As strange as it is to think about a children’s book discussing the topic of an assassination, I have found a book that does just that. Granted, this book is not for kindergarten children (it seems to be 4th or 5th grade level) but it still discusses the day of Kennedy’s assasination and the conspiracy behind it.

I think this book would be a good suggested reading for the class during our discussion of JFK. This book is a good demonstration of how even civil texts can mold the young public’s opinion even on a mystery of Kennedy’s death. After reading the book directed for children, the widest audience for legends, we can compare the contents to our notes on Kennedy’s impact and image today.

The book is fairly informative, going step by step of the day Kennedy was shot to the death of his supposed killer. It then explains the case of the Warren Commission which determined that Oswald worked alone. Afterwards, it goes over the conspiracy theories along with the motivation and circumstantial evidence  behind them. Among the cases were: Castro-supporters, Anti-Castro rebels, the Mafia and even an agency in our own government, the CIA. It discusses the mysterious evidence from the “magic” bullet that supposedly zig-zagged through two bodies only to come out pristine to the dissapearance of another bullet from the scene. It also talks about the mysterious dissaperances and deaths of key witnesses. I would say that this is pretty heavy topics for children.

One thing that can be noted is that this book is at a higher level than the usual books about famous Americans like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. That means that John Kennedy would be taught at a later time than some other historical figuers. But why? Why do we always teach the children the heroes that come first? Is it out of respect for the chronological history of America? Or is it because it is out of convinience? As time goes on, stories become myths which become legends of exaggerated and questionable proportions. Do we pick the oldest legends in order to inspire awe into the minds at young age? We discussed in class earlier why children were taught of Harriet’s nineteen trips and 300 freed slaves when the evidence show owtherwise. And the legend of Harriet Tubman spent decades in anonymity before fame brought her back into public attention. Similarly, the story of Davy Crockett’s death at the Alamo went uncontested for much longer before it was brought back to stardom. Many stories we have studied have gone into “hibernation” before emerging as fully formed legens. Some others like Washington began as legends and have continued on to be so. Is that to say that as time goes on, even the JFK conspiracy theories (which are extensive enough as they are now) will one day be even more exaggerated and famous than it is now?

Works cited

Landsman, Susan. A History Mystery Who Shot JFK?. 1. New York: Avon Books, 1992. 1-90. Print

In many heroes and legendary Americans, many seek to acquire a complete knowledge over him or her. They seek the characteristics of their greatness. One side they try to see them is their own religion because it highlights their belief in worldly and spiritual matters along with an outline of their morals. Unlike famous Americans like George Washington for which there is little information on his religious belief, Harriet Tubman’s spirituality is a huge core of her actions and reputation. But how does Harriet’s belief compare to that of her admirers’ like Bradford’s Protestantism belief?(Sernett, 132) Jean Humez observes : “The surviving sources suggest that Tubman’s view of relationship of human beings to God was very different from Bradford’s” (Sernett, 138). Harriet’s belief seems to be a mixture of  Christianity and that of African traditions.

Harriet’s belief is similar to that of her admirers’ Christianity. She believes in God and the power of prayers. However, her “God” is a very personal entity and her prayers were a way to communicate directly with him.(Sernett, 138) One demonstration of this personal conversation is seen in her recollections: ‘O,Lord, I can’t-don’t ask me- take somebody else.’ To which He replies: ‘It is you I want, Harriet Tubman’ (Sernett, 137)  It is worth noting that this view of God was common among ex-slaves and “have been associated with black revolutionaries such as Nat Turner and Gabriel Prosser”. Many other Christians saw God in the nineteenth century “as being relatively remote and possessing two faces….:the kind savior…..and the stern, intimidating judge.” They certainly didn’t claim that prayer allowed them to converse directly with God. (Sernett,137-138)

Many native African religious traditions were transferred to America and preserved in the South. One of the beliefs that survived was the belief of supernatural powers. It suggested that some individuals were born with unusual seer-like powers. One example is Nat Turner who was reported to have unnatural abilities due to him being born with a caul.(Sernett, 144) Harriet Tubman was also famous for her visions which foretold the Civil War, her own freedom (Sernett, 135) and the Emancipation Proclamation (Sernett, 145).  Other ex-slaves believed that some led a “charmed” life which gave them the power to avoid capture. Harriet was suggested to have thought she had these powers courtesy of the Lord.  One man is reported to have said ‘Moses is got de charm…..De whites can’t catch Moses, kase you see she’s born with de charm. De Lord has given Moses de power.” (Sernett, 134) Another link to Harriet’s tie with native African traditions was her openness to them. Many northerners were mystified by the mysterious dancing and singing of the southern slaves. However, Harriet participated in these traditions with these slaves during the civil War and was able to recall those years afterwards. (Sernett, 139) 

But if there are some who believed in Harriet’s divine sight, there were others who tried to find other causes of it. Earl Conrad, Tubman’s second major biographer, attributed the cause of her visions to her blow to the head along with her erratic sleep pattern. However, Conrad was inclined not to believe in the spirituality of Harriet’s vision. He was a believer of Marxist policies and described God as “a piece of heavy artillery, employed by the rich to keep the poor content.” (Sernet, 145) On the other hand, Dr. Riley of Battle Creek Sanitarium disagreed and hypothesized that her visions came from trauma and the brutality of the slave life, giving her a mental disease. Whichever the case, the lack of data has not been able to prove either argument. (Sernett, 141)

It is difficult to explain the source of Tubman’s visions without going into personal beliefs. However, there is little doubt that Tubman thought of herself as a Christian and a servant of God even if her view was different than that of other believers. It is interesting to note how the views of Tubman’s religion change over the years though. Sernett notes “many nineteenth-century Americans trafficked in spiritualism, including Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln.” It is probably at that time period that the largest amount of people saw her as a true Moses.(Sernett, 145) But as time went on, Marxist  Earl Conrad tried to explain her visions and belief in an atheistic sense through the science of her injuries. Even Dr. Riley attributed her belief to another abstract field of knowledge: psychology and mental disease. (Sernett, 140-141) So what does this pattern tell us? It reveals that sometimes history can be bent by the historians who write it. They may not silence it but they might twist or manipulate the words to fit the social values or personal beliefs at that time. It is a caution of how easily it is to believe the history that is told over the “true” history.

One of the famous incidents of Kennedy’s presedential career was the Cuban Missile Crises. The background of the incident was in September 1962 when U-2 spy planes took pictures of Surface-to-air Missile sites being built in Cuba. This placed Cuba in a poisition to shoot down future U-2 planes. Kennedy was now in a predicament. At that point, his legislation proposals were being blocked by Republicans and the conservative Democrats. He couldn’t cause any trouble with Cuba for fear of losing more voters in the elections two-months ahead and public polls showed his lowest popularity rating of all time. The Bay of Pigs (a failed invasion attempt of Cuba) was a reminder as to how the US wasn’t as powerful as before.
The situation changed in October 15, 1962, when U-2 planes took pictures of long-range missile sites being built in Cuba. Unlike Surface-to-air Missiles which were defensive, the long range missiles had America easily within its sites. Kennedy and his advisors held an emergency meeting that listed several options ranging from not doing anything to negotiating to full-out nuclear war. While the CIA and the military wanted to invade Cuba or bomb the sites, Kennedy decided to impose a naval blockade along with the promise of an attack if another U2 plane were to be shot down.
Meanwhile Americans were unceartatin about their future and many thought nuclear war would soon be a reality. However, Kennedy’s approval ratings soared and it showed a majority of the country approved of how he was handling the crises. In fact, the day that the Russian ships turned away from the naval blockade, Nikita accused Kennedy of escalating the situation into a crises for the benefit of the Democratic Party next election.
Kennedy later recieved letters from Nikita negotiating for the removal of the missiles. However, before the US could respond, another U2 plane was shot down. Many urged Kennedy to follow up on his claim but instead he accepted the terms of the removal of the missiles from Cuba.

Later on in the elections of 1962, the Democrat majority was increased and furthermore the extra 12 supporters would help Kennedy pass his legislation. Later on, the American missiles in Turkey which put the Soviet Union in danger would also be removed. However, since Nikita’s removal was public and Kennedy’s was later done in secret, Kennedy was shown in a better light while it appeared that Nikita caved in.

So what can we learn from this incident? We can see a pattern emerging from the legendary Americans in that their fame comes from actions in danger or crises. Washington had a divided nation to bring together. Davy Crockett had his last stand at the Alamo. Harriet Tubman fought for freedom in a dangerous time after the Fugitive Slave Act. Well, here Kennedy is seen as bringning the world back from nuclear warfare. I can see some legendary Americans as sort of heroes. When there is a sense of urgency or impending danger or confusion, there is always a person they will look up to and if that person is successful, his name will be remembered in legends.

Work Cited

Simkin, John. “Cuban Missile Crises.” n. pag. Spartacus Educational. Web. 4 Oct 2011. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm>.

Harriet Tubman is a legendary figure known as the “Moses” of her people. And like most legends, the details become greatly exaggerated over the course of time. One of the facts of Harriet’s life that is the most debated is the number of trips to the South she made along with how many slaves she ultimately rescued. The most famous statistics are 19 trips and 300 slaves but is this true or even remotely accurate?

Harriet herself has barely recollection of how many trips she made (except that she went to Canada 11 times) and the number of 19 trips first appears in Bradford’s 1869 Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman. Sarah Bradford records ” She went back and forth ninteen times, according to her firends.” So the original source of the number 19 wasn’t even Harriet herself but other un-named friends (Sernett,58). Due to Bradford’s earliness in recording Harriet’s interview and the subsequent dependency of other authors on Bradford, it is no surprise as to how the number 19 became so entrenched in history books. There are at least 9 recorded trips with details with Sanborn’s Commonwealth article of 1863 (Sarnett, 56). Oddly enough, If Harriet did indeed complete 9 trips, she would have crossed the North-South border 19 times including her first escape alone.

As to the number of slaves that she led to freedom, the popular media (thanks to Bradford) say she rescued more than 300. Thomas Garret, an abolitionist, estimated that  60-80 slaves were freed. But Bradford assumed he was only referring to the ones Harriet directed towards his station and estimated that she helped near 300 slaves overall. Over time “near” became “over”. But according to many sources though, the largest group Harriet ever led at a time was 11. Even if she did make ninteen round trips with 11 people each time, she would barely pass over the 200 mark. It is safe to assume that Garret’s own estimate is far much closer to the actual number than Bradford’s guess. (Sarnett, 65)

But even though she did not lead the hundreds or come back dozens of times into slave territory, we can infer that Harriet did in fact go back to help her people many times in a dangerous era. With the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act, Harriet had to go the extra miles and secure her people’s position under the “lions paw” up in Canada. Furthermore, there was a bounty for her head which was a small fortune to anyone if she were caught. Even if her facts and feats were exaggerated, it can be concluded that her bravery was not.

At the suggestion of Dr. McDaniel, I viewed the documentary called “Primary” which details the 1960 Wisconsin presedential primary. In it, the video compared two presedential hopefuls: Hubert Humphrey and John Kennedy. It is important to note that the Midwest was Humphrey’s “territory” as he relied on the farmer’s votes and other rural areas. The interactions with the common citizens and their campaign styles were notably different. Humphrey was shown to visit streets and campaign on the sidewalk by encouraging passer-bys to vote for him and give his speeches to anyone who would listen. One of his stops was at a local gathering of farmers where he tried to garner their support by implying that he was the only one willing to fight for them and that the rest of the country didn’t care for the farmers. Kennedy, on the other hand, had another impact socially. When his campaign stopped in an area, children would come and swarm him for his autograph; he didn’t have to ask for someone’s attention, he was famous enough to have them give it to him. In one of his speeches, he focused on the global issues at hand, citing the need for aid behind the iron curtain and the responsibility the US had to preserving the freedom in the world. A wordly subject very different from the regional concern Humphrey was concerned over. Hubert and John had different targets for voters. Hubert relied on the local farmers while John had the urban population to back him. One citizen mentioned that Kennedy was well in the “higher-class”. The night of the voting in Wisconsin initally showed Hubert Humphrey leading Kennedy from a ratio of 2:1 in votes. However, that was due to the fact that the rural districts were completed earlier. As time went on, it became apparent Kennedy would win by about the same ratio due to the urban and city districts. What can we learn from this? Kennedy was apparently already well-known before he was President. So does that mean that fame leads to position which leads to more opportunity of fame? It could be. Washington was the general of the continental army before becoming president. Davy Crockett was well known for tall tales as a Congressman before his death at the Alamo. So where does the circle begin?

Works Cited
Drew, Robert, Dir. Primary. Dir. Robert Drew. Perf. Kennedy, John. 2003. DVD.

John Brown didn’t intend to become a martyr for the cause of slavery. His Harper Ferry plan intended to arm the slaves and fight alongside them for their freedom (Webb,5). However, due to miscalculations, the effort appeared to have been in vain. After his capture, he knew he was doomed to die. So he intended his death to be of the most use to the anti-slavery cause (Drew,59). After the initial shock of his actions had passed, Brown and his abolitionists partners set out to create a martyr out of his image.

Everything fell into place almost perfectly, the trial was shown in an unfavorable light from Brown’s injury to the obviously biased judge. Brown himself displayed no hesitation in his last days. In his correspondence with his friends in the North he accepted his role as dying as a martyr and even reveled in it (Drew,43).

But how can a man become a marytr after such a violent raid? That is where the story of the kiss comes in. Its function is to pardn Brown’s faults. Brown’s friend Sanborn claims “In heroes, faults are pardoned, crimes forgotten, exploits magnified—their life becomes a poem or a scripture—they enter on an enviable earthly immortality.”(Webb,13) The symbol of the kiss is to represent the good intentions Brown had. The supposed time it occured plays a significant part too. The story states that as John Brown is being led to his death out of jai, he stops to kiss an African child. The meaning is to symbolize that even when John Brown is about to die, he still holds to his ideas of love and freedom of slaves. With this action, his sins are forgiven in the eyes of many and his actions are deemed misguided or impractical but with good intent(Redpath, 461).

So how did this legend come into being? There is good evidence showing that John Brown quoted that he would rather have a slave mother and her children following him to the gallows rather than a priest (Redpath,457). Also, Brown was on good terms with his jailer Captain Avis who probably owned slaves and their childrens.(Drew,52) It is possible that Brown did have some interaction with a slave child. Either way, the two above fact probably combined and created the legend that is so well-known today.

The story of the kiss was the final “act” that John Brown had to do to complete his martyrdom. The “unfair” or “tragic” circumstance of his death was established already. All that needed to be done was one final reminder of his purpose along with something to wipe out or justify his “sins”. The story of Brown and the slave child fit the bill perfectly and his martyrdom was complete.

John Kennedy was famous for being the first (and only) Catholic President to have been elected. But why did it matter? The reason why so many paid attention to John’s religious affiliation was because of the tension between Protestant and the Catholic presence at the time.

Generations ago, the influx of immigrants of Irish Catholic flooded the East Coast. The Protestant Yankees resented their presence and felt anxious that their position over the city would soon be jeopardized. Soon, discrimination from both sides followed. And now in the mid-nineteenth century, Protestants were starting to feel that same pressure in the political arena. Catholic officials were starting to be elected in high offices such as senators or governers particularly after WW2(Burns,238).Another worry was that of the papal authority over Catholics. As stated, in the Vatican Council of 1870, the pope was infallible in all cases. Many feared that the papacy would have influence over national policy in America, a nation proud of its seperation of church and state. The anticipated spheres of influence ranged from education to medicine(Burns,239).

Kennedy himself never made a display of his religon and was firm in his belief in the seperation of Church and State(Burns, 241). As he states “Nobody in my church gives me orders. It doesn’t work that way….Besides, I can’t act as a private individual does; my responsibility is to my constituents and to the Constitution.”(Burns, 243) Ironically, many Catholic officials criticized him for pushing his religion into “private life”(Burns,247). Strangely enough, Kennedy had never faced such strong interests by others until then. He had not experienced anti-Catholic bias before(Burns, 241).

This wasn’t the first time a Catholic had ran for Presiadent. Al Smith was also a Catholic that made it clear of his devotion to seperation of Church and State(Burns,240). So what was the difference? One was the time Al ran for the 1928 presidency while Kennedy would be running more than 30 years after. That was pleanty of time for the social view of Catholics to change and allow for Catholics to adapt from their immigrant status. Another was their image. Al Smith purposely ran under the image of who he was. He presented himself as a city boy from the slums.(Burns, 252) Meanwhile Kennedy, was “a member of the Senate’s ‘inner club’, holder of a Harvard honorary degree and a Harvard overseer…..a long way from the Irish cottage and the Boston slum.”(Burns, 237)

So what can we learn from this incident? Well, learning the truth of Kennedy’s views on religion and state can help us in determining the views of others despite the rumors or what others say.  We also can see a bit more on the impact of America’s devotion to the seperation of church and state. The election of Kennedy not only shows America’s ability to stay true to its foundations but also a barrier being overcome. Studying Kennedy can show us how to overcome other barriers in society.

Works Cited

Burns, James. John Kennedy A Political Profile. New York: Harcourt,Brace &Company, 236-252. Print.

The Alamo is thought to be a symbol of brave men who were willing to fight to the death in order to protect their liberty (Crisp,145). Therefore, the thought of allowing Davy Crockett a death outside of the battlefield is thought by most of Crisp’s critics to be impossible. But to see why Davy’s death at the Alamo is so important. We need to see why the Alamo was important in the first place.

It is interesting to note that the Alamo ” the building so cherised today was being used as a grocery warehouse” in dates as late as the 1870s. But the “significance” of the Alamo became apparent in Texas around the early 1900s when an influx of Mexican immigration raised the racial tension among the Anglo citizens. Anglo-Americans tried to supress the Mexicans by using methods like the poll tax and other segregation laws. Thus, the Alamo was transformed into a legend, a clear-cut legend  of Anglos vs. Mexican with no in betweens (despite the fact 9 of 11 defenders were Tejanos). The white defenders were thought of a s martyrs for a noble cause. Hutton describes cherised heroes as “always vastly outnumbered by a vicious enemy from a culturally inferior nation bent on the destruction of its people.” (Crisp, 145-153) 

What better man deserved the above the description than Davy Crockett? “King of the Wild frontier” claimed by Disney. Surely, man of his character would go down fighting than surrendur and be at the enemy’s mercy! Hutton observes strangely that the story of Crockett’s surrender and death as a war prisoner remained uncontested for the 19th century and ” was quite common..and seemed to upset no one.” Hutton sees the sudden defense of the Fess Parker disney as a “post-Disney phenomenon” (Crisp, 147),

As for my view on Davy’s death, I wasn’t born in the 1950s where he may have been the hero for my age. To me, Davy Crockett was a popular historical figure who died in a historical death. Davy’s death or how he died specifically died is not that significant in its after effects. He was no Archduke Ferdinand. In fact, his death story went unchallenged for decades until Disney (Crisp,147). Now, many fans are standing up for Davy Crockett as if they knew him by his character portrayed by Fess Parker. History is a collection irrefutable facts and truths. It is disturbing to find out that  if someone (mass media) says a believable fact (regardless if it’s true or not) and spreads it far enough, it will eventually be regarded as true. Do I care how Davy die? Not exactly. I am really interested as to what is this power over history that dictated how he died. This power,utilizing Davy’sdeath,  has created a controversy among historians, a legacy Davy himself couldn’t have done in life much less just in death.

One of the main reason why the Davy Cockett craze occured was because of the television and its great influence over consumers. The Crockett campaign was one that occured at an opportune era. Randy Robert reports that  the Davy Crockett series aired in the 1954-1955 years,when the television was starting to get popular as evinced by the fact the percent of households having television increased from 7 percent to 58 percent from 1950 to 1955. Margaret Kings also observes that the Davy Crockett had one of the largest audiences the era had to offer, the baby boom. Davy Crockett was a figure marketable to all children, boy or girl, from ages 2 to 12. Television David Karp once remarked that TV “is an advertising medium….They are not supposed to be any good. They are supposed to make money.” In this case, the television’s potential was proven. Everything Davy related went off the shelf from toy guns and knives to his trademark coonskin hat. In fact the demand of the coonskin hat greatly increased the cost of the skin from 25 cents per pound to almost 8 dollars in some regions. The TV was so powerful that even non-Davy related items were enjoying the benefits. Davy soap, Davy towels, Davy clothes, Davy blankets were all popular. Such was the power of the tube at that time.

But Davy Crockett didn’t become popular just because of his presence on the small screen. He had to have had a quality that could connect to the people at the time. The quality of the real Davy Crockett didn’t matter; only the way he was portrayed did. Davy was seen as a war hero comparable to one who fought in the Cold War. Roberts compares the setting of Crockett to America at the time. Both places appeared to be an area where liberty was under siege. In the movie it was Texas fighting Santa Anna. In real life, the fights of the Communist spread occured in many nations such as Korea and parts of Europe. The Alamo siege was even compared to that of other American defeats. The enemy were depicted as generic soldiers swarming over the walls to victory. In both cases, the heroes held their position even when they faced overwhelming odds in manpower.

The content of the portrayal of Davy Crockett helped his fame by connecting himself to the hearts of many Americans. But it was only through the power of television that the Crockett craze reached its highest potential. With its large audience and commercials, it can be said that television was a integral part of the craze.

I propose to my group that we spend the semester studying the 26th President Theodore Roosevelt. He was a unique character who not only excelled in the politcal arena but in many fields also. In addition to famously serving in city, state and national levels, he was renown for being a naturalist, soldier, explorer and author. He is also considered one of the most-well-read president by many historians. Also, he well known for robust personality and “cowboy” attitude.

Born with asthma, Theodore was home-schooled but took to exercise in order to strengthen his body. He took up boxing when he want to Harvard and would continue to for most of his life. When the Spanish-American War broke out, he became a key leader in the Department of the Navy. He resigned to fight in Cuba in the regiment known as the “Rough Riders”. He would later be awarded a Medal of Honor for his service.
When he was office, his primary goal to was to combat corruption from the police of New York City to the big business trusts of the US. He offered what he called the “Square Deal” which he assured every American would have a fair chance and opportunity. In foreign affairs, ” speak softly and carry a big stick” was his famous phrase. This allowed him to be aggresive against the European nations in their affairs in Latin America. But Roosevelt was also a peacemaker; he won a Nobel Prize (being the first American to do so) for mediating the peace talks between the Russians and the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. Theodore was also a proponent of the conservatinalist movement and helped save many natural parks from destruction.

Theodore Roosevelt was everything at his time. He fought the Cubans abroad and corruption at home. He hunted game in exotic lands and explored the wilderess of America. His mind was as strong as his body. Such an interesting man would be an excellent subject for a study of Legendary Americans.