The Revisionist Desire in Dixie

Understanding history is vital to understanding oneself. In the United States, American history is drawn upon on a daily basis. A good example is how people reference the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution to defend or support their political views, as evidenced by the prominence of related signs at Tea Party rallies. However, it sets a dangerous precedence when one misunderstands, either willingly or not, one's own history to use for their own ends. Recently, it seems more and more conservatives, especially from the South, are drawing upon or referencing our common history in the wrong manner, often distorting facts or seeming to appear just plain ignorant of what they are talking about.


A lot of members of the so-called "Tea Party" movement proclaim that the country is "moving away from what it was founded on", referencing the Founding Fathers' "Christian" roots/beliefs and apparent love for small government. Never mind the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were not true Christians, the way we would interpret the meaning today. Nor the fact that, from the very beginning of American self-government, there existed a party system that included both Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party who desired a strong central government and the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were just about the exact opposite. It's interesting to note the similarities to today of how Hamilton's idea for a strong central, federal government (i.e. the Democrats) came from the North and both Jefferson and Madison, who hailed from Virginia, preferred small, non-influential government (i.e. the Republicans). So the very basis of what many of the teabaggers are saying are not exactly the truth, although it's most likely the "truth" from how they learned it.

This altered take on history by conservatives can be seen in two recent examples. The first is Virginia governor Bob McDonnell declaring "Confederate History Month". Saying that the the Confederate rebels (i.e. traitors) "fought for their homes and communities", McDonnell, who is Republican, left out one major aspect of the Confederacy's short-lived reign: the role of slavery. To ignore such an important aspect of not only Confederate history, but of American history, is downright unacceptable and offensive to the millions of slaves who lived under terrible conditions, as well as to the millions of their descendants. The President himself called out the governor on this travesty, who quickly issued an apology. However, in standard Republican fashion, the apology rings hollow, as McDonnell went on to explain the reasons for his omission, stating that "slavery wasn't a significant part" of the reason for why Virginia seceded and that there were many other reasons that ignited the Civil War. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing to the African-American population of Virginia, were they in front of him. So the 30% of the population of Virginia in 1860 who were slaves is not considered significant? Really? While it's true that, yes, there were many reasons for why states seceded, the massive role that slavery played in the conflict cannot and should not be understated, or as it is this case, ignored.

I'll leave it to Jason Linkens to put the whole idea of a Confederate History Month in perspective:
Meanwhile, why not have a Union Appreciation Day, where people wear T-Shirts with Abraham Lincoln's visage that read, "Tell us how our taint tastes, treasonholes?" Next year, at Appomattox!

Thomas Jefferson

While Governor McDonnell is content to simply proclaim ideas, Texas is taking things much more seriously. In a 10-5 vote along party lines, the Texas Board of Education (none of whom are historians) ratified several changes to the make-up of history textbooks that will be in Texan schools for the next 10 years. Among these changes are the stressing of American capitalism, diminishing the idea of separation of church and state among the Founding Fathers, and, in the most insane move of all, completely removing Thomas Jefferson's name from a section on great political thinkers. The reasons for these, as always, involve some sort of "liberal bias" on the part of, well, everybody else. One is left to imagine whether future Texas high school graduates will wonder who the dude on the nickel is.