americans were "thinking people"...

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35