The End of a Golden Era in College Basketball's Greatest & Fiercest Rivalry

Note: Yes, this is a history blog, but it also traces the history of things that I care about; therefore, what follows are my thoughts, hastily written in the moment, on the history of UK-UL's basketball rivalry and what was perhaps that rivalry's golden era that likely closed today with the firing of Rick Pitino.

I realized that I bled blue and did so before I was five years old. I can recall sitting on the floor watching Kentucky basketball games with my dad who was situated in his chair with his beverage of choice in one hand and the remote in the other as he shouted at the television. Of course I was indoctrinated by my family's preference for Kentucky despite having grown up in Louisville.

Throughout the 1980s, the Wildcat fan witnessed college basketball's winningest program slip behind Duke and Louisville and then came the 3-year ban, essentially the death penalty after Kentucky was found to be paying a recruit's father and slapped with academic fraud. What seemed like the end of basketball in the Commonwealth as we knew it (Louisville is, of course, a small nugget of the great Commonwealth), turned out to be a blessing in disguise as the university's basketball program was purged of all the muck that had built up during Eddie Sutton's tenure as head coach. Still, few of us thought so highly of Rick Pitino, the program's new coach, a largely unknown Italian or whatever he was from the Northeast. Within a matter of two years, Pitino had done the unthinkable with a team consisting of native Kentuckians that no program in the nation wanted. "The Unforgettables" nearly pulled off the unthinkable in knocking off Duke in the 1992 NCAA tournament had it not been for that last second buzzer beater shot by . . . oh and thanks CBS for reminding us about it EVERY March. I can remember being on an emotional roller coaster as I jumped on my bed watching the last seconds and then dejection. The hurt that loss inflicted deep within the hearts of Kentucky fans was an indication of how far we had come in such a short period a time.

Kentucky was back in the conversation among the nation's marquee basketball programs. Pitino was at the top of his game, a close tie with Coach K as the best coach in college basketball in the 1990s (I would argue better given how far he had to come as Duke had already established itself since the late 1970s.) He took us to the Final Four again, and again, and again. In the midst of the incredible ride, Kentucky won the NCAA title in 1996 with what was undoubtedly Pitino's best team to date, and arguably one of the best teams in college basketball history (even better than any of Coach John Calipari's teams during his tenure at UK). Then, Pitino was gone.

Since 1993, every UK fan had worried year in and year out that the NBA would come and pilfer Coach P. The lure of being back home in the Northeast, the glitter and glitz of professional basketball, and winning an NBA title was too much to resist. Sure Kentucky fans were hurt; however, nobody could fault him for doing what he did. Surely not I. Pitino had made my middle and high school years memorable (I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of the trash talk I engaged in with my Louisville schoolmates at school) and I was thankful for what he did and for what he left the program with--a team ready to win the next NCAA title and a great assistant coach--Tubby Smith--ready to fill his chair. Pitino could have retired at Kentucky and been made governor if he had wanted the post!

When he failed at Boston, we felt bad for him. But when Pitino came back to Kentucky, his plane landed not in Lexington, but in Louisville. Instantly the Kentucky fan base was split. I chose not to bad mouth and loathe him. I maintained my appreciation and respect for the man who restored Kentucky to its rightful place on top of college basketball. I embraced the fact that the rivalry was now going to be extra-heated and made even more special every time Kentucky won although I knew it would not be easy to do so. Despite Pitino being the better coach, he had to rebuild a program that had fallen over time as Louisville's Denny Crum saw the game pass him by. In the beginning of the Tubby-Pitino era, the edge in the rivalry remained with Kentucky. Then, things shifted quickly in Louisville's favor as Pitino worked his magic in his new adopted hometown. Meanwhile, Tubby wore out his welcome as he failed to develop players and that NCAA title he had won in 1998 seemed to be more credited to Pitino, as it was his team, rather than Tubby himself. Kentucky's star waned further in the "Billy G" years as Louisville supplanted Kentucky as the Commonwealth's superior team.

Then came 2009. It was time to flush the muck that was Billy Gillispie out of the system and to begin anew. I was not pleased one bit to hear John Calipari was to be our new coach. Sure, I thought he was dirty. There was a violation at UMass involving Marcus Camby which resulted in a vacation of wins and suspicion that possibly something unseemly was at work in Memphis where Cal went next. With Cal at the helm in Lexington, I knew Kentucky would be a 30+ win team; however, I dreaded the consequences of what might come with him. Let's face it, we all remembered the shame of 1989 and feared it would happen again (and to be honest, many fans still have those lingering fears of Cal--even though he has never been directly implicated in any NCAA violations at UMass, Memphis, or Kentucky).

Rick Pitino flips off Kentucky fans at Rupp Arena

With Cal and Pitino now on opposite sides of the court in the UK-UL rivalry, it quickly became the best rivalry in college basketball (I'm sure Duke and North Carolina's basketball fans would challenge that assertion). From the beginning, Cal had the upper hand on Pitino, as Kentucky got the best players and dominated the series. As Cal changed the face of basketball, a process which was already underway before he arrived in Lexington, it forced other coaches to adapt. It appears Pitino resisted as long as he could; however, as Duke, Kansas, and North Carolina changed to adapt to the new style, I am sure the pressure was too great on Pitino. I believe the entire hell Louisville finds itself in today is due in part to the pressure brought to bear on Coach P by Louisville fans and boosters to keep up with and beat Kentucky. The other part, and perhaps even larger part of the puzzle, is a direct consequence of the culture that has permeated the university for the past two decades under the greedy and immoral leadership of the current (hopefully not for too much longer) Athletic Director Tom Jurich and for some of that time, the former President James Ramsey where athletics was privileged over academics.

Had Pitino stuck with the coaching style that made him a Hall of Famer, I believe he would still be the coach at Louisville today. Quite frankly, when it comes to the x's and o's of basketball, Pitino is the best or a close tie with Duke's Coach K. Pitino is a much better coach than Coach Cal. Pitino is perhaps the best coach, even better than Coach K, at developing a 4-year player. That is Pitino's game, not going after the 5-star, "one and done," recruits. What Pitino lacks, is simply the flair and panache that comes natural for Cal (the stuff that lands these 5-star recruits), even if Cal can be, yes (pardon me) a blowhard. Although I have never lost my respect for Pitino as a coach, the era of my respect for Pitino as an individual ended long before the current plight that he finds himself. It is certainly not my place to judge his moral failings and I really could care less about what part he played or did not play in the current scandals facing the university. But when Pitino disgraced himself at Rupp Arena, flipping off some ignorant, foul-mouthed UK fans, that was the end of my respect for Pitino as a man. He should have been used to that treatment at an opponent's arena and controlled himself. Now, sadly, a golden era of the enduring rivalry between Kentucky and Louisville, has come--for the time being--to an end. I am sure that the game in late December will mean a little more than all other regular season games, but it won't be the same with a young, untested coach on Louisville's bench. I wish him the best, but I doubt he is their future. Here is to Louisville cleaning up the remaining muck in their program and getting back solid on their feet as quickly as possible, because I want both programs back at the top of college basketball.

Ulysses S. Grant "Finally" Gets His Due???

Ron Chernow's "Grant," perhaps the most anticipated biography in American history of 2017, drops tomorrow and reading the early reviews leaves me asking myself, really?

Just a sampling of some of the reviews (Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker; Mike Fischer, Journal Sentinel; David Plotz, Slate), which all leave the impression that Grant is about to get the "Hamilton treatment," even if it does not ultimately result in a Broadway hit musical.

No doubt Chernow's biography (the man behind other notable biographies and who inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda to write his Broadway hit that has rescued/rehabilitated the $10 Founding Father) will become the most widely read study of Civil War General and President Ulysses S. Grant to date; however, for those of us who have been laboring in Grant's vineyard for the past two decades, all of this talk of rehabilitating the $50 president is quite odd.

Sure, the architects of the Lost Cause beat up Grant during his time and that narrative influenced their scholarly descendants and even the revisionists were influenced by William McFeely's 1981 biography that was more a product of the Vietnam War era than a study of Grant & the Civil War era. But those of us who have studied and written on Grant know that the man buried in his tomb (yes, the answer really is Ulysses S. Grant!) is much more than a failed businessman; a drunkard; a butcher; a second-rate to Robert E. Lee who only managed to defeat the great hero to the Confederacy because of sheer mathematics and firepower; a rascist whose policies who doomed the freed people in the South and the Indians on the Great Plains; and an incompetent politician who trusted those who took advantage of him and stained his administration with scandal.

Since the late 1990s, that narrative has been challenged and refuted. My own work into Grant's role between Appomattox and his election in 1868 as president (I argued Grant worked behind the scenes with leading Moderate and Radical Republicans to undermine President Andrew Johnson, actively sought the presidency to secure "the fruits of victory" achieved by the Union, & played a significant role in shaping postwar U.S. foreign policy south of the border during the French intervention in Mexico) was questioned by the late John Y. Simon, who headed up the Grant Papers project. I can vividly recall him sitting in the front row of a conference that I presented my research and afterwards telling me that he found my talk interesting but he wasn't buying my overall argument that Grant was anything but apolitical. But that work, which resulted in my Masters thesis and subsequently two scholarly articles, has held up and been supported in several studies published since the "Grant Boom" began in the late 90s (notable scholars contributing to the "Grant Boom" includes Brooks D. Simpson, Joan Waugh, Frank Scaturro, Jean Edward Smith, and most recently Ronald C. White).

It is a safe bet that Chernow's "Grant" will be a NYT bestseller and will go a far way to rehabilitating the $50 man in the public's eye (and I wish Chernow success in this venture and that he reaps his financial rewards for his magisterial biographical abilities); however, it is probably also a safe bet that it will unlikely shed anything new on the man with no middle name that Grant scholars have not already published in the first two decades of the 21st century.

Why July 4th is not the original date of American Independence

July 2nd, NOT July 4th, is America's "historically accurate" day of independence day.

Massachusetts Historical Society

In a July 3, 1776 letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams wrote the following (page 3 of the letter, see right):

 

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States."

 

Why, then, was Adams so assured that July 2nd would become "the most memorable Epocha" and America's "great anniversary Festival?" On July 2, the Continental Congress unanimously affirmed independence from Great Britain. The vote had been anticipated for quite some time once Virginia's House of Burgess instructed its delegates in May 1776, led by Richard Henry Lee, to propose independence. Once Lee formally moved a resolution on June 7, a committee headed up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, began drafting a document setting out the case for independence. Though the document was unfinished, the July 2 vote was the moment a handful of America's Founding Fathers crossed the Rubicon. According to the July 2nd Philadelphia Evening Post, "This day the Continental Congress declared the United States Free and Independent States." The deed was done. The die cast. Independence was a monumental action that had only then recently gained favor with the majority of Americans, thanks, in large part, to the work of Thomas Paine (a British citizen) and his pamphlet "Common Sense."

 

John Trumbull's Signing of the Declaration (Library of Congress)

But what about July 4th and Thomas Jefferson's ultimate breakup letter to Great Britain, the Declaration of Independence? The final draft of the Declaration of Independence, the very document that has "July 4" literally stamped at the top of the document and is believed to have been singularly authored by Thomas Jefferson, was, in fact, finally approved by Congress on July 4. However, the document's first clean copy was not produced until August 2, the date in which the first members of Congress signed their names--i.e. John Hancock becoming the first as he wrote his name so large that King George III would not need his spectacles to read the signature. Several other members did not sign until 1777. The Declaration of Independence itself, was largely ignored following the American Revolution because its "work" was accomplished.

Declaration of Independence (Library of Congress)

So, why do we celebrate July the 4th, not July the 2nd, the day in which Congress actually declared American independence? Because the document has since become a living, rather than a dead document. Though largely ignored for decades after it was completed and signed, the Declaration of Independence--the work of many, not one single man (Thomas Jefferson)--gradually emerged as a living force in American society in the nineteenth century. It was Abraham Lincoln, who in essence, dusted off the Declaration of Independence and began to invoke the Founding Father's "ideas" and language when he reentered the political realm in the 1850s. Lincoln's reinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence is stated briefly and eloquently in his 1863 Gettysburg Address in which he declared that the founding fathers had committed the nation in 1776 (you know, "four score and seven years ago") to "the proposition that all men are created equal." Lincoln challenged those who remained loyal to the United States to complete the "unfinished work" of the Union dead, who "gave the last full measure of devotion" to bring to "this nation, under God, a new birth of freedom." According to Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence, the national charter of our liberties, was what the American people chose to make of it. Binding the founders' generation with his and subsequent generations of Americans, Lincoln reinterpreted the Declaration of Independence as a living document in a continuing act of national self-definition.

Congress may have completed its work on July 2, 1776 when it declared independence from Great Britain; however, Americans of all stripes will continue to look to the document itself as they reinterpret that most sacred of American ideas--"that all men are created equal." Therefore, so long as the Declaration of Independence guides this nation and those fighting for human equality, I suspect July 4th is a fitting day to celebrate. In the meantime, for historical accuracy, let's push for recognition of July 2, 1776 as the date we officially severed our bonds with the "Mother Country" and, why not call for a 3-day national holiday to celebrate this great country. Huzzah!

"His Excellency" to the line! (Part 2)

"Impeachment & Base Ball"

In February 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first president to be impeached. The impeachment and subsequent trial in the U.S. Senate, in which Johnson was spared conviction and removal from office by a single vote, was the culmination of a bitter partisan struggle for power that pitted the Executive against Congress.

The English-born American sportswriter Henry Chadwick using "Old Chalk" as his "Brooklyn Morning Programme" pen name, used base ball to describe Johnson's impeachment to readers, a tactic often used as early as the late 1860s to explain Washington D.C. politics and society. In the following account, impeachment was a ball game between Johnson of the National Club and Thaddeus Stevens (Radical Republican leader in the U.S. House) of the Constitution Club:

Andy Johnson, who had a fight with Stevens, the pitcher of the nine, not long since and the quarrel has not been made up yet. Johnson, it appears, wanted to play certain points in the game . . . but Stevens wouldn’t pitch as Johnson wanted him to and as the rest of the nine joined Thad. Stevens against Johnson, who is the occupant of the first base in the National nine, of course the game had to be postponed. Finally Johnson tried to organize a new nine for the club, and then the row began. Johnson began by placing Larry Thomas in as catch in place of Ed. Stanton. . . . The rest of the nine then took part with Stevens, and putting Stanton in the nine again, said they had found a man to take Johnson’s place, and boldly announced that they were ready to “Wade” in and “fight it out on that line if it took all the summer.” . . . They charged him [Johnson] with selling the games of the club, and of putting men out purposely on his own side in match games. How the mess will end I can’t tell.

Henry Chadwick, an English-born American sportswriter, covered baseball from the 1860s to his death in 1908.

 

 

 

"His Excellency" to the Line! (Part 1)

"1860 Election & Baseball":

 

Library of Congress

For those of us who live in the 19th century, we are familiar with the first image, which depicts the four presidential candidates running in the 1860 election. It's a great image that I often put up on my PPT to cover the entire election--candidates, political parties, & issues--for my students. I recently came across the 2nd image, which depicts the four candidates and the election as if it were a baseball game, thus revealing how baseball had become ingrained in popular culture as early as 1860. It may be difficult to read, so I have transcribed the cartoon.

 

 

 

Library of Congress

 

From left to right: John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) His belt reads "Union Club" and his bat (willow) states "Fusion" which accurately captures the state of the Const. Union Party, the Border States who sought compromise to avoid war. Bell says, "It appears to me very singular that we should strike "foul" and "put out" while old Abe made such a "good lick."

Stephen Douglas (Northern Democratic Party) His belt reads "Little Giant" his nickname and his willow states "Non-Intervention." Douglas and the Northern Democrats were contempt to adhere to the idea of "popular sovereignty" to allow settlers moving west into the federal territories to decide for themselves whether their states should be free or not. Douglas says to Bell, "That's because he had that confounded rail, to strike with. I thought our fusion would be a "short stop" to his career.

John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic Party) His belt reads "Disunion Club" and his willow appropriately reads "Slavery Extension." Breckinridge, holding his nose and walking off, captures the Southern Democratic position in 1860. They were headed out of the Union, convinced that a Republican victory would spell doom to their way of life. He says, "I guess I'd better leave for Kentucky, for I smell something strong around here, and begin to think, that we are completely "skunk'd."

Abraham Lincoln (Republican Party) His belt reads "Wide Awake" and his willow "Equal Rights and Free Territory." Lincoln says, "Gentlemen, if any of you should ever take a hand in another match at this game, remember that you must have "a good bat" and strike a "fair ball" to make a "clean score" & a "home run."

A Confederate takes a stand against Confederates hiding what they really fought for

He was known as the "Gray Ghost," a capable Confederate officer whose 43rd Virginia Cavalry's lightning-quick raids behind Union lines in northern Virginia and Maryland during the Civil War frustrated Union forces. John Singleton Mosby was one of the Confederacy's most celebrated generals; however, this Southern war hero lost his luster when he decided to cast his lot with the Republican Party and forge a friendship with President and former Union general Ulysses S. Grant in the years after Appomattox. As Mosby entered the twilight years of his life, he was frustrated that many of his former brothers in gray were twisting history for their own purposes, hiding the true reason for what they had fought to preserve and the cause of secession.




Confederate General John S. Mosby

As the years passed and many of the former Confederates chose to record their war experiences, most chose to frame the war that they fought to sever the South's relationship with the federal government as a tragic family quarrel, a war of "brother against brother" in which both the Union and Confederacy had fought gallantly for noble causes--states' rights on the part of the South, preservation of the Union for the North. They chose to hide the real cause of the war--slavery. This tragic, yet romantic Lost Cause version of the Civil War was reinforced in the writings of Confederate soldiers and officers alike, in reunion speeches, and dedication of monuments in public spaces throughout the South in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.




John S. Mosby to Sam Chapman, June 4, 1907 (Page 1)

As a United States Assistant Attorney in 1907, Mosby wrote Sam Chapman a letter on Department of Justice stationary in which he complained that George Christian, one of many former Confederates who were rewriting the cause of the Civil War, minimizing the primary role of slavery, to make it appear as a noble war. Mosby gives a brief account of the Southern defense of slavery prior to the war, criticizing John C. Calhoun's bitter attack on Thomas Jefferson, who had prohibited slavery's expansion into the Old Northwest (Northwest Ordinance of 1787). The "Gray Ghost" confessed that he did not approve of slavery; rather, it was inherited in his family as an institution: "Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did, I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance. Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates & cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property, it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war--as she said in her Secession proclamation--because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding.... Ask Sam Yost to give Christian a skinning. I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery--a soldier fights for his country--right or wrong--he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights in. The South was my country.”


*Note: In the above excerpt, I have made slight edits (punctuations & removed strikeouts) to make Mosby's letter easier to read. If you would like to view the original letter and transcript, please visit Gilder Lehrman.

This post was inspired by Adam H. Domby's article "Defenders of Confederate Monuments Keep Trying to Erase History" which referenced Mosby's letter.

Bending History to meet a Lost Cause Agenda: Erasing the Confederate Generals from History Who Don't Muster Up to Their Version of History

Many of the Lost Cause monuments situated on courthouse lawns and parks in southern cities and towns at the center of the storm often have a similar look to them. Why? Most were commissioned at about the same time (1890s-1920s) and most were turned out by the same artists, who, interestingly, often lived north of the Mason-Dixon. No doubt General Robert E. Lee was a likely choice for many of these monuments, often situated atop his beloved Traveller, the most famous horse of the Civil War. Lee was an ideal choice to represent these early 20th century Lost Cause monuments of southern defiance because the story of Lee turning down President Abraham Lincoln's request to lead the Union army to put down the Southern rebellion fits the Lost Cause narrative of a war between the states over states' rights. Many Americans either of a certain age educated in a time in which the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War held sway across this nation or perhaps those still living in areas in which teachers, families, and communities still clings to this interpretation are quite familiar with Lee's rejection of Lincoln's offer in favor of deferring to his state's (Virginia) decision to secede from the Union. Lee's decision to favor his state over the union fits the Lost Cause narrative perfectly and thus the general has been remembered fondly by those who fervently cling to the idea that "The War Between the States" (their term of choice) was fought over states' rights and other issues rather than slavery (see an earlier post in which Southern and Confederate leaders clearly declare slavery as the root cause of the Civil War).



Longstreet statue in Gainesville, GA

Longstreet statue recently installed at Gettysburg

Not all Confederate generals have been remembered as fondly as Lee. A couple of the most capable generals have been largely erased from the Lost Cause narrative of their "War Between the States" because they don't muster up to their version of history. One of the most noted Confederate generals of the Civil War, James P. Longstreet, has been largely erased from that history. There are only two statues to Longstreet: one in his hometown of Gainesville, Georgia & another installed nearly a decade ago at Gettysburg (a statue depicting the battlefield general and nothing more). Today, Longstreet might seem known more for being the scapegoat after Lee's failure at Gettysburg rather than his many battlefield successes against Union forces. Sure, he was no Stonewall Jackson (who I argue was the Confederacy's best battlefield general), but he was certainly the next most capable of Lee's generals.

So, why only two statues to Longstreet? Was the screw up at Gettysburg that bad, threatening to tarnish the great Lee's reputation that Southerners punished Longstreet by overlooking him time after time as hundreds of Lost Cause monuments started springing up throughout the South? Why was Longstreet constantly overlooked in favor of other less capable Southern generals and leaders?

The answer, which should be instructive to Americans today as we debate the Lost Cause monuments, has more to do with Longstreet's post-Civil War resume. He became a Republican, breaking bread with the enemy to support Republican policies such as interracial democracy--supporting equal rights for the freed people. Thus, Longstreet became persona non grata in the post-Civil War South among supporters of the Confederacy.

General William Mahone, CSA

Read the following article by Jane Dailey (University of Chicago) about another of Lee's right hand men, General William Mahone, who has been erased from the Southern Lost Cause narrative of "The War Between the States." It lays out the similar fate that both Mahone and Longstreet have faced at the hands of the architects of the Lost Cause narrative.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-confederate-general-who-was-erased-from-history_us_599b3747e4b06a788a2af43e?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Those who built the Lost Cause monuments to Confederate generals and leaders, who bent history for their own purpose, certainly understood what they were doing in the early 20th century when they erected monuments to further their "War Between the States" narrative: "Interracial political cooperation had to be forgotten if [the southern architects of the Lost Cause] were going to sell white supremacy and solidarity as timeless and natural, and not as the result of a 30-year campaign [JIM CROW] to render black southerners political and economic dependents and social unequals. How we remember our past directly influences the possibilities for our future. This is why [early 20th century] white Democrats erased as much as they could of the history of interracial democracy in the South, after they [purposely] destroyed it."

Note: I have chosen to make a few changes [brackets] to the article's conclusion to more clearly set the historical & political context.