WORKS IN PROGRESS

Forthcoming book: Revolutionary Founders (to be published by Alfred A. Knopf in 2011). Historians Alfred Young, Gary Nash, and Ray Raphael have engaged 25 leading scholars to contribute original biographical essays on people who promoted radical causes during the Founding Era. Although these men and women shared no single agenda, many resisted the concentration of power in the hands of the few. Many believed that “liberty” meant “liberty for all” or that the notion of equality should be applied to political, economic, and religious spheres. Often, they embraced the notion of  “democracy.” In the context of the times, such perspectives were considered radical. By contrast, the traditional “Founding Fathers” did not apply the concept of liberty across the board, approached the notion of equality only cautiously, and for the most part considered democracy suspect.

The “revolutionary founders” promoted and exemplified ideals more in keeping with our values today, yet they rarely make an appearance in standard texts. The core narrative of our nation’s history makes no acknowledgment of a radical presence during the founding era, which Americans often consult as they define the ideals of the nation. It usually dates the radical or progressive tradition as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Revolutionary Founders will present a new reading of the Revolution, a fresh look at a generation of radical thinkers and doers who helped shape our nation at the outset.

Next book, early stages. Raphael is beginning to work on a narrative account of the creation of the American presidency. Unlike other treatments of this subject, his will cover not only the Federal Convention, but also the precedents before 1787; the views of people out-of-chambers, including Antifederalists, whose doubts the “Framers” needed to assuage; and the interactions between presidents and their various constituencies during the first three administrations. 

Founding Myths for elementary and middle school. Marie Raphael, middle school teacher and author of young adult novels (Streets of Gold and Boy from Ireland), is considering writing about several of our national creation myths for a youthful audience. The book would be co-authored by Ray Raphael and tentatively titled Better Yet: Amazing Tales of our Patriotic Past. Since the American Revolution is often featured in elementary and middle school curricula but revisited only briefly by older students, how we tell the story at that initial stage is of critical importance. Tale-by-tale, Marie and Ray hope to show that it is “better yet” to honor the deeds of the real people who made the Revolution. Paul Revere, for instance, is no longer the lone rider; he is accompanied by a highly organized and well prepared resistance network.

Textbook Improvement. There is no reason history textbooks should be perpetuating nineteenth century mythologies in the twenty-first century. Ray continues to work to update our core narrative of the American Revolution. See Rate Your Textbook.

The Grammar of History. Why and how do people’s histories get hidden by the myth-making inherent in story-telling and nation building? What is it about our linguistic habits, our memory, our collective psyche, and our social/political structures that makes us reduce the contributions of the many to the legends of the few? In the dynamics of historical processes, what is the relationship between the individual and the group? How do individuals affect history, and how are they affected by history? How are some individuals chosen for the core narrative, while others are forgotten? Who makes that choice? What do we gain and loose by transforming group dynamics into tales of personal achievement — and why is this tendency so difficult to resist? Can we take what is positive about mythology and somehow integrate it into a responsible telling of history? While some of these questions are raised and briefly discussed in previous works, and Raphael’s narrative works reflect these concerns, he hopes someday to tackle them directly on the analytical level.

Corrections to previous books. Try as we might, we can never quite get it right. All works are in progress. The end of any book project is always somewhat arbitrary, determined at least in part by the author’s patience. Once the book is exposed to public scrutiny, mistakes are observed — here are some from Ray’s Revolution books. If you see more, please let him know so he can post them on this site and correct in future printings.

Founders:

* Thomas Young did not inject Ethan Allen with a smallpox vaccine; that was not done till the late 1790s. Instead, he inoculated Allen with a small dose of the actual smallpox (variola) virus to induce a mild case of the disease. (25)
* The gallery in the Massachusetts State House assembly chamber was not “upstairs,” an entirely separate story, but rather a raised platform. (57)
* The first Massachusetts Bay Charter was in 1629, not 1621. (Page 152)
* Charlestown, Massachusetts, is misspelled “Charleston” on pages 176, 178, and 201. The genesis of this mistake is interesting. Charleston, South Carolina, is mentioned frequently in the book, since it was home to one my lead characters, Henry Laurens. Before the Revolution, Charleston was called “Charles Town” or “Charlestown,” and to establish historical authenticity, I went with contemporary usage in the early going. After that, in my draft, I found myself switching back and forth between contemporary and modern spelling. For clarity, I finally settled on the modern spelling for subsequent usages. To make sure I didn't miss any, I clicked “change all” on my computer — “Charlestown” to “Charleston” — and the Massachusetts town was swept up in the net! Then, because “Charleston, Massachusetts” never appeared in the index, the mistake remained undetected.
* Paul Revere landed of course on the Charlestown shore, not the Cambridge shore as misstated on page 179. (It was the Regulars who landed on the Cambridge shore.) This is a serious error, for it masks the critical role Charlestown’s patriots played in the alarm.
* Clarification: Dunmore’s Proclamation was written on November 7, 1775, but published a week later. For historical purposes, the date of its publication is more significant. (219, 220, 223)
* In chapter 12 (296): “Like Pennsylvania, each of the other states needed to develop a new constitution.” Although this is correct in spirit, it is technically incorrect. All states did have to decide how they would govern themselves in the future, but Connecticut and Rhode Island, which were charter colonies rather than royal colonies, chose to stick with their old forms, which had included basic structures for self-rule.
* Hamilton wrote his remarkable September 3, 1780, letter from Liberty Pole, New Jersey, as stated on page 361, not Liberty Tree, as appears on 360.

Founding Myths:
* In chapter 3 (61): “Samuel Adams was not a member of the Sons of Liberty …” This is misleading and perhaps inaccurate. There are two meanings to “Sons of Liberty” in Boston. The label can refer to the group meeting in John Marston’s tavern in the late 1760s (and possibly earlier or later as well), or in a generic sense to all of Boston’s most active patriots. Generally, in common usage, the later sense is intended. We do not have any membership list for the Marston’s tavern group, although we do know from extent letters written by active participants that they had “members” and “committees.” Samuel Adams is not among the handful of known members, but that in no way establishes that he was not active in that group. Since at least 45 people were, it seems likely that he was among them. See Founders (59) and the correspondence between the “Sons of Liberty from the Town of Boston” to John Wilkes, Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 47:190-211.
* In the fall of 1774, John and Samuel Adams were delegates to the First Continental Congress, not the Second Continental Congress (139).
Patriots dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, not 742 chests (69).
* “Jefferson’s image has suffered of late because he fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings.” (108) This sentence, as it stands, is misleading. We do not actually know that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Hemings’s children. DNA evidence is consistent with that hypothesis, but it does not prove conclusively that Thomas was the Jefferson whose DNA seems to have emerged centuries later in the Hemings’ line. Likewise, oral testimony coming through Hemings’s descendents, although suggestive, can in no way be deemed conclusive. My point is that Jefferson’s image has suffered since many people now believe in the Jefferson-Hemings connection. I am discussing here perceptions, not facts.

First American Revolution:
According to Revolutionary historian John Bell, John Howe’s spy report (195-196) is dubious. It did not appear until 1827, and it may have been conjured to please an American audience. Much of this material, however, duplicates the report by Captain Brown and Ensign D’Bernicre, which is definitely authentic. (See footnote 66, 251-252.)

People’s History of the American Revolution:
* In the hardback edition, most slaves with only one name were not listed in the index. This has been corrected in the paperback edition.
* The hardback edition (p. 9) stated there were as many religious pacifists as there were soldiers in the Continental Army. This is incorrect, although there were about 80,000 people who belonged to pacifistic religious sects.
* The myth that “Sam” Adams (should be “Samuel”) issued the “signal” for the Boston Tea Party is implied, although not explicitly stated (cloth, 18; paper, 22).See Founding Myths, chapter 3.
* The number of slaves who fled to the British from Washington and Jefferson needs to be revised (cloth, 262; paper, 331). See Founding Myths 185 and 319-320.
* Some of the sources for the numerous stories of common people could bear closer scrutiny. Tales appearing in 19th century local histories should be properly deconstructed.

Two Peoples, One Place.
On page 67, the pictures of L. K. Wood and Josiah Gregg should be reversed. The left image is of Gregg, the right of Wood.

More Tree Talk:
The takeover of the Pacific Lumber Company by MAXXAM was in 1985, not 1986 (171).