- This topic has 4 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know the oldest source that the story of Washington and the cherry tree is from? I'm wondering where this story came from, and if it remained in oral form for some time.
Apparently the myth originated about 1800 in the first biography of Washington by one Mr. Weems. See here:http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/washingtonscherrytree
Thanks. Appears that Mason Locke Weems did create this legend Americana.
Honesty and humility also stood as strong 19th-century virtues. The American public may have known that Parson Weems' story of young Washington and his cherry tree rang false, but for the citizenry of the early United States of America, the idea behind the fable declared what they believed was true: Washington equaled honesty. I have no desire to hold onto my power, Washington told the people, and then he kept his word, proving no intention to deceive.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/gw/gwmoral.htmlIn the spirit of post-structuralism, we might ask - is it more important that the story of the cherry tree was false, or that people liked the story and equated honesty with George Washington and the founding of America?
I refuse to discuss anything in the spirit of post-structuralism. As a theory post-structuralism and its cousin post-modernism are destroying the academic foundations that knowledge has been traditionally based upon. I fail to see how a theory that questions the very nature of reality itself and the means whereby things adhere meaning to themselves adds to the sum of human knowledge.
I refuse to discuss anything in the spirit of post-structuralism. As a theory post-structuralism and its cousin post-modernism are destroying the academic foundations that knowledge has been traditionally based upon. I fail to see how a theory that questions the very nature of reality itself and the means whereby things adhere meaning to themselves adds to the sum of human knowledge.
Lol, I do have my own gripe with post-structuralism. However, having recently studied a bit about this approach, I think some of the issues it raises are valid/helpful. Perhaps we should discuss it in another thread since it's a good topic, but....for now pretend I didn't use the word "post-structuralism". Is the veracity of the cherry tree story more important or is the subsequent interpretation/belief in the story more important?
Now you see the trouble with “models” in historical analysis. All models have a degree of usefulness, but trying to stringently follow one particular model is unwise.
The Cherry Tree Story is simply an updated morality tale like the ones that were popular in the Medieval period.
I think the story added to the aura of the “legendary” status of an icon in the founding of America, just as great cities in Europe had their own legendary foundings (e.g. Rome). It adds to the notion that a nation is blessed by God with a higher purpose and gives the people greater cultural identification, which is dearly needed when culture is still being shaped due to its relative “newness”.So for historical purposes, I think the cherry tree story's significance was in its interpretation by hordes of schoolchildren who learned the story and came to identify America with Washingtonian virtue.
Well could it also have been a reaction to the rise of the Jeffersonians? As a reaction to the demise of the Federalists led by Washington? A bitter reaction at that? Many feared a Jefferson Presidency, and therefore stories about famed Federalists like Washington would have been useful propaganda in persuading people to not embrace the political changes that seemed inevitable. I'm not saying this is the case, but I know the story didn't just pop up out of the blue without some motive behind it, and if it wasn't true why was Washington content to let it be believed as truth?
It could be that Weems inserted the story into his biography simply to highlight what he saw as the virtues of Washington and in an effort to enhance his iconic status and not as some kind of backlash against the rise of the Jeffersonians. It is tempting to over analyze causes but I find it useful to employ Occam's razor in historical interpretation as well. The story may have just sounded good.
