Colored Waif’s Home Band photo—Louis is in upper center with left hand on his hip. Louis Armstrong House Museum dates photo between 1913 and 1914.
The source of much of what we know about Louis Armstrong’s early boyhood years in New Orleans is a curious and oddly compatible combination of myth, legend, and historical fact. There’s no fault here. Those of us who love and admire Louis Armstrong have no problem with seeing him as a mythical figure because he is mythical, which makes it easier for us to both understand and to identify with him.
Though the casual fan may not know many biographical details about Louis, because of his legendary status few of us would fail to immediately recognize his name, despite the fact that he died over forty years ago. What’s more, the legend of Armstrong is forever inextricably linked with the word jazz. Mention his name and people will automatically think jazz. Fifty percent of my high school English students would recognize the name of Louis Armstrong without knowing that the reason they do is because of jazz. That would please Pops. The simple logic of jazz: Louis Armstrong is jazz—jazz is Louis Armstrong. In this case, with apologies to Alfred Korzybski, the word Louis Armstrong has become the thing jazz.
There is a certain mythos surrounding Louis Armstrong that compels jazz historians to tread lightly when it comes to Louis’ larger-than-life mythical persona. They know myths are not easily altered. The problem these historians face is that historical fact—and new books about Armstrong continue to be published—and myth often intersect in controversy whenever it challenges the traditional Armstrong mythos. Many of the details in the conventional narrative about Louis Armstrong’s life have been found over time to be inaccurate. There are many examples of this, the most famous of which is the confusion about Louis’ “actual” birth date—a perfect example of the clash between the myth and the reality.
Until jazz researcher Tad Jones found Louis’ actual New Orleans baptismal certificate in the basement of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in New Orleans, for decades jazz historians believed Armstrong’s birth date was July 4th, 1900.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus Church at 3200 Canal Street—the church where Tad Jones found Louis Armstrong’s baptismal certificate. Source: neworleanschurches.com
In fact that date can still be found in numerous jazz histories all written by reputable scholars. The date was never in dispute primarily because Louis believed that date was his birthday. Note the image below:
Louis WW I draft registration. Note dates. From the National Archives: https://research.archives.gov/id/596218
This shows Louis registering for the draft at age 18 and his birth date as July 4th, 1900. The date of his registration is not on the card, but the age as written is 18, so assuming the law required him to register soon after his 18th birthday, this would make the year 1918. But as we know, Louis was really 17. Interesting.
Here is a copy of his 1937 application for a Social Security account number that shows this July birth date:
Louis Armstrong’s application for a Social Security number. Document archived at louisarmstronghouse.org/collections
What’s interesting about this record is that Louis gives his birth year as 1901. Also, the application was made on May 25, 1937, when Louis was in Hollywood to record a number for the Paramount Pictures film Artists and Models. Armstrong minutiae: The title of the tune was “Public Melody Number One” which he sings in a duet with an almost black-faced Martha Raye on a set that looks like Harlem.
Black-faced Martha Raye in a scene from Artists and Models. Source: http://shebloggedbynight.com/2011/artists-and-models-1937
Writing about Armstrong’s birthday in Satchmo, author Gary Giddins noted that, “writer Tad Jones, an authority on New Orleans music…, in true Lew Archer fashion, sussed out census reports and followed leads that led to the baptismal registry of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church and certification of Louis Armstrong’s true birth date (August 4, 1901).” Of course, those of us who love Louis wanted to believe the father of modern jazz was born on the fourth—it’s wholly appropriate. Maybe even some of us were disappointed that the historical fact did not support the myth. However, the myth of his birth date in no way detracts from our belief in the greatness of this man and his contribution to making jazz a truly American art form; in fact, I believe, it helps us better understand the true nature of Louis Armstrong’s genius. The more we factually understand about this great man’s life and his influence on jazz, the greater we understand why he has been such a significant force in the evolution of jazz. What’s better than myth and legend? Our discovery that in spirit Pop’s just like us: he’s human.
Call and Response 