The Uses and Misuses of History: On Jefferson Davis, Thomas More, Martin Luther, and Other VillainsRoundup
tags: Confederate flag
Suddenly, a significant portion of the U.S. population has shown an interest in history, a subject heretofore usually greeted with scant enthusiasm. In the abstract, this new-found interest might be considered a welcome development. After all, knowledge is a good thing, right? But an interest in history can become an unhealthy preoccupation with historical grievances. It is not necessarily a good thing to be obsessed with the ghosts of the past.
The principal impetus for Americans' recent interest in history is the controversy over displays of the Confederate battle flag, which has now morphed into a discussion of the commemoration of leaders, political and military, of the Confederacy, which is common in many Southern states and far from unknown in other parts of the United States. For example, one of the main thoroughfares in my area of Northern Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Highway. There are several prominent federal military installations named after Confederate military figures, for example, Fort A. P. Hill and Fort Benning. And let's not bother to count all the schools, highways, government buildings, postage stamps and other assorted thingamabobs that honor Robert E Lee.
Many assert that commemorating these "heroes" of the Confederacy is just plain wrong because, all things considered, they were not admirable people. There is no doubt the primary reason for the secession of the Southern states was their desire to preserve the institution of slavery, so effectively individuals like Davis, Hill, Benning, and, yes, even the venerable Lee were fighting to defend a monstrous institution. One might concede that these individuals had some virtues, such as courage in battle and perhaps even kindness and generosity to those they considered part of their moral community, but the same might be said for some Wehrmacht generals, and although there are cemeteries for the German war dead throughout Europe, to my knowledge there is no Erwin Rommel Autobahn.
So let's rename the highways, forts, and schools and tear down any monuments that honor Confederate leaders? But as a matter of logic, where does one stop? If support for slavery is the touchstone for determining whether a historical figure is to be honored, what do we do with Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, slave owners all? Granted, Washington did provide for the manumission of his slaves in his will, but Jefferson freed only some of his slaves, and Madison none. So give Washington a pass, downgrade Jefferson (maybe by placing some explanatory plaques around the Jefferson Memorial), and rename anything dedicated to Madison?
One problem with such an approach is that although superficially it appeals to history, it also ignores much of the historical context that should inform our judgments about prominent figures from the past. With respect to slavery, almost all human societies up until the end of the 18th century of the Common Era took slavery for granted, a fact which is reflected in the holy texts of all the Abrahamic religions--the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Qur'an--none of which condemns slavery. If God disapproved of slavery, he kept very quiet about it. The movement to abolish slavery only got underway in the 1700s, and at first was very much a minority view. Toward the end of the 18th century, at the time of the American Revolution and then the French Revolution, the view that slavery is immoral finally began to gain traction, at least among the more enlightened segments of the population. This, of course, was the generation of the Founders, and many of the Founders, including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison did condemn slavery and in their official actions took some steps toward ending or curtailing the practice. It was during Jefferson's presidency, and at his urging, that Congress abolished the slave trade. But by the time this new attitude towards slavery appeared, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison already owned slaves and they had much of their personal wealth structured around the institution of slavery. Effectively, they lived in a transitional period and their mixed record on slavery reflects this context. From our distance, it is easy to see them as hypocrites, but none of us, thankfully, is now enmeshed in the situations in which they found themselves. ...
comments powered by Disqus
- U.S. Planned for Military Occupation of Cuba
- New picture emerges of Mata Hari, who faced firing squad 100 years ago
- Massive section of Western Wall and Roman theater uncovered after 1,700 years
- Fight over national monuments intensifies
- Martin Luther: Reluctant reformer who rocked Christianity 500 years ago
- Historian Keri Leigh Merritt defends activist scholars
- Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances
- A historian who became a business professor?
- Allan Lichtman's response to critics of his book that makes the case for Trump’s impeachment
- "Do We Have To Fight Nazis Again?” asks historian Paul Ortiz