Sunday Q&A

To keep this manageable (and on-point, given what weekend this is), we've decided that we are going to answer a dozen questions, all about U.S. history.

Oh, and if you're still wrestling with this week's headline theme, we'll tell you "there's no need to feel down" and you should "pick yourself off the ground." And that applies even if you're not a young man.

U.S. History

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What would be most surprising for the Founding Fathers if you had told them about the U.S. in 2026?

(Z) answers: Needless to say, the technology of the modern era is very different from the technology of the eighteenth century. That said, the world had already entered into the industrial age, and so the Founding Fathers would certainly be able to wrap their minds around things like automobiles, cell phones, the Internet, etc., pretty quickly. Indeed, they would have predicted that things like transportation and communication would be radically transformed by increased mechanization and electrification.

So, I think the correct answer to your question is this: That a Black and Asian woman was popularly elected Vice President of the United States. The Founders, by and large, had some very eighteenth-century ideas about gender and race. And they were absolutely certain their fellow Americans were deeply invested in eighteenth-century ideas about gender and race and were not likely to change. The election of a Black man as president would certainly open their eyes when it comes to radical shifts in racial attitudes, but the election of Kamala Harris would open their eyes on that subject AND on radical shifts in gender roles.

---

M.F. in Des Moines, IA, asks: A question for the intersection between Pride and Independence Day.

For your readers who may not know, Baron Wilhelm von Steuban was a Prussian military officer hired by Washington to turn the Continental Army into a more well-trained, disciplined force, and my amateur understanding is that he made significant contributions in that regard.

There's also apparently some evidence he was in a homosexual relationship that's neither conclusive nor easily dismissed out of hand. I have two questions on this, realizing the Revolution is not (Z)'s area of focus: (1) How strong is the evidence? Similar to that for Buchanan, weaker, stronger? and (2) In that era, how did their peers handle a gay man's sexuality and reputation if he was important or powerful enough to make them want to avoid applying negative social consequences? Did they politely look the other way? Actively help hide it? Or just openly apply a double standard between powerful and powerless?

(Z) answers: The second question is much easier to answer than the first. In that era, a person's sexual choices were, by and large, their own business as long as they kept things discreet and did not do harm to people who did not consent, or could not consent (and note that their ideas about "age of consent" were a fair bit different from ours). So, there might be whispers or eye rolls about men or women who led "unconventional" lives, but that would largely be the end of it. It was Victorians, evangelicals, and Victorian evangelicals who made the events taking place in private bedrooms into public business.

The evidence for von Steuben's homosexuality is very similar to that for Buchanan, though perhaps a shade stronger in favor of von Steuben being gay. Neither man married, but Buchanan at least proposed to a woman, while von Steuben never did. Meanwhile, Buchanan formed a very close friendship with one man (William R. King), who was his peer in terms of age and career, while von Steuben formed very close friendships with several men, all of whom were much younger and more conventionally attractive than King. Buchanan remained on good terms with his family, and left his estate to them, while von Steuben was alienated from his family and left his estate to a couple of his young, male friends. And finally, as a European (a somewhat more permissive culture) and a military man (and therefore not as likely to have his career ended by a scandal), von Steuben could afford to assume a bit more risk than Buchanan could.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: My spouse is looking for an authoritative book on the economic history of the United States, detailing the social, political and policy ramifications. (I'm visualizing something the size of an unabridged dictionary...) Any suggestions?

(Z) answers: Consider The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (2010). Joyce was a friend, but she was also a brilliant scholar, and this was a passion project she undertook after retiring from teaching. Alternatively, An Economic History of the United States (2006), by Ronald Seavoy, is the preeminent textbook on this subject, and so is actually reasonably short, and is very accessible. You can also take a look at Capitalism in America: A History (2019), which was co-authored by Alan Greenspan (RIP), who knew a thing or two about economics.

---

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, asks: My son is a bright 11-year-old who is very curious about history. While my wife and I have been encouraging him to explore different perspectives on American history, we have been concerned that he has at times become enamored with certain right-wing narratives. One is the heroic version of Davy Crockett and the Alamo. Another is Bill O'Reilly's series of books on American history, which he came across on an audiobook app. Our concern with O'Reilly is not only his ideology, but that he has demonstrated a less than scrupulous approach to facts that do not fit his narrative.

I'm wondering if (Z) can recommend any books or book series that might appeal to him and provide a more accurate and nuanced perspective on American history?

(Z) answers: The main problem with the Bill O'Reilly books is not that he adjusts the facts to suit his narrative (though that is ALSO a problem). The main problem is that he does not have a deep knowledge of the subject matter. And so, he makes outright factual errors (e.g., having Abraham Lincoln at work in the Oval Office, 40+ years before the Oval Office existed). Even more important than that, fact-wise, is that historians develop a gut feel for nuances and subtleties, such that they know that a person would never say something in a particular way, or would never present themselves in a particular way, or would never behave in a particular way. O'Reilly doesn't have that gut feel, so he screws up a LOT of nuance and subtlety, even more than he screws up on facts (though he gets facts wrong a lot, too).

Anyhow, if your son is engaging with O'Reilly books, then he's capable of handling adult-level texts, as long as they are meant for a general audience (and not for academics). So, I am going to recommend that, based on his areas of interest, you pick a volume or two in the Oxford History of the United States series (which, incidentally, are all available as audiobooks, too). I would also suggest a copy of James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (2018; rev. ed.) which encourages a reader to develop a health sense of skepticism as they engage with the past.

---

J.B. in East Windsor, CT, asks: In your item about the Dans Sullivan, you talked about perennial candidates running for office without the expectation of winning. In Connecticut, the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, a gentleman named Matt Corey, has run for state representative, state Senate, U.S. Congress, and U.S. Senate having never won any of them. He has no better prospect of success in his current run.

My question is: Has one of these (notable) perennial candidates ever won (after successive losses)? And, if so, have they gone on to do anything noteworthy, for good or ill?

(Z) answers: There are perennial candidates who just like getting a little attention, or telling people "Hey, I'm running for Senate," or who hope that their sure-to-win opponent gets in some sort of scandal, laying the groundwork for a potential miracle. These people almost never win, because they're not actually doing the hard work of running for office.

On the other hand, there are people who spend the first phase of their careers as perennial candidates because they are learning the ins and outs of campaigning and building a network of supporters and donors. And eventually, they put it all together and win. This is actually how most people who eventually hold federal office start out, and so there are thousands of success stories.

---

L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, asks: For decades, I have seen case-after-case of this country partaking in some military adventure overseas with no clear "exit strategy." Think Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran...

I was wondering, as a historian, how many military actions since say 1900, can you think of, excluding World War I and World War II, that have had an exit strategy? ANY exit strategy?

(Z) answers: The leadership of the United States, for a very long time, tended to think of war with a European mindset. In fact, that may still be the case. And the European mindset is pretty analogous to the game of chess. You move, the other side counter-moves, etc., etc., until one side is checkmated (usually, that means their capital has been captured, or their army has been decimated), or until both sides agree to a stalemate. Then they negotiate a treaty and that's that. This way of thinking of things comes with an implied exit strategy (i.e., we conquer the enemy, they give up, we figure out what happens now that they are defeated).

The problem is that non-European countries don't play by European rules. So, you can capture the enemy's capital, or their most important city, and... they don't give up. You can destroy their conventional armed forces, and... partisan (guerrilla) resistance fighters take over. I struggle to think of evidence that the U.S. government has truly figured out what victory looks like in a war of this sort, or has figured out how to achieve said victory. Hence all these wars that just go on for whatever amount of time, and then the U.S. pretty much packs up and goes home.

There is one exception to the rule that I can think of. The U.S. entered the Persian Gulf War with a very clear end goal/victory condition, and that was the liberation of Kuwait. And once Kuwait was liberated, the U.S. (appropriately) declared victory, and left.

The subsequent Iraq War sort of had a clear end goal/victory condition, namely the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but it also had a fuzzy end goal, namely "ending terrorism." Further, the George W. Bush administration, unlike the administration of his father, did not think through the implications of removing Saddam. And so, that one turned into a mess, one that made the problems it was supposed to solve (Middle East instability, terrorism) worse, rather than better.

---

M.R. in Washington, DC, asks: I recently watched Pressure—and, for context, I am a currently serving Navy Information Warfare officer with meteorology and operational level of war as well as having been a History undergrad major who did a thesis on Dwight D. Eisenhower—so I was shocked to see how much my reaction to the movie differed from the reviews I've seen in various online spaces. Without biasing things too much, has the Staff Historian seen it and what does he think?

(Z) answers: I did see it—with (A), actually.

It is very similar to The Imitation Game, which is about Alan Turing and Bletchley Park and the breaking of the Enigma code/machine. That is to say, it's a very entertaining thriller based substantially on real historical facts. However, without giving away any spoilers, they also changed some very important details to ratchet up both the drama and the emotional impact.

I also found Brendan Fraser as Dwight D. Eisenhower to be somewhat distracting. He is a talented actor, no doubt, but he played some scenes in a manner inconsistent with the real Ike. Most obviously, and I don't think this really gives anything away, there is a scene where he gets the protagonist of the movie, meteorologist James Stagg, in a room, and basically screams at him. Not shouts, screams. "Eisenhower" sounds like he is about to burst into tears. I understand why Fraser made that choice (to convey the stress Ike was under), but high-ranking generals, particularly those of the mid-20th century, do not scream and do not verge on tears. They convey their pique in other ways.

In addition, while they shaved Fraser's head to give him the "chrome dome" look, he really looks nothing like Ike. The general was lean, while Fraser is much more stout. Further, and I mentioned this to (A) walking out of the theater, Fraser is clearly well over 6 feet tall, and he towers over the actor playing Stagg (Andrew Scott). In reality, Ike was 5'11, and would have been eye-to-eye with Stagg and most other men of that era. The General really did not tower over anyone.

Oh, and Scott's performance is magnificent, and worth the price of admission all by itself.

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: I've read about the Marshall Plan, and you have mentioned it several times, but I'd like a clear, short (a couple of paragraphs) explanation to build on. I have complete faith that you can do this without needing research.

(Z) answers: The Marshall Plan was partly humanitarian, but—and this is a dynamic that Donald Trump seems incapable of understanding—was certainly meant to advance the interests of the United States, as the goal was to forestall the conditions that might cause a country to consider communism.

The Congress set aside about $13 billion (roughly $200 billion in 2026 dollars), and countries who wanted a slice of the pie, and who had been torn up by World War II, had to submit proposals that explained how they would use the money to rebuild their industry, infrastructure, banking system, etc. Ultimately, something like a dozen and a half nations got at least some funding between 1948 and 1951. These countries were basically all in Western Europe, because it was Europe that had been torn up by the war, and Eastern Europe was under the control of the U.S.S.R. by that time.

There was also some money for Japan and other Asian countries, but that was distributed through other means, not the Marshall Plan.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: I seem to recall that it is the opinion of Electoral-Vote.com that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the work of a lone gunman and that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald. I further recall that it is believed by Electoral-Vote.com that the motivation for the assassination of the President was Lee Harvey Oswald being an unsuccessful and feckless loser who decided to change that status by seeking fame through killing the President.

If those recollections are correct, what is your opinion in regards to the attempt by Lee Harvey Oswald—illegally thwarted by the Dallas Police—to place a telephone call to an intelligence agency in North Carolina less than 20 hours before he was murdered by Jack Ruby?

(Z) answers: Your understanding of my opinion on the JFK assassination is not entirely correct. I have written before that I am open to the idea that there is some variance between the official narrative and the truth. For example, it is possible (though not likely at this point) that it will be proven there was a second gunman. I do not think there is evidence to support the supposition that the entire official narrative is fundamentally wrong, and that the truth is radically different. For example, it is not plausible that the whole thing was really a plot instigated by Lyndon B. Johnson.

As to Oswald, he died too quickly, with too little time to talk, to know what his real motives were. However, if I absolutely had to choose, I would not go with "feckless loser in search of fame." I would go with "political radical who was trying to undermine the U.S. system of government." If so, that would put him in the same general ballpark as Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated William McKinley.

As to the phone call, it sounds very suspicious when framed the way you've described it. However, Oswald made several phone calls in that same run of calls, including one to the woman his wife was staying with, and another to an attorney (John Abt) known for defending political radicals. That looks like a prisoner taking care of business, not an undercover operative trying to reach his spy network.

The "Raleigh Call," as it is known, was indeed Oswald's last phone call. It was not connected, not because the Dallas police interfered, but because nobody picked up the phone at either of the phone numbers Oswald gave. And it was not to an intelligence agency, it was to a man Oswald identified as "John Hurt." Thereafter, the authorities looked into this, and found two John Hurts living in Raleigh; one was a mechanic and the other was a World War II veteran who had been in the intelligence services during the war, but who had left that work upon his discharge, 18 years before the Oswald phone call.

In the end, all that we can really say is "Who knows?" Did Oswald get the name wrong? The number wrong? If he get them right, which John Hurt was he trying to reach and why? If Oswald was trying to reach a spy or CIA operative, why would that operative be someone who had no known connection to the intelligence community for nearly two decades prior to the assassination? And note that the World War II John Hurt said he never heard of Oswald and had no idea why he might be calling.

Anything is possible, but there just isn't evidence here to support the notion that the "Raleigh Call" is part of a conspiracy. And the Warren Commission DID look into it, and decided it was a dead end, so they did not include it in the report.

---

K.F.W. in El Dorado Hills, CA, asks: I lived through Watergate. Actually remember it well (I was in college). I've read for years that Nixon resigned because he was told there were enough votes in the Senate to convict. I came across this yet again and took a look at the Senate breakdown and it was 57 Democrats and 43 Republicans/Independents/Conservatives (according to Google). So the Democrats needed "only" 10 Republicans to vote with them to remove Nixon (assuming Dems voted as a bloc). That's the background. Here's the question: If it had been the other way around—57 Republicans and 43 Democrats—do you think there would have been the votes to remove Nixon or would the Republicans (as now) just have shut the whole thing down?

(Z) answers: Keep two things in mind. First, the parties had not fully re-sorted themselves after the events of the New Deal and, in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. So, there were some very liberal Republicans and there were some very conservative Democrats.

Second, politicians back then, and even more importantly voters, had considerably less patience for shady behavior from political leaders. If you look at all the presidential scandals prior to the year 2016, the ones that really got people angry (Whiskey Ring, Credit Mobilier, Cleveland-Halpin Affair, Teapot Dome, Watergate), Donald Trump or his underlings have basically done ALL of the same things (tax evasion for friends of the president, bribery in exchange for federal contracts, sexual affairs outside of marriage, opening federal lands to drilling by friends of the administration, and weaponizing the law-enforcement apparatus of the federal government, respectively), and yet have not generated nearly as much outrage in any of these instances.

Anyhow, I think most members of the Senate were furious with Nixon, not only because of his corruption, but because of other shenanigans like the illegal bombing of Cambodia and the impoundment of funds. And certainly the voters who sent those members to the Senate were furious. And all of these problems were solved by getting rid of Nixon and replacing him with the much more honest and much more reliable Gerald Ford (who was, after all, still a Republican). So, I think Nixon was doomed regardless of the partisan composition of the upper chamber.

Oh, and while this is implied by my answer, I'll make it explicit. If Donald Trump is impeached and removed, it won't be because Republicans are upset by his behavior, per se. It will be because enough Republicans will have concluded they are better off swapping Trump for J.D. Vance.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I was a toddler when the Bicentennial took place in 1976, so I don't remember anything much about it. What I've heard was that it was a magnificent event and Americans really came together after all the negative feelings stemming from Vietnam and Watergate. I also heard that President Ford conducted himself extremely well during that time, as expected. Complete opposite of who we have leading us today for our 250th birthday.

(Z) answers: The celebration was indeed unifying, and did indeed penetrate more deeply into the culture than the celebration of the 250th anniversary has.

Trump is so toxic, for so many people, that maybe the 250th could not have been saved. However, the administration did not even try, and endeavored to populate the event with Trump-friendly musicians, and Trumpy ideas, and with Trump himself (and his name) all over it.

The correct thing to do, if a real celebration was wanted, was to do something like what happened during the Bicentennial: Put it under the control of a bipartisan commission, probably made up of well-liked former officeholders, like Tom Vilsack and Larry Hogan (note: a Democrat from a red state and a Republican from a blue state). But Trump needs to use every opportunity to promote himself and his own awesomeness, so that was never going to happen.

If you want a sense of what the Bicentennial was like, take a look at the World Cup right now. Yes, FIFA is as corrupt as can be. But the tournament itself has been largely apolitical, and has been very unifying and uplifting.

---

J.L.G. in Boston, MA, asks: How did the staff historian celebrate the 250th anniversary of his chosen topic of lifelong study?

(Z) answers: Sports writers always say that, once they made writing about sports their profession, they ceased to be "fans" of any particular team. Maybe that's because they know too much about how the sausage is made. Maybe it's because being a fan interferes with their ability to do their job properly and fairly. Maybe both.

When you're a professional historian, it's pretty much the same thing. I am neither patriotic, nor anti-patriotic, in the way those terms are generally understood. I am aware that both patriotism and the modern nation-state are basically inventions, and fairly recent inventions, and so I watch with interest how those inventions develop and interact and shape lives, but I don't really participate.

I do, of course, believe strongly in the ideals of the Constitution, the Declaration, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address, and I believe strongly that the nation and its people have a duty to live up to those ideals. However, that is not the same thing as "patriotism," as that term is generally used.

As to the Fourth of July/the 250th anniversary, I don't do performative patriotism, as I just explained. Another major activity is eating, but I can't eat much at any one time, due to an operation I had several years ago. Yet another activity is drinking, but I don't like beer at all, and I am generally not much a fan of alcohol. Oh, and I despise fireworks, because of the impact they have on animals and their sensitive ears. So, it should be no surprise that my two least-favorite holidays are Independence Day and New Year's Eve.

I also had... obligations that forestalled attendance at any sort of fireworks presentation, obligations that I will eventually mention on the blog, possibly as early is this week. I did have a nice lunch with a friend of mine yesterday, however. We sat in an English pub and watched France defeat Portugal.

Sunday Mailbag

Again, with an eye towards keeping things manageable, we've got some letters about Independence Day, and then some of the many, many responses to our LGBTQ-themed posting from Friday.

Independence Day

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: God, do we all need some good news of late! I now know when Trump's Reign of Terror will end... and it's sooner that the 2028 election.

On July 3, Trump gave a speech in front of Mount Rushmore (probably scheming how he can bulldoze the four presidents and replace it with a gold plated carving of his face). He said, "But if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the SAVE America Act, then we will not lose an election for 100 years." The phrasing immediately reminded me of his hero and mentor, Adolf Hitler, who proclaimed that his Third Reich would last for a thousand years. Of course, Hitler's prediction fell far short of that mark by only lasting 12 years before he took his life in a grubby little basement. Using math skills that even an English major can understand, that means that Trump's MAGA Reich will crumble apart a year and two months from now, or September 2027! While not as soon as I would like, it is still something that I can withstand. And that gives me something to celebrate!

---

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: Convicted Felon Trump (CFT) has been advancing the ides again of putting his face on Mount Rushmore with the other four presidents. The Park Service says that the surrounding rock has deep fractures, and attempting to add a new face may result in collapse of part of the mountain. If they were to carve CFT's face and part of it were to collapse, it would be the ultimate schadenfreude. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that some or all of the other portraits could be damaged, and that would be a tragedy.

It is likely that we will never know, as this is probably just another mechanism to raise "donations" that can be funneled to the Trump family. It took years to raise the funds to carve the existing portraits. So, it is unlikely that anyone will pony up with the funds to execute this cockamamie plan while CFT is in office unless... I don't know, maybe someone needs another senseless war started or something like that?

---

A.J.C. in Williamsburg, VA, writes: I am so glad that PBS chose my hometown's celebration of he 250th to share with the country. Wow. It was amazing. I chose to watch it from my couch instead of braving the crowds and intense heat. It's 10 p.m. and the "real feel" outside is still 90 degrees thanks to the delightful 81% humidity. It's a wet heat.

This production was beautiful and inclusive and historical and patriotic and unifying and just exactly what we needed. It took me back to the Bicentennial, which I also celebrated from Williamsburg. It made me proud to be an American, and proud to embrace the promise of equality that we still have not yet achieved.

It's being replayed today on PBS stations. Noon locally, but not sure about anyone else. You can also watch through the Passport app if you give to PBS or NPR. If you missed it, try to catch it. If it inspires you to visit Williamsburg, October through December are quite nice.

Thank you, Carly Fiorina. Well done! It was perfecto!

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Yesterday was July 4th, and many of us were looking for an alternative to Washington's "celebration of trump." Two thoughts:

1. This was not our only chance for a 250th celebration. The Treaty of Paris was signed on Sept. 3, 1783. We might write to our congresspeople and suggest a "No King's/Independence" celebration on the 250th anniversary of acknowledged independence. Maybe we'll have a partial to celebrate then.
   
   
2. (Z) suggested a suitable alternative way of celebrating our history. My town has a pioneer cemetery, so that would have worked well. But I'm currently using a walker, so wandering through the grass would be stressful this year. However, I found another alternative. I ordered and began reading The Last Adieu: Lafayette's Triumphant Return, the Echoes of Revolution, and the Gratitude of the Republic.
   
   

   Nearly 40 years after leaving this country, Lafayette returned. He found a country that now stretched from the coast to the Mississippi, divided into 24 states, with a combined a population that had tripled, all determined to celebrate the return of the last living among the key generals of the Revolution. His visit turned into a 13-month party, during which Lafayette visited every state and was honored everywhere by receptions and parades, honors and thanks.
   
   In spirit, at least, I joined that celebration.

---

J.B. in Pinckney, MI, writes: Happy 4th of July. I am bummed. I was born right after the Bicentennial and I remember hearing stories from my parents of the awesome celebrations and how the nation came together for a huge party that year. I remember looking for the special quarters when I got change. When I was a kid and a young adult, I was looking forward to this year and a big party that would celebrate the nation and our unity in spite of differences. Even if it did not unite politically there are great things about this country that everyone can be proud of.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. It makes me sad that one person has caused this. I have a good friend who is younger than I am. She has mentioned more than once that she has never had a true choice in an election because someone is always completely unqualified. Will we ever see an Obama-McCain matchup again, where you can be confident either candidate will not be morally bankrupt? It makes me sad that people her age have never really had an ethical choice in voting, or seen a country where people could disagree politically and not let it carry over into their personal lives and the disrespectful people were a small ignored minority not an entire political party and multiple "news" channels.

The optimist in me says that the overall trajectory of the nation for 250 years has been forward, with the biggest steps forward coming after periods of turmoil, notably in the 1860's and the 1960s. I had this hope before the 2024 election. Since then, I have had this hope less often. Sorry for the rambling rant, I'm just surprisingly either apathetic, depressed, sad or hopeful today. I'm not sure which it is.

---

M.W.W. in Port Orchard, WA, writes: I find myself having difficulty getting into the 4th of July (a.k.a. Independence Day) celebration this year. Corruption runs rampant in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Basic civil rights are being attacked, the justice system has been weaponized, and many are wondering if they will have a job tomorrow or can get affordable health care or even put food in their table. The current state of our nation tends to make me weep for what we have lost.

Back then, we were still recovering from Watergate and the Vietnam War, and still trying to atone for the bad things our nation did in the past. We knew our nation wasn't perfect, but we were still trying. It was evidenced on TV, in music, and movies. But I still remember all of the joy and pride we had leading up to the Bicentennial. Schoolhouse Rock always appeared in after-school TV programming in the commercial breaks. The shorts on American history and government still have meaning for me. (In fact, when hubby and I started doing foster care, I managed to find and purchase the complete DVD set, and watched them again with them.)

Back then my family was still living in Rock Springs, WY, and Wyoming was still "The Equality State." (Shout out to R.L.D. in Sundance!) In third or fourth grade, our entire grade took a field trip to the local movie theater to watch the musical 1776. I still remember some of the songs, and the impact it had on me. This was in the same era where Saturday and Sunday matinees were standard TV programming, as were Saturday morning cartoons. Among the matinee movies I remember from then was Yankee Doodle Dandy, starring James Cagney. It made a huge impression on me. Not to mention all the "Looney Tunes" cartoons celebrating America, and supporting our troops in World War II. I especially remember the Porky Pig one when he's having trouble learning the Pledge of Allegiance, is educated in a dream after he falls asleep in his studies, and wakes up to recite it saluting the flag. This was in the days before "under god" was added to it.

Tonight, I get to celebrate alone. Well, almost. Hubby is in Thailand with our youngest, on a school-related trip youngest was nominated for. Oldest is working tonight, and won't be home until after midnight. Middle son is off camping with his girlfriend and her family. Leaving me at home with our pets. I might watch the local broadcasts of the Seattle fireworks, or maybe rewatch the aforementioned movies. Most likely, though, I'll be upstairs, in my bedroom channel surfing, and comforting our terrified cat and dog while the neighbors shoot off illegal fireworks. I'll probably also have some wine.

Happy Independence Day!

---

E.W. in Seattle, WA, writes: Every July 4, I always remind myself that there is another remarkable anniversary to celebrate this day—the anniversary of the death of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Today it is the 200th, for they both died the same day, July 4th, 1826. They are remarkable persons to commemorate , not only for their actions in 1776 and 1789, but for the correspondence they engaged in with each other for years after leaving office until they died.

While each had served as President, during the time they were in active politics, they had acted as bitter enemies of each other. As I recall, the correspondence showed not only their pride in the results of their '76 actions, but almost a sense of not only mutual respect for the other, but wonderment that their work seemed to have had a result that was even better than they had initially hoped for while they were involved in its creation—and since they died while living in their respective states, they each thought as they were dying, that the other would be the last survivor of the Revolutionary generation.

---

J.H. and family in North Salem, NY, writes: As always, thank you for all you do to keep this site up and running. It has become a family affair for my wife, children, and I to read the daily updates and discuss them.

To celebrate the holiday, we decided to go political but also humorous (gallows humor run in my family) and we baked a reflecting pool sheet cake with a marzipan face-palming Lincoln:

LGBTQ Posting

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: While I am a married, heterosexual male, I've attended Pride Parades in several recent years as a liberal supporter, and because the events are just plain fun. I also enjoy non-political gatherings like Taste of Chicago, just because it's good to be among a crowd of people enjoying a good time together, (mostly) without rancor. Every Pride Parade I've seen has been like that.

This year, my wife's office had a float in the Chicago Pride Parade, so we both participated by walking the parade route beside the float. We were number 125 in the line, so we were not privy to any speechifying at the beginning, and I only found out that our fantastic governor was there from your site. Nonetheless, the best part of being in the parade was the personal interactions with the watchers on the sidewalk as we passed along, handing out pride flags as we passed. It was amazing how many people really desired those flags. And how much thanks we got—often verging on delirium—for our participation. The day was hot and sticky, and my face must have been obviously red, because many of the watchers offered to fan me as I was handing out flags, and one nice lady even traded me a fan in return for her flag. Yet for all the weather, I was glad to walk the 2-mile route. The fact that the sidewalk was full of attractive women in skimpy summer dress didn't hurt either (Did I write that or just think it?).

The way I shamelessly flirted with girls/women in the audience, sometimes going so far as to kiss their hands as I handed out flags, made it clear that I was not gay my own self, but I was never made to feel unwelcome or looked down upon. Let the perpetrators of hate and envy live in their small, bigoted tents. "Love is love" works both ways, and the good guys seem to know that.

I'll be attending Pride Parades in the foreseeable future.

And thanks to you for not "both sidesing" the issue and being clear in your reporting who are the good guys on the issue.

---

R.M. in Gresham, OR, writes: Thank you for your commentary on the Republican Party attacking LGBTQIA+ individuals because they feel it is a "winning issue." I believe they are wrong for both moral and political reasons, and it further shows that the insecure, toxic masculinity that finds a home in today's Republican Party has no ideas other than to attack and alienate. With them, the cruelty IS the point. I also feel the effect the trans messaging had on the 2024 elections is wildly overstated. Nothing was coming to save the incumbent party that year, and the Democrats falling in line with blaming that issue for the loss is disheartening at least.

My teenager participates in an extracurricular activity with about 20 other teenagers. Probably about 1/3 of them identify somewhere on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, including my child. What is most remarkable and heartwarming to me is how supportive they all are of each other. They just get it—whether it is gender identity, sexuality, pronouns, etc., they treat each other with a respect and acceptance that would have been unheard of when I was a teenager. Even the kids who attend Catholic schools have no issue with it. I'm telling you, the kids are alright.

You're damn right when you say this matters to the younger voters. If the Democrats have any sense at all and any interest in getting the votes of the next generation, they need to do the right thing and stand strong in support of LGBTQIA+ people. Whether because it's the right thing to do from a human standpoint, a moral standpoint, or because it is cynically the way to win and inspire the youth vote, this is the right call.

I hope everyone had a happy and safe Pride month. If you didn't, come to Portland! Our festival is July 18 and 19, so you still have time.

---

B.S. in Blairstown, NJ and Phuket, Thailand, writes: (Z) wondered why Harley-Davidson would be targeted by MAGA for being woke and gay. With MAGA you can never be 100% sure of their reasoning, but I can think of two bees that might have got caught in their bonnet.

First, and probably more salient, is the prominence of local Dykes on Bikes chapters traditionally leading off Pride parades.

Second, the first several International Mr. Leather contests were sponsored by a local Harley dealership, with a motorcycle being awarded to the winner.

Despite corporate HQ pulling support for LGBT positions in 2024, they have little control over their dealerships' individual marketing strategies or their brand's historical associations with queer culture.

Hope that helps!

---

D.S. in Smithtown, NY, writes: Brendan Carr's push for a "Trans Warning" on TV in addition to being illegal, unconstitutional, and impractical to enforce also strikes me as stupid and just downright silly. So, if the courts somehow allow such a transformation of the First Amendment to go forward then I would suggest broadcasters might engage in some malicious compliance. The most expansive interpretation of the rule would seem be in order.

Any performance, appearance or even mention of any person who has ever been shown in clothing that could possibly be mistaken for traditional clothing of the opposite sex would just have to be receive the "Trans warning." Just to be safe:

• Judicial robes look kind of like dresses, so John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh
• Priestly" vestments" also look like dresses, so any Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priest
• Any woman, and especially any Republican woman, who has ever appeared in public wearing pants
• Tom Hanks (got his start in Bosom Buddies—and yes, I am that old)
• Kevin Sorbo in Meet the Spartans, or so I've been told (haven't seen it, don't intend to)
• Other shows that would have to be labeled include SNL, F-Troop (told you I was old), Doctor Who, Abbott Elementary, Glee, Bugs Bunny, Popeye, Rocky & Bullwinkle and The Simpsons.

I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, let the hilarity and schadenfreude ensue.

---

J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: You should add every episode of M*A*S*H to your list of old series with a trans warning label!

---

R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: You wrote: "[Rep. Marie] Gluesenkamp Perez [D-WA] observed that a lot of parents think that sports is the best chance that their assigned-female-at-birth children have of getting a college scholarship, and if their child is pushed aside by a trans girl, then that won't happen. In other words, this isn't necessarily about hate, it's also about economic opportunity."

I think we're really missing the forest for the trees here. What does it say about our country that a chance for a decent education and/or economic opportunity for girls is so contingent on athletic scholarships? Surely we can, and should, do better. Perhaps our elected officials can consider THAT "nuance."

---

D.M. in Lexington, NC, writes: For 22 years, I've been what you might call a lurker around here. I faithfully read every day's post, and have since I first learned about the site in 2004 on CNN. For some reason, in the last year, I find myself more eager to engage with the community. You've answered one of my questions on the Saturday Q&A (about online universities like WGU), and most recently, you published my memory of my Papa on what would have been his 100th birthday. (Thank you again for that! It meant more to me than you know to share his story with others!).

Now I write in response to the Never Forget about Dave Lara, the gay veteran who fought in Vietnam. I've already purchased the book (Zippo Boys), and just finished watching the PBS documentary Corps Man. All I can say is... wow. I was quite literally moved to tears by his story, and his brave telling of it. I even found him on FB and sent him an unsolicited message thanking him for his service and his courage. I hope he'll forgive me taking that liberty.

As a gay man born in that nexus between Gen X and Millennial (Xenial), and a lover of all things history, I am keenly aware of how few gay men survived the onslaught (and government negligence) of the AIDS crisis. I've been fortunate to hear enough firsthand stories of life in the 80s as a gay man to have a life long appreciation, respect, and admiration for all who endured that time. And while I count as friends a few gay folks who served in the Vietnam War, I never truly "got it" until now—at least in terms of understanding gay history through the lense of war, camaraderie, and the constant risk of exposure.

For the last 9 years, I worked in support of the VA Transition Assistance Program, leading the team that develops VA-related training materials that every transitioning Service member takes as part of their outprocessing. While not a veteran myself, one third of my professional life has been in direct support of them, and I always thought I understood the community better than most. Boy was I wrong. I never felt it viscerally until now.

So, my humble and profound thanks go to Mr. Lara, not only for his service but for the bravery to share his experience with us. The impact his story has had on me is... profound. And thank you to ALL the Service members who have fought, no matter the time period, no matter their sexual orientation, and no matter their beliefs. Those sentiments, from me at least, were never just lip service, but today, more than any other day, I feel it deep within my bones. Thank you.

---

J.N. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: Just wanted to highlight something that happened last week that may have flown under your radar. The World Series of Poker is currently running in Las Vegas. Most people think of the WSOP as one single massive poker tournament, because that's the headline event, but it's really a series of (I think we're up to 100) tournaments with the Main Event being the centerpiece. For several years now, one of the side events has been the ladies' event—a $1500-buy-in women's-only tournament.

This tournament is segregated to increase female participation in high-level tournament poker, which is currently male dominated, and not because of any inherent biological difference in skill or ability. And so, even though it was running concurrently with several other larger tournaments, it was the ladies' event that the WSOP chose to televise in its nightly coverage.

This matters because for the first time this year one of the players was transgender. The other women in the tournament were broadly (and vocally) supportive. The announcers handling the play-by-play announcing were also supportive and very proactive about policing the comment section on the YouTube broadcast to ban those who were posting attacks and slurs. And as you might expect, there were a lot of them.

Poker is not an athletic event, in the traditional sense. Without taking a position either way, there are rational reasons for limiting participation in gender-segregated sports. None of those reasons exist for poker. And in a tournament that was designed to increase visibility to an underrepresented group, what could be more important than actual participation?

And if you're wondering, Aubrey Williams finished in second place, outlasting a field of 1,475 players. As far as I know, this makes her the first openly transgender player at any WSOP final table.

---

D.S. in Half Moon Bay CA, writes: Another data point for your general information.

Half Moon Bay California has a large percentage of Catholics—and in particular, Portuguese Catholics, descendants from the Azores. We have a Holy Ghost festival, Chamorita, and other culturally relevant events throughout the year.

This year, a whole bunch of Sacred Heart flags popped up around town, on private homes, and on businesses. People started poking around, as this happened in June during Pride month, and found references to using this flag as an anti-Pride symbol. One of our neighbors had the flag up—a very nice, friendly family—so we asked them why they were flying it, and they said their church asked them to, with no other information.

The local community message board got pretty lively about this for a while. Some people said they had been flying that flag forever, because it was a sacred symbol for them, a sign of Jesus's love. But it was never so prominently seen around town until just this year. Some flag-flyers were offended at it being co-opted by anti-gay sentiment. Others were, "Huh? It's just a flag, dude." Other rationalizations also floated around.

A bit more digging, and it seemed that a directive to put up the Sacred Heart flag came from the San Francisco archdiocese. Here is the document from the Archdiocese, from 2024. The opening paragraph is: "While the month of June has been claimed by a prideful modern culture to celebrate falsified love and distorted identity, it's important for Catholics to remember that June belonged to the Church first."

That really sets the tone, doesn't it? Falsified love and distorted identity?

The furor has died down, the flags are mostly down, but it has left some residual bad feelings.

---

J.S. in Durham, NC, writes: Given the heavy focus on LGBTQ issues of your Friday post, I thought that this article on the seven (eight?) genders in the Talmud might be of interest.

---

S.D. in York, England, UK, writes: You wrote: "Before we go, let us say: Please do keep in mind that we just produced nearly 10,000 words today on a general subject that is trickier than most, and has the potential to offend in multiple directions."

This post was gold. I learned a lot by doing internet searches on all this new information content (like that Rick Astley covered "Pink Pony Club"!). One comment I do have is on "Fidelity Month." If there is ANYTHING that links the LGBTQ movement, it is FIDELITY. Being one's authentic true self is literally the definition of Fidelity, after all.

As a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Heterosexual Affluent Male with U.S. and U.K. passports—i.e. not typically defined as a protected minority class—I needed this post today. It was ace and your post made me smile in day where that would be in doubt.

P.S.: Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) recently appeared on a U.K. podcast and there was a part of discussion on the ongoing bathroom bill debates. On the podcast, Sarah argued that the primary harm of these laws isn't just the direct impact on transgender women, but rather how they are enforced in practice. According to McBride, enforcement disproportionately scrutinizes and penalizes cisgender women who don't fit conventional, feminine stereotypes. The now-notorious incident at the U.S. Capitol, where Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) confronted an unidentified cisgender woman perfectly illustrates this exact failure. The woman was targeted because her appearance didn't meet the enforcers' expectations. As McBride's point suggests, this case won't be an anomaly; it's a predictable outcome of such legislation. My thought line: This underscores the sheer absurdity of policing who belongs in which restroom. Ultimately, the simplest and most sensible solution is to just let people pee wherever they need to.

---

M.A. in Park Ridge, IL, writes: For my entire 68-year life, I have been governed by these four words: Live and let live.

Great work on Friday's posting.

---

M.S. in Harrisonburg, VA, writes: I wanted to let you know that, as an older, straight, white male, I found your Friday posting inspiring. I have always been appalled by the right's blatant (and calculated) anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and actions and being reminded that the members of that community are far stronger than the bigots on the right and will triumph in the end made my day. I will happily do my small part by voting to abolish the anti Gay Marriage amendment in the Virginia State Constitution this November.

---

A.H.-S. in Brier, WA, writes: I think you did an excellent job of celebrating Pride month and the LGBTQ+ community without being in any way offensive (except perhaps to those who desperately want to be offended). I am a proud Transparent, my daughter is a delightful young woman. And I have enormous respect for a community which exhibits so much joy and has so much fun, despite being subjected to so much vitriol and hatred. Thank you.

---

J.C. in Napa, CA, writes: Regarding your Pride post, I will simply say THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

---

O.B. in Oklahoma City, OK, writes: This comment is more of a two-parter because I have two things to say that are related but also somewhat different in subject matter.

Given the tight timeline and heavy amount of writing, I think you all did a really good job on handling this tricky subject matter. My only suggestion is to avoid using terms like "biological male" and "biological female" because they are loaded terms and anti-trans dog whistles. The terms erase the biological differences between, say, trans women and cis men, namely the fact that a trans woman's brain structures are much closer to those of a cis woman than a cis man and vice-versa for trans men. This also opens up the opportunity to add more nuance to the often facts-optional debate over trans athletes: What, specifically, is the WNBA's policy on trans athletes? I haven't looked into the policy (nor do I really care), but if it's a total ban on trans women, you could say something like "trans women are completely banned from playing in the WNBA, which is weird because trans women who never went through male puberty get caught in the crossfire despite having none of the advantages of male puberty." Nuance like this would help other readers learn more about this topic. I do give you all some forgiveness because I don't expect anyone to be experts on absolutely everything.

The other part: In the often facts-optional "debates" over trans issues, no one ever talks about trans men. Everyone on the anti-trans side is always hyper-fixated on trans women. I think this reveals that the underlying motivation has (almost) nothing to do with safety or fairness and (almost) everything to do with misogyny. Want to force people to play on sports teams based on their birth sex? Congratulations, that's how we get bearded trans men on testosterone being forced to play on women's teams. Want to force people to use single-sex spaces based on their birth sex? Congratulations, that's how we get trans men being forced to use the women's restrooms. That's also how we get more MAGA weirdos harassing and assaulting cis women for not looking cis enough. It also completely erases recognition of intersex and non-binary people. There are over 3 million intersex people in the United States (making up about 1% of the population), and pretty much none of them have the proper legal recognition. No one ever talks about them, either!

---

K.L. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Reading Friday's Electoral-Vote.com, which I always appreciate and am grateful for, I couldn't help noticing that you devoted something like 70% of the thing to the trans issue. Given all that's going on in the world, don't you think that's a little too much focus? It seems to me that by amplifying the issue you're playing into the hands of the far right, who would like nothing better than to make the next election about trans women in sports and in bathrooms.

Final Words

(Z) writes: This will be familiar to many, probably most, readers, but it's still so appropriate for this space that we're going with it. When he died, Thomas Jefferson's final words (despite reporting to the contrary) were "No, doctor, nothing more." He had taken stimulants to keep himself going until July 4, 1826 (i.e., the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence), and once it was clear he was going to make it, he had no further medical needs.

Jefferson's last words were actually uttered on the night of the 3rd; he died a little before 1:00 p.m. on July 4. About 5 hours later, John Adams, who was also trying hard to make it to the fourth, passed away. His famous final words were "Thomas Jefferson survives." Not correct, of course, but Adams had no way of knowing that.

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger