Customer Reviews

To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I hadn't expected this book to be so engaging. It's provocative, but the provocation isn't planted by the author but is inherent in the material he reveals. After years in public school reciting the Pledge, I knew little about its history. Until now, although I've read of legal challenges involving the Pledge, I had little idea of the long history of court of its challenges.

How Ellis was able to present so much history, including legal issues, in a way suitable to a lay reader such as myself, I don't know. That's his gift.

One surprise was that the flag salute so resembled the Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute that it was modified in the 1940's. Having read of recent issues with nontheists objecting to the Pledge, it was a surprise to learn that strong objections to the Pledge and had come from religious people who considered the pledge and salute to be idolatry. This led to not only violence but also, for the children, explusion from school. It was these religion objections, not those of nontheists, that led to the court decision that the pledge and salute be voluntary in 1943. Nontheists wouldn't have been likely to object at this time because it wasn't until 1954 that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. Legal objection to that addition came not only from atheists but also from Buddhist organizations and the Unitarian Ministers Association.

Some key players in the Pledge story that Ellis cites are the ACLU, George Bush Sr, George W Bush, and Jesse Ventura. Jesse has one of the most astute comments about the Pledge I've ever heard. George Bush Sr seemed to have forgotten the "for all" portion of the Pledge when he said (quoted elsewhere): "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Compare Jesse Ventura's inclusive observation that "The United State of America exist because people wanted to be free to choose."

Ellis presents many positions, expressing his concern that we distinguish between true patriotism and manipulation of our Pledge. This book is likely to get you thinking about what our country stands for and how patriotism is best learned and expressed. Wisely, Ellis doesn't spout conclusions but rather raises question that may linger with you a long while after you finish your first reading of "To The Flag". Books like this keep America strong.

With new challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance taking place in modern times, it's important to understand the origins of the Pledge, and To The Flag: The Unlikely History Of The Pledge Of Allegiance provides this background, examining its original writing in 1892 and various challenges to its authority and style up to present times. From the schoolhouse flag movement and first use of the Pledge to its modern meaning to new immigrants, To The Flag should be on the shelves of any high school or public library strong in American history.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, and the divided states of America, and to the tyranny, for which it stands, one nation, under Christ, for liberty and justice for some...

As school children, we were all well versed on the pledge of allegiance, the words came naturally after the first year of instruction. We approached each morning by reaffirming our loyalty to the state, and most often, little was done in protest. The true essence of this oath however, was lost on a mere technicality. It was aimed at children who were uninterested in the real nature of the pledge, and were thus reciting it without a conscious acknowledgment of its meaning or history. Children have become so accustomed to the militaristic structure of the classroom, that the pledge has been disguised amongst the rigid class room bell, the manicured rows of seats, and the affinity for discussion initiated by a hand raising salute. Yet, Richard Ellis' book, To The Flag, raises concern about ignoring this paradoxical ritual, and having our apathetic opinions of the seemingly simple oath, go unquestioned. Ellis exposes the rich history of the pledge and thus challenges its influence on U.S. history.
Today, the pledge of allegiance continues to be a part of political discussion and controversy, yet selective memory has rarely exposed its important history. Just last week, a federal district judge in California declared the `under god' clause in the pledge to be unconstitutional. The decision was based on the fact that it violates a child's ability to seek separation from the church within the state. To The Flag chronicles the evolution of the pledge and the critical turning points which, among others, included this addition of the `under God' cause. Ellis highlights the manner by which fearful patriots amended the pledge in order to make evident the difference between the elitist American state and the evil Communist state, while also Americanizing a new generation of immigrants.
To The Flag presents the inception of the pledge by Francis Bellamy in 1892 as relatively uncontroversial and genuine, despite Bellamy's underlying racisms. At this early stage, the pledge represented the American affinity to capitalism and became one of the most effective marketing campaigns of all time. Initiated by the need for community unification, and "part of an effort to rekindle the patriotic flame of the Civil War", Francis Bellamy and his compatriots at Youth's Companion (a popular magazine of the time) wanted to solidify a united American front. They decided that one of the best ways to inspire nationalism was to promote the presence of the American flag in public space, and they used the "Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Discovery of America by Columbus" to spearhead this project. By 1889 a nationwide campaign began to enforce not only the presence of the flag in public schools, but the recitation of Bellamy's pledge of allegiance. Schools had been targeted because they "were the place for education in intelligent patriotism and citizenship" (16). Ellis reveals the way in which the General Army of the Republic and various political leaders later piggybacked on this crusade by introducing the pledge as an American staple, and thus moving the pledge into a new stage.
Bellamy's influence in establishing a greater respect for the flag became the cornerstone for a new campaign of elitists. Various patriotic veteran groups, and political organizations who were fearful of the great influx of immigrants, demanded loyalty to America. The end of World War I brought upon the need to solidify the presence of the pledge, and "pressure to standardize it increased dramatically" (58). Loyalty needed to be expressed through verbal affirmations, as well as in acceptance of more broad American traditions and ideals. Yet these patriots wanted more than to hear a pledge of allegiance, they wanted to be constantly reassured that the newcomers would embrace capitalism, industrialization, the Lord, and American law. They wanted to Americanize the new immigrants before they created "states within a state" (38). This new phase of the pledge reflects upon the anxiety of those in power over the infiltration of subversives. Since America was a very young country, Ellis offers readers the explanation of a civic state.
Its "national identity is unlike national identity in most other counties. American national identity... is rooted in shared political ideas, whereas `for most peoples, national identity is the product of a long process of historical evolution involving common ancestors, common experiences, common ethnic background, common language, common culture, and usually common religion" (213).

This idea of a civic nation makes the importance of instilling American ideals and political thought onto immigrants quite crucial. America needed to break the newcomer's tie to their homeland, of which they had a blood relationship, and replace it with a deeper love for American soil and culture. An appreciation for and understanding of diverse cultures was certainly not a characteristic of these elitist nationalists.
The pledge's racist undertones were only the beginning, as a new concern would arise leading the pledge into yet another phase. While the pledge's authors were religious men, they had never intentioned for the pledge to incorporate religion. The pledge's transformation into incorporating the `under god' clause in 1954 therefore represents a significant turning point. This very clearly reflects the limitations of freedom within the United States with regards to autonomy from a state endorsed religion. While the pledge claims to be advocating a land based on liberty, it is simultaneously preaching an imposing point of view. Ellis unfortunately saturates this section of the book with mass quantities of inconsequential case studies. This attention to detail may speak highly of his motivation in research, but its effect is damaging. The redundancy of the cases only adds uncomfortable length to these chapters thus making the intertwined conclusions trite. Evidently, despite the initial public resistance that clearly fascinated Ellis in his research, the collective conscious of Americana has grown to accept the God-infused pledge. It is now considered the original, unquestionable American staple, when in fact its history is much more controversial.
Ellis' book is effective in that it explores the way in which a society can be swayed, manipulated, and seduced into behaving and thinking in a certain way. The American people were persuaded into developing an unfounded need for Bellamy's product. This represented the strong impression of capitalism on the general public by American officials and leaders. Later on, racist fears over immigration and political diversity in the form of communist ideals, forced the pledge to undergo various changes to its structure and overall meaning. Mandating the pledge became an ironic representation of American hypocrisy. Ideally, the pledge would have "an almost mystical power to dissolve social divisions, harmonize social classes, and neutralize radicals" (71), what ended up happening was classes were divided, liberties fractured, and freedom was put in jeopardy. The pledge has become much more than a few simple words, as Ellis has constructed, and the timeline is quite telling. It has grown to be an entity of its own, representing a variety of ideals and anxieties which have morphed over time. While children may not grasp the real implications of the pledge during their morning rituals, we must take responsibility, as adults, to acknowledge the importance in unearthing this rich history. Mr. Ellis' book provides us with this opportunity, and is thus a worthy read.

As hard as it is to remember my education as a child, I do remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance each morning in elementary school. Standing tall next to my fellow classmates, we spoke the words that ostensibly represented our country of America. Year after year this salute became ingrained in my head - not as a poem that reminded me of my patronage, but as a boring and irrelevant chore that I never thought to question. Today the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer mandated in schools, but it continues to be a controversial debate in politics. This topic is the subject of Richard Ellis' To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance.
At first glance, you might assume that this novel is solely a political scientist's objective articulation of history, and after reading the first five or six chapters, of facts regarding the Pledge. However, as Ellis begins to dive into the controversy surrounding the Pledge, he uncovers the significance of its success as a symbol of American identity, the changes it went through and why, and what it represents for citizens today. His historical style effectively traces the original Pledge, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, to the 2004 Supreme Court decision that made the thirty-one word oath unconstitutional.
For over a century, especially in the aftermath of mass immigration, World War II, the Cold War, and 9/11, the Pledge of Allegiance has played an important role in defining the American identity. The natural tendency of citizens is to unify against the current conflict, forcing them to justify their Americanness and allegiance to their country. Those who seem less patriotic are perceived as traitors. At these crucial times in history, nothing seemed to express more gratitude and respect than the salute to the flag while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Before the turn of the 20th century, there was a deep feeling of anxiety as America experienced an influx of foreigners immigrating into the schools, the work force, and the social communities. This sparked a movement to "Americanize" the immigrant children, and "create a `new man' from the mixture of different nationalities (pg 38)." The first step in Americanizing immigrants begins with the understanding of the American identity. The United States has no distinct religion, race, culture, or heritage, and this diversity is what truly represents America. Ellis posits, "For most peoples, national identity is the product of a long process of historical evolution involving common ancestors, common experiences, and common ethnic backgrounds (pg 213)." Therefore, the American identity is a myth that our nation has persistently attempted to construct. There was a strong effort made to subdue the anxiety of immigration by federally funding the placement of the American flag in schools, and requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited everyday. Soon the Pledge became the prime symbol of American patriotism, and with its success came resistance and disapproval. Many worried that "the flag salute, the singing, the national self-glorification will result in a nation of swashbucklers, not of patriots (pg.82)." Students who protested or refused to recite the Pledge were suspended from school, whipped by teachers, arrested, and in some cases imprisoned. Furthermore, some students who opposed the Pledge refrained from protesting, simply to avoid the embarrassment of being ostracized in front of their peers.
Those who opposed the Pledge faced even more insurmountable hurdles as the Cold War initiated a "fight against a common enemy: atheistic Communism (pg 130)." During this religious revival, many supported the movement to add the words `Under God' in the Pledge - further emphasizing the nation's religious identity of the time. Ellis states that "the strength of the United States, in the view of many, was its religious faith. And it was faith in God that distinguished the United States from the godless Communists (pg 127)." The addition of these two words may have distinguished our country from the Communists, but it excluded many people that either believed in more than one God or none at all. Moreover, it overrides the Constitutional Principles of the separation of church and state. Former President George H.W. Bush makes it clear in his response regarding atheists: "I don't know that Atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God (pg 218)."
It is obvious that the Pledge had good intentions when it was first written in 1892. Aside from being a nation under God, the words represent what our nation as a whole strives to symbolize. To the Flag clarifies the irony of the rhetoric in the Pledge, `a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.' In schools, our youth have been forced to recite the Pledge, and ironically this mocked the liberties they pledged. The notion that we live in a nation of indivisibility is completely false. Issues of class, race, gender, and religion have divided this nation for hundreds of years and continue to smear the image of equality. The Pledge does not represent the American identity; it simplifies and distorts the reality of our society and excludes so many individuals who constitute our nation. Ellis says it best when he reveals the true paradox of the Pledge: "backers of the Pledge are often cast as true patriots, but it is arguably those who would dispense a daily Pledge who harbor the greatest faith in the enduring power and strength of American institutions and American ideals (pg 222)." Ellis subtly reveals this important paradox to allow advocates of the Pledge to measure their own true spirit as Americans. Through this realization, they may begin to understand the reality of our nation, with or without a God, striving for indivisibility, liberty, and justice for all.

I should have been the youngest revolutionary leader in the world. At age five I could have organized everyone I knew-my family, church members, Cookie and all her brothers and sisters, and everyone in my first grade class. Together, we could have objected to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. We could have written the President using the extra large pencils or crayons, marched on Washington (if our parents did the driving) and objected to a marketing plan set in place since the 1880s by two innovative writers, turned community activists. The truth of the matter, however, is that I didn't mind or even think seriously about the Pledge as I learned it in first grade. Heck, I wasn't even saying the pledge, given my limitations with multi-syllabic words. Now, as an adult, having read Richard J. Ellis' To The Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance, I am now aware of the rich origins of the Pledge of Allegiance. As the author shares in his introduction, "I found that although there were some revealing accounts of aspects of the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, nobody had written an in-depth history of it." (pg. xvi) Ellis offers a much needed, albeit exclusionary at times, encyclopedic reference about the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ellis develops an amazing account of how two men, Colonel George Balch and Francis Bellamy, devised a marketing plan to increase subscriptions for "The Youth's Companion." Ultimately, their efforts resulted in the Boston-based magazine becoming, "one of the country's best known and most loved periodicals." (p. 5) As Ellis reveals, their initiative evolved from a number of anxieties surrounding "immigrants, materialism, radicalism, communism and the freedoms awarded American citizens." (pgs.xi-xiii) How these two men shaped early American history and even contemporary legislative and political atmosphere is the challenge that Ellis aptly delivered to his readers. An in-depth survey of the Pledge's history from the late 1800s until 2003, Ellis proves his research skills, and most readers will find his book easy to start.
There are, however, distractions. It's unfathomable, given the millions of enslaved African and African Americans on American soil and the subsequent, pervasive racial tensions between black and white Americans that Ellis fails to discuss the possible impact of those relationships and the perceived need for an oath of allegiance. Even in the context of immigration, Africans, as pseudo-immigrants, made an inedible mark on American history and thus should rate a more prominent placement in Ellis' book. The tumultuous rage of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 could easily provide an added dimension to his discourse. He eloquently includes the perspective of the Daughters of the American Revolution, the ACLU, and Jehovah's Witnesses with only a cursory mention of race and its implications when implementing the Pledge. Ellis, as the Mark O. Hatfield Professor of Politics at Willamette University in Oregon, appears to skirt the challenging issue of Blacks' role in America. On the other hand, he skillfully cites other controversies, particularly those relating to school children. He writes, much too late in the book, "The refusals in the 1930s and 1940s had been largely rooted in religious objections rather than in any specific protest against the US government policy, but the refusals in the 1960s were grounded in political protest, particularly against racial discrimination." (p.155) During the campaign to place American Flags over every school house, where any Black schools included? Ellis leaves an obvious void by not addressing Black Americans in his discussion.
During the latter half of his book, Ellis' discourse details the 1954 addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. He explains how the Supreme Court "intended the words "under God" to convey that America is a religious nation unlike the Communist nations." (p. 216). Full of ethical and legislative rigor, the amendment sets the scene for interesting reading. At times Ellis provides more detail than palatable for an average reader. The weightiness of such detail, near the end of the book, could easily leave some readers breathing a sigh of accomplishment with just having waded through it, rather than anticipating another chapter or a future discussions.
Ultimately, Ellis provides an invaluable tool for those curious about the history of our national oath. And while he discounts people of color, he makes each of us aware that Balch and Bellamy knew their constituents. School children and their parents- did not object to the Pledge of Allegiance because, as Ellis reveals, Balch and Bellamy knew that indoctrination was best served to those youthful in age or education

Western democracies do not, for the most part, require daily loyalty oaths from their children; rote recitation of loyalty oaths is something generally associated with more authoritarian regimes. Why is the United States different?

The book is mostly the story of why/when/by whom the Pledge was invented; how it became adopted for regular, national use; and why/when/how it was changed and challenged over the years. Mostly narrative, not enough of the sort of ethical investigation referenced above (taken from the Conclusion). Goes into special detail about Bellamy, Gridley Adams, the 1988 Bush/Dukakis campaign Pledge issue, and of course the Newdow case--much more so than Gobitis or Barnett, which I think should have been covered more.

Ellis can be objective at times, but too often lets his opinions color his prose. The fact that I mostly share those opinions, and his liberal fear of nationalism leading to totalitarianism, nonetheless made it uncomfortable reading for me: I'd rather a book on the subject which half the country wouldn't dismiss out of hand because of the tone he takes toward their side.

The is an outstanding historical account of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is great for just reading and a wonderful resource for writing research papers.

Anxiety has eclipsed the American people again-but what's new? Richard J. Ellis's to the Flag presents the anxiety of the American people in parallel to the Pledge of Allegiance. When I first read the book I thought it would be about the whole controversy regarding the words "under God" and how unconstitutional they are. I was wrong. Chapter 5 covers that controversy but the book is about the whole Pledge and the contradicting nature of the democracy that America has incorporated into its infrastructure.
The beginning of the book was undoubtedly one of the most intriguing parts of the book as a whole. The propaganda used to spread patriotism was so utterly important in penetrating solidarity amongst the American people in light of an enormous influx of immigrants to the country. The magazine owned by Daniel Sharp Ford called the Youth's Companion's success relied on premiums. Those premiums, as Ellis later unravels, is making flags available to subscribers for purchase. The magazine set out to encourage people to decorate their houses and schools with flags to promote "patriotism". The author points out the importance of media in sustaining the life of the Pledge. I had trouble with his criticism of promoting patriotism. I do not see the problem of promoting Patriotism especially in a country that is founded on immigrants who have previous allegiances. Politicians obviously manipulate situations to encourage Patriotism when they need it to be present in the political life of a country. However, the underlining truth is that patriotism is a good thing at times. We're not talking about fanaticism; the patriotism instilled in the American people with the first induction of the Pledge was a positive thing. America is a democracy that advocates free speech yet, as Ellis states, "democracies generally do not require their school children to pledge allegiance to the nation on a daily or even regular basis... the rote recitation of loyalty to a nation is something we generally associate more with authoritarian regimes than liberal democracies." (210). The "Under God" issue aside, the Pledge is a statement that declares a complete surrender to American values. It may contradict the foundation of American values but, in the end, no real democracy exists in the world and if one of America's break away from democracy is the Pledge then that is one of the smaller actions America has taken in the name of democracy that contradicts democracy.
And now, back to my main interest in the book. What of the "Under God" issue? When God was to be introduced in the Pledge it was due to an immense campaign that plastered God everywhere in the American social, as well as political, system. "In God We Trust" was added to paper money, stamps and was used by Eisenhower to release religion into the public atmosphere. It wasn't merely something that came into being from nothing. Ellis states "the absence of any reference to God in Bellamy's spare twenty-three-word pledge had little if anything to do with a desire to keep religion out of the public schools... Bellamy's program called for an "Acknowledgment of God" either through "prayer or scripture" so even if God were absent in the actual words of the Pledge, Bellamy made sure it was sandwiched between explicit appeals to the Almighty." (122) Thus, God was not completely excluded from the initial Pledge. It was a different time; it was a time where the United States was thought of as Christian country and hence God obviously played a role in the structures of the country.
But what the book centers on is the anxiety America feels that requires the rejuvenation of the Pledge. There are three main events that, according to Ellis, have given legitimacy to the Pledge. The first one, of course, was the xenophobic notion felt by many Americans who were overwhelmed by the increase in immigrants. The second one took place in the 1950s when "under God" was introduced in the Pledge because of anti-communist sentiments; those who rallied for this introduction wanted to present America in a light of a country with a religion. Politicians, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, used the word "under God" more frequently after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Harry Truman was "the first President to rely heavily on the phrase...particularly after the Cold War heated up." (125) And the third event is unquestionably September 11th 2001. "Our "enemies," the President pointed out, "hate the words" of the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact those enemies "want to erase them," which is why "we're determined to stand fro these words, and live them out in our lives." (G.W. Bush at a school in Nashville, Tennessee, September 2002) The word "enemies" was used to refer to the terrorists and at the same time create fear amongst the Americans who oppose the Pledge by ultimately placing them on the same pedestal as the terrorists.
Ellis does a formidable job in generating the social and political atmosphere of the time and the significance of the Pledge. There are a lot of factual remarks and examinations by Ellis. I found that this reading contained too much detail; we go from one event to another to another with extreme details and a lot of repetition. It felt like reading court case of some sort that listed all evidence with all essential details. The vast majority of the book is facts and cases. But what is the author's opinion about all this? We get a taste of what he believes in the very last page of the book: Ellis claims the true problem of the pledge is that the true patriots are the ones want to get rid of it because they have faith in the power of America. This claim should have been made earlier on in the book since it is one of the most relevant and most important observation made by the author.

At the high school where I teach, we say the Pledge of Allegiance every day at the beginning of 2nd period [except on standardized testing days - quiet please!] and I willingly stand and say the Pledge [more on what version later] along with the intercom. This year has been more frustrating than normal, since many of my 2nd period students don't know how to behave during the Pledge - whether standing [Pledging or just being polite] or sitting [protesting or just being apathetic] - and many seem to feel that it's okay to yammer on about whatever during our morning patriotic ritual. We also have 20 minutes of sustained silent reading at the beginning of 2nd period [just before the Pledge] and Richard J. Ellis' excellent book To The Flag was one of my favorite reading period reads this year.

To The Flag is a warts and all history of the Pledge of Allegiance, starting with Francis Bellamy - Christian and socialist - the author of the direct ancestor of the current Pledge, up to today's arguments over the words `under God.' Ellis follows all the twists and turns of the Pledge, from the various changes in text, to the myriad motivations promoters have had for pushing the pledge. The potential reader should not be scared off by the imprint of a University press on the book's cover - Ellis is an excellent writer and keeps the book flowing through all of the details. Potential readers of To The Flag would be anybody interested in history [especially that of the late 19th and 20th centuries], the Pledge, the flag, politics, and religion. To The Flag should be REQUIRED READING for anybody on any side of the current controversies over the Pledge of Allegiance.

I say the Pledge as codified in 1942. I willingly pledge to a flag which I believe stands for the aspirations and ideals of the United States, but not all of its actions. I tried to explain to the sitters [who I support in principle - a forced pledge to freedom isn't a good thing] that talking wasn't cool during the pledge, but getting through to them was tough, even with my expanded knowledge of the issues. Lastly, I thank the universe that I live in the United States where we can still have arguments like the one over the Pledge!