February 9th – The dual anniversary of the infamous Commie Pinko and Purple Telletubby conspiracy theories!

The anniversary of two notorious warnings about threats to the traditional American way of life happen to fall on February 9th.

On February 9, 1950, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) gave a rousing speech to the Ohio Country Women’s Republican Club of Wheeling, West Virginia.

In it, McCarthy famously claimed:

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist party, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy in the State Department.”

This quote was essentially the public launch of the anti-Communist witch hunt that would soon be called “McCarthyism.”

That term was coined in a March 29, 1950 political cartoon by the great political cartoonist Herbert Block, who signed his cartoons as “HERBLOCK.”

Exactly forty-nine years after Joe McCarthy made his announcement about the Communist threat, another warning about a different threat to American purity made national news.

In an Associated Press report published on February 9, 1999, AP journalist David Reed revealed that televangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell had claimed that the children’s TV show Teletubbies was trying to turn kids gay.

Reed’s article explained:

      The Rev. Jerry Falwell is trying to out Tinky Winky, suggesting that the purple, purse-toting character on television’s popular “Teletubbies” children’s show is gay.

   The February edition of the National Liberty Journal, edited and published by Falwell, contains an article warning parents that the rotund Teletubby with the triangular antenna may be a gay role model.

    To support its claim, the publication says Tinky Winky has the voice of a boy but carries a purse. “He is purple – the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle – the gay-pride symbol.”

    Falwell contends the “subtle depictions”' are intentional and issued a statement Tuesday that said, “As a Christian I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children.”

Of course, the fact that these famous/infamous warnings by McCarthy and Falwell both happen to be associated with the date February 9th is just a coincidence — OR IS IT!?!

February 7, 1968 – “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

On February 7, 1968, after American bombs, rockets and napalm had obliterated much of the South Vietnamese town of Ben Tre — killing hundreds of civilians who had lived there — an unnamed U.S. officer gave an oft-quoted explanation for the destruction.

This is how Associated Press journalist Peter Arnett reported it:

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” a U.S. major said Wednesday. He was talking about the grim decision that allied commanders made when Viet Cong attackers overran most of this Mekong Delta city 45 miles southwest of Saigon. They decided that regardless of civilian casualties they must bomb and shell the once placid river city of 35,000 to rout the Viet Cong forces.

When Arnett’s story about the destruction of Ben Tre hit the news the next morning, February 8th, the major’s quote immediately became infamous. To this day, it is still cited as a classic quotation that epitomizes the insanity of war in general and of the Vietnam War in particular.

The veracity of the quote has also been a source of controversy. Since Arnett did not identify the officer who supposedly used the line, some people have questioned whether anyone actually said it.

In 2006, a Vietnam veteran named Michael D. Miller created a website titled “Saving Ben Tre.” On that site, Miller claims to have been present when a “Major Booris” said something very close to what Arnett reported. Miller gives the quote as: “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.”

Like Arnett’s report, Miller’s version has been disputed.

More significantly to the people of Vietnam, there has been a long-running dispute over whether Ben Tre actually had to be destroyed.

The U.S. military’s official explanation of why “it became necessary to destroy the town” is that it had been infiltrated by thousands of Viet Cong. Thus, their rationale went, trying to oust the VC in ground-level fighting, from street to street, would have caused a high number of American casualties and even more civilian casualties.

Perhaps they were right. But somehow, Arnett’s report on the outcome doesn’t quite smell like victory:

U.S. advisers said the heavy allied firepower hurled on the city to drive out the Viet Cong probably contributed largely to the deaths of at least 500 civilians and possibly 1,000. South Vietnamese officials say the enemy dead totaled 451. About 50 Vietnamese soldiers died, along with more than 20 Americans...Lt. Col James Dare of Chicago, commander of U.S. Advisory Team 93, said “we will never know for sure” the number of civilians who died…Maj. Chester L. Brown of Erie, Pa., spent hours over the city as an Air Force forward air controller directing helicopter and fighter-bomber attacks. “It is always a pity about the civilians,” he said.

The AP story went on to say:

U.S. officials reported it was impossible to determine the attitude of the city’s residents to the bombing and artillery fire. “Most of those we see around appear mighty relieved that they survived,” one official said, “But I know that there are lots of refugees, maybe 10,000 to 15,000, outside of town in a camp and they may not be so happy.”

I suspect that last quote was a bit of an understatement.

Updating the origin of the term “a self-made man” (Henry Clay didn’t coin it)

If you start looking into claims about the origins of many common phrases, you find that many of those claims are essentially theories or myths that were made up at some point and then repeated.

Other phrase “origins” are based on the earliest example recorded in the venerable Oxford English Dictionary or some other authoritative source. 

Now, by using resources like Google Books, it is much easier to verify — or disprove — claims about the “first use” of phrases.

And, it’s not uncommon to find out that what has long been cited as the origin or earliest recorded use of a phrase is neither.

For example, many books and websites say that the term “a self-made man” was coined by the American politician Henry Clay (1777-1852).

While serving as the U.S. Senator for Kentucky, Clay made a speech on the floor of the Senate on February 2, 1832 in which he said:

“In Kentucky, almost every manufactory known to me, is in the hands of enterprising and self-made men, who have acquired whatever wealth they possess by patient and diligent labor.”

The Oxford English Dictionary lists this as the first recorded use of the term “self-made men.”

The writers of a number of history books have assumed that this was the origin of not only “self-made men” but “self-made man” and claimed that it was.

So, if you Google “Henry Clay” + coined + “self-made man” you find many sources that say Henry Clay coined the term “self-made man.”

But, in fact, he didn’t.

Another great online research tool, NewspaperArchive.com, has searchable PDF copies of American newspapers going back to the early 1700s.

I did a search in NewspaperArchive.com and found an earlier use of “self-made man.”

It’s in a letter signed by a “Prof. Newman” that was published in the October 9, 1828 issue of the Delaware Advertiser and Farmer's Journal.

The heading above the letter is “A SELF MADE MAN” (with no hyphen).

Newman’s letter is about Roger Sherman (1721–1793), the Connecticut statesman and politician who served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence and later served as Connecticut’s Senator in the new U.S. Congress.

Professor Newman’s letter notes that Sherman rose from humble beginnings to “the Halls of our Congress” and “was a self made man.”

So, while the term “a self-made man” is associated with the date February 2nd, the reason for the association is that it has long been believed that Henry Clay’s speech on February 2, 1932 was the origin of the term.

I have now blown that theory.

Stop the presses on the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary! I have an edit…

Why Jefferson said: “A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing.”

In 1786, the new democratic government of the United States of America wasn’t quite working out like some Revolutionary War veterans expected.

Many had not been paid for their military service as promised. But when they went back to their family farms, they found they had to pay heavy state taxes imposed to help fund the new state government and pay off government war debts owed to rich merchants.

Farmers who couldn’t afford to pay their taxes and other debts had their farms seized and were thrown in debtors prison.

In response, angry veterans in Massachusetts began joining together to take over and shut down local courts. One group tried to take over the local armory.

This mini-revolt — called “Shays’ Rebellion” after one of its leaders, Daniel Shays — was quickly and forcefully crushed by the state militia, under orders from Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin.

Many of the “rebels” were put in prison. Some were executed, as recommended by Founding Father Samuel Adams, who argued:

“Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.”

Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris at the time, disagreed. Two of Jefferson’s most famous quotes are from letters he wrote expressing his opinions about Shays’ Rebellion.

One of those oft-cited quotations — “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing” — was in a letter he wrote to James Madison on January 30, 1787.

Jefferson said in the letter that a democratic government like America’s “has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing.”

He continued:

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.  Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them.  An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much.  It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Later that same year, Jefferson penned another famous quote that referred to Shays’ Rebellion:

In a letter to Col. William Smith, dated November 13, 1787, he said:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Both of Jefferson’s famous quotes about Shays’ Rebellion are still frequently cited by people who are mad as hell about something the government has done.

Few people today actually believe the sentiments Jefferson expressed should be acted out literally. However, the gun-toting protesters at last year’s Tea Party protests against the Democrats’ health care plan may be among those few.

Perhaps some of them are descendants of Daniel Shays.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Further reading and viewing about Shay's Rebellion...