Comments on: I Guess That Could Be Why…

By: Ewe

Ewe — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:42:01 +0000

What, Maggie Gallagher couldn’t be bothered to do 90 seconds worth of Google research?

By: Larry Glickman

Larry Glickman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:07:00 +0000

Actually, Francis Bellamy’s Pledge was unveiled at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. So it was around for more than 50 years before this clause was added.

By: sam

sam — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:04:42 +0000

I’m old enough to remember reciting the pledge sans the God stuff…and how we all stumbled the first few times we had to insert ‘under God’ between ‘one nation’ and ‘indivisible…’. Even to my tender ears at that time, the addition seemed to upset the rhythm of the pledge.

By: RickRussellTX

RickRussellTX — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:46:08 +0000

“written by a bonafide socialist!”

In Bellamy’s defense, if you read what he actually wrote, his “socialism” was of the French republican variety. Brotherhood, equality, and liberty and all that. He wasn’t a Marxist or anti-capitalist.

His cousin Edward Bellamy was an avowed Marxist and socialist.

By: y81

y81 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:50:53 +0000

No, not at all. I presume Gallagher would say that the 1950s modification of the Pledge of Allegiance brought it into closer conformity with American tradition, and I certainly would say that the actual factors that brought about that change are unknown to most people, and not relevant to its current meaning.

Put another way, I don’t believe the etymology of the word “etymology.”

By: One Nation Under A Groove « Around The Sphere

One Nation Under A Groove « Around The Sphere — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:33:48 +0000

[...] Julian Sanchez on Gallagher: Well… that’s a fair guess, I suppose. In reality, the Knights of Columbus lobbied to have the phrase added in the 50s—after the pledge sans “under God” had been around for 30 years already—as a way of stressing how different we were from those godless Soviets. [...]

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:31:42 +0000

I assumed y81′s comment was tongue-in-cheek.

By: Matt D

Matt D — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:31:09 +0000

y81–we’re talking about its role as a tradition, though. Seems relevant in that context.

By: y81

y81 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:38 +0000

Mr. Sanchez is making a big and unsupported (though possible supportable) leap here, by asserting that the historical origin of a signifier determines, or is even relevant to, its current significance. There would need to be a lot of epistemological groundwork done before I would accept that assertion.

By: Derek Scruggs

Derek Scruggs — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:00:21 +0000

Even better, the original pledge was written by a bonafide socialist!