Francis Bellamy and the Socialist Origins of the Pledge

[Austin Willard Wright]

http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pdgech3.htm

http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pdgech4.htm

[Austin Willard Wright]

The pledge was written by a man who was to the left of Hillary Clinton. Comments?

[Drawsing]

I have researched this in the past. Yes, Bellamy was a misguided socialist. The pledge, however, has grown beyond him.

[newsperson999]

SIGN THE PETITION 8700 sigs and growing fast here

[Austin Willard Wright]

To endorse a pledge written by lover of socialism?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Yes, it has "grown" so much that even Gray Davis and Hillary Clinton enthusiastically endorse devoting class time to a teacher led pledge. Bellamy, the misguided socialist, would be pleased that not only the pledge but other forms of one-sided indoctrination (such as diversity training) are so prevalent in the public schools. He was a pioneer in this regard.

[anniegetyourgun]

It was a good start by this liberal socialist pastor who denounced his church affiliations in the end anyway. It was much improved in the last change, IMHO. Apparently it was the Knights of Columbus who lobbied the hardest to have it recognized in the form we have had it for these many decades. I hope it never changes.

[1rudeboy]

Comments?

Yeah, who cares?

[traditionalist]

Just because the author was a socialist does not make the pledge socialist. What within its content do you find socialist? Men with bad intentions sometimes can unwittingly produce something good.

[Kaslin]

You might want to read this thread and especially the first reply

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/707735/posts

[Austin Willard Wright]

Read the articles. As the author shows in detail, this was the original goal. I don't think so freepers would be so charitable if Gore or Hillary (who are much less socialist than Bellamy) penned such a document.

[1rudeboy]

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation [under God], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Yup, it's all a commie plot.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Three cheers for socialism eh? Some of us favor the American system of liberty. Apparently, you "don't care."

[Austin Willard Wright]

Did you read the articles? Under God was added decades after Bellamy's original pledge. If Al Gore adds "Under God" to Earth in the Balance, will you also endorse that?

[anniegetyourgun]

So sue him....and the U.S. government. It might get you on TV too.

[Austin Willard Wright]

So sue him? Very strange comment. When folks point out the horrors of Nazism and Communism in history, do you urge them to "sue" Marx and Hitler?

[1rudeboy]

That's right, I don't care. Our country is doomed. Why? Because the ostensible Defenders of the Republic are spouting that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a dead socialist.

An amusing historical fact has become an ideological litmus-test of life-or-death proportion. We're finished.

[cake_crumb]

"Any comments?"

I already know the origin of the pledge and how the words "One nation, under God" were added later....

and I don't care who wrote it. It is apropos. The American people like it, and we are sick and tired of having the thigs we like taken away by flag burners and those who continually tell us how 'evil' the 'old, dead guys' who founded this country were. SICK AND TIRED OF IT.

[traditionalist]

That's right, I don't care. Our country is doomed. Why? Because the ostensible Defenders of the Republic are spouting that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a dead socialist.

The real problem is the "ostensible Defenders of the Republic," as you put it, care less about the Republic and more about their ideology. If the Republic were to adopt a system of government they do not like, they will dump it like yesterdays garbage. Such people are not patriots but opportunistic ideologues. I'd rather a thousand enemies than a single ally like that.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Your right in one sense. Our country, and the original decentralist Republican dream, is largely dead. An especially bad sign is the increasing reliance on indoctrination in our public schools including teacher lead environmental propaganda, sex education proganda, diversity propaganda. Unlike you apparently, I back to beat back this trend toward teacher led indoctrination of which the pledge represented the entering wedge.

[traditionalist]

Read the articles. As the author shows in detail, this was the original goal. I don't think so freepers would be so charitable if Gore or Hillary (who are much less socialist than Bellamy) penned such a document.

Read my argument. Men with bad intentions, or "goals" as you put it, can at times produce something good. Put it another way, just because a pledge is written by a socialist does not mean the pledge is socialist. You are committing a logical fallacy.

The only thing I have seen attackers of the pledge manage to do is impugn the character of the author. Nowhere have I been able to see a single one cite anything in the pledge itself that is objectionable.

[SteamshipTime]

I have pledged an oath to the state and federal Constitutions as a lawyer and when I was in the USMCR.

I won't pledge allegiance to a flag or to the "republic" (which we haven't had for a long time) for which it allegedly stands. How can you pledge a loyalty oath to an institution that routinely pisses on its own charter? How are you protecting and defending the Constitution by supporting a regime which violates it?

Nor do I swear that this nation is "indivisible." I'm trying to convince my state to secede before the federal behemoth collapses.

[Wm Bach]

"Sigfried's Idyl" was composed by a rabid, foaming at the mouth, anti-semite named Richard Wagner. It's still one of the most beautiful works in the romantic repertoire. Even Jews purchase the CDs, perform in the orchestras, and even conduct the flower of that hateful German.

What the hell is your point?

[Austin Willard Wright]

"Something good?" Pledging allegiance to "a flag" always struck me as rather silly, in some sense a logical fallacy as you would phrase it. Also, there is some reason to ask questions about the term "indivisible" when one remembers that Bellamy intended to include fraternity as part of the pledge

More seriously, I don't entirely disagree with you. One of my concerns is the historical fallacy of other "traditionalists" who seem to take it for granted that the pledge is on a par with far greater documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These traditionalists also forget that the use of the pledge of indoctrinate students in public monopoly schools which was a precursor to the massive teacher-led indoctrination, including diversity training, which is pervasive today.

Interestingly, the advocates of "voluntary" teacher-led diversity training make exactly the same arguments as the pro-pledgers. They too claim that parents can alway "pull their kids out" if they object. Both conservatives and hard diversity leftists have much in common as to methods (if not ultimate goals) including a desire to impose teacher-led one sided indoctrination on *all* the young.

[x]

True enough, but for most people the associations aren't with socialism.

They are first of all with childhood and schooling. That's why it's not an oath to the republic or the Constitution or the nation, but to a representation of them. The symbol isn't taken as an end in itself, but as a way to represent the abstract idea to children.

Secondly the association is with the united nation that was able to defeat National Socialism, Fascism and Communism and overcome its own internal problems, divisions and prejudices. A looser libertarian league of sovereign individuals wouldn't have been able to achieve such victories. A commonwealth of independent states opting in and out at will or a regime with no ideological component or ideals or sense of community or solidarity would also have had real problems coping with external threats and providing the opportunities we have now.

The Bellamys didn't represent the path America should have taken, though theirs was to a large degree the path the country took. But the pledge does uphold the idea of liberty and justice, laudable ideals. The question to critics is whether the idea of some that "all you need is liberty" will prove as deficient in the end as the idea that "all you need is love."

But this suggests an interesting exercise. Rather than just view the oath as tainted by its author, how would you rewrite it? Understand, too that it has already been rewritten. To put God in, and also, perhaps, to take equality out.

[1rudeboy]

I have yet to see members of the world socialist movement clamoring that the Pledge has been misappropriated, or misunderstood, for that matter. The only "noise" is coming from folks who are trying to attribute the Pledge to the socialist movement.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Let's assume that Jewish children in monopoly public schools had to stand up in a daily indoctrination ritual (which had nothing to do with education) and sing Wagner's beautiful works. Would you be equally dimissive of those who dared to object as you seem to be in this case? There is (or at least should be) a distinction between education and one-sided indoctrination rituals be they for the diversity or "the flag."

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are forgotting about Hillary and Gray Davis. Bellamy would be proud that his fellow leftists are standing up for him. At least Hillary is consistent unlike some of the conservatives here!

[Austin Willard Wright]

Well, if private schools want to require all the kids to take the pledge, more power to them. I object to teacher-led one-sided indoctrination in monopoly public schools per se whether for diversity training of to pledge to the flag. Call me a crank but I believe public schools (as long as they exist) should be limited to education not indoctrination. If folks don't like it, they should send their kids to private school hence I think the SC decision on vouchers was basically a good thing.

[1rudeboy]

So let's see. Your problem with the Pledge is that it is a "daily indoctrination ritual." So what does that have to do with Bellamy being a socialist, again?

Talk about consistency.

[Wm Bach]

Let's assume that Jewish children in monopoly public schools had to stand up in a daily indoctrination ritual (which had nothing to do with education) and sing Wagner's beautiful works. Would you be equally dimissive of those who dared to object as you seem to be in this case? There is (or at least should be) a distinction between education and one-sided indoctrination rituals be they for the diversity or "the flag."

Let's go one further, let's assume that children of English heritage are forced to stand up and sing an anthem which celebrates the defeat of their ancestors.

I reject your notion that the pledge has nothing to do with education. Patriotism is a legitimate area of education. It dovetails quite nicely with civics. Education, like it or not, deals not only with math and language. It is necessary to indoctrinate (I am not afraid to use that word for it's correct purpose) children with ideas of morality and civic duty, that they may use the tools of math and language constructively.

Believe it or not, children are not naturally "good". They must be instructed in the ways of polite society, else they become a Lord of the Flies rabble, incapable of learning even the "pure" curricula which you seem to champion.

Coul you please specify exactly what words in the pledge offend you and why?

[1rudeboy]

Quite right. The flag is the symbol of an ideal. The Pledge attempts to place into words what the flag represents. Somehow, "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of alternating strips of red and white, and white stars on a blue quadrant," wouldn't inspire the same effect.

[Interious]

I don't care if it was written by Pol Pot. It is now part of the national fabric and must defended.

A non-issue.

[Interious]

I don't care if it was written by Pol Pot. It is now part of the national fabric and must be defended.

A non-issue.

[Lev]

I don't care if it was written by Pol Pot. It is now part of the national fabric and must be defended.

It must be defended just because it's part of the national fabric??? What would you say about slavery when it still existed in this country? Ritual circumcision? Cannibalism? These things were and are parts of some countries' national fabric...
Regards.

[zoyd]

I don't care if it was written by Pol Pot. It is now part of the national fabric and must be defended.

There's some serious critical thinking skills.

[traditionalist]

"Something good?" Pledging allegiance to "a flag" always struck me as rather silly, in some sense a logical fallacy as you would phrase it.

You take things too literally. No one is pledgeing allegance to a piece of cloth. When you pledge allegance to the flag you are pledging allegance to the nation. The flag symbolizes the nation.

Also, there is some reason to ask questions about the term "indivisible" when one remembers that Bellamy intended to include fraternity as part of the pledge

The civil war, for better or for worse (I belive for worse), established definitively that our nation is indivisible. To turn back the clock now after all these years is simply impossible. Indivisibility is not the established traditional principle.

More seriously, I don't entirely disagree with you. One of my concerns is the historical fallacy of other "traditionalists" who seem to take it for granted that the pledge is on a par with far greater documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Obviosuly such a view is stupid. The American nation is an entity that is far greater than any document. That is why it makes sense to peldge allegence to the nation rather than any particular document. It is a good practice regardless of who came up with it.

These traditionalists also forget that the use of the pledge of indoctrinate students in public monopoly schools which was a precursor to the massive teacher-led indoctrination, including diversity training, which is pervasive today.

Why is indoctrination necessarily bad? Teaching of ethics and marality is a form of indoctrination. Are you going to object to that as well? There are many positive forms of indoctrination, and indoctranting loyalty to the nation is one of them. And no, good indoctrination does not necessarily lead to evil indoctrination. Indeed, this contry managed to have 70+ years of good, pro-American indoctrination before any of that diversity nonsense popped up.

Interestingly, the advocates of "voluntary" teacher-led diversity training make exactly the same arguments as the pro-pledgers. They too claim that parents can alway "pull their kids out" if they object. Both conservatives and hard diversity leftists have much in common as to methods (if not ultimate goals) including a desire to impose teacher-led one sided indoctrination on *all* the young.

I don't believe parents should be allowed to "pull their kids out" of pro-American indoctrination. I think it should be compulsary.

[traditionalist]

Quite right. The flag is the symbol of an ideal.

No, it's not a symbol of an ideal, it is the symbol of our nation. Our ideals are part of what makes us a nation, but only a part. There's much more to it than that.

[1rudeboy]

You're bringing nothing to the argument. If you wish to proceed, please identify what you find in the Pledge that is so objectionable.

Arguing on the principle that "indoctrination is bad, therefore the Pledge is bad" is intellectual bubble-blowing. Witness your contribution to this thread.

[1rudeboy]

In retrospect, I read too much into your comment. Please consider my earlier reply a genral response to the forum.

[pgkdan]

I don't care who wrote it. The Pledge of Allegiance means more to our culture than this man's misguided political beliefs. Who care if some Baptist Youth Minister was a utopian socialist in the 1890's. Socialism seemed a whole lot more benign...even Christian, in the 19th century. He didn't have the benefit of having lived through the last century.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And look at how much better our culture has become since the "under God" was added. One would hate to go back to that time culturally.

[Lev]

Arguing on the principle that "indoctrination is bad, therefore the Pledge is bad" is intellectual bubble-blowing. Witness your contribution to this thread.

I was not addressing the merits of the Pledge, I was addressing a comment that something must be preserved just because it's in the fabric of the nation.

... please identify what you find in the Pledge that is so objectionable.

Religious content - "under God". It has no place in public schools according to the Constitution.
Regards.

[Austin Willard Wright]

LOL. It is really much ado about pathetically little, isn't it? If those who are wasting their time on trivial issues like the pledge, devoted that effort to abolishing the public school monopoly, far more could be accomplished toward the goal of bringing God back to the schools in a genuine, not trivial, sense.