Lots of people sending me this clip, so here are some thoughts:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @realDonaldTrump view original on Twitter
Yes, the authors of the Declaration of Independence did invoke the Creator several times in that document (3-5 depending on how you count).
But if you're talking about how the Founders felt, you need to look to our founding document -- and that's the Constitution.
In sharp contrast to the Declaration, there's only one mention of God in the Constitution, and it comes in the then-standard formatting of the date as "in the year of our Lord."
That's it.
Now, there are three references to religion in the Constitution, but notably, all three clearly seek to separate church and state:
1. No religious tests for office holders 2. No establishment of a state religion 3. No state interference with individuals' free exercise of faith
If that wasn't clear enough, you can just look to the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli -- begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified by a Senate where half the members had helped create/ratify the Constitution just ten years earlier.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, this nation's founders declared, in language that took the underlying point as a given, that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Were many of the Founders themselves religious? Sure! But many were not. Paine was an atheist; Jefferson took a razor to his Bible to remove all the miracles; etc.
Whatever their personal religious beliefs, most agreed that religion should play no formal role in the state.
Those other markers of religious nationalism like "In God We Trust" on paper currency and "under God" in the pledge -- what Eugene Rostow called "ceremonial deism" -- were all added much later.
Indeed, the National Prayer Breakfast (1953) began before "under God" was added to the pledge (1954) or "In God We Trust" was added to paper currency (1957).
If you want the complete story, I'm afraid you'll have to pick up my book.
This site has gotten steadily worse with every "improvement" Elon has made, but this weekend made it clear that it's no longer a place to get and discuss breaking news.
It's just a cesspool for the worst people on social media and it's getting worse every week.
I've been telling myself for months that the good here outweighs the bad, but I don't believe that anymore.
There's no better way to announce that you've read literally nothing on the party realignment over civil rights than to ask about congressional delegations.
That's not how realignment happened, and anyone pushing this "rebuttal" is either an idiot or a liar.
Again, as I've discussed many times before, the power of sitting congressmen depended entirely on their seniority in the Democratic Party, which held dominant majorities in Congress. That's why they're the lagging indicator in this process.
So let's look at a state, but all the politics of a state, not just the senior southern Democrats determined to hang on to their perks in Congress.
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow I'm a historian who's worked on this for 25 years, so I could point you to a lot of my published work, starting with my chapter in MYTH AMERICA:
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow But I'm happy to provide some primary sources as well.
Here's some news coverage of Prentiss Walker, the segregationist Republican whose first appearance after winning the election was to speak before Americans for Preservation of the White Race:
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow As I've noted here before, Prentiss Walker was an outspoken opponent of civil rights, voted against the Voting Rights Act, and insisted civil rights activists were worse than the Klan:
The House GOP has been riling up its base by repeatedly insisting it has the goods to get Joe Biden.
This works fine in the short term, but repeatedly overpromising and underdelivering is only going to make the base mad at them, more than anyone else.
You can see this with today's tweets from the Oversight Committee.
It's framed as a huge hit on Biden but once you read it, it's clear the "Biden FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES" framing is a load-bearing beam.
It's a showy announcement meant to suggest much more than is actually there.
But the base doesn't get that -- they're riled up and they expect action.
Action that Republican politicians can't *actually* deliver because they (or at least their very patient legal counsel) understand there's really no there there.
Any discussion of Florida's effort to replace the original AP standards for African American history with the state's own version should directly compare and contrast the two.
One thing is readily apparent from even a quick comparison between the two standards -- the claims that Florida's standards are "robust" quickly fall apart when you line them up next to the much more substantial program the AP has put together with specific sources and plans.
A lot of attention has been given to the slavery section -- which in Florida is strongly focused on discussing abolitionism while the AP standards are much more direct on the lived experiences for the enslaved -- but for me the 20th century material is more of an issue.