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.