Heroes vs. villains: Independence Day
Today is the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. Although the focus is on firework—a tradition I intend to perpetuate this evening—deep down, this particular holiday is really about American history.
John Adams, one of our founding fathers, knew this, although he was off two days on the date. As he presciently wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch 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 shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.
“Forever more” is a long time, to be sure. But so far the celebration is holding.
History often seems inevitable after it happens, and we tend to forget it is not—and that, most especially, the outcome is not known to those who live through the events in real time. The United States had a precarious existence at first, and Francis Scott Keys’s uncertainty about America’s continuance was not a ploy when he wrote of the fledgling United States in terms of a question, not a statement, “O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave/o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
Abraham Lincoln was determined to make sure the answer to Keys’s question would be, “Yes.” My old-fashioned education required that we fifth-graders memorize the Gettysburg address, and although at the time the I thought its opening phrase “Four score and seven years ago…”—referring back, of course, to 1776—sounded like a long time had passed, as I got older it occurred to me that when Lincoln spoke the nation was still relatively young and facing the greatest test of its existence, with the outcome unknown.
Lincoln wondered whether a nation devoted to liberty and the proposition that all men are created equal (and for “men” read “humans”) could continue to endure. He knew full well that such “equality” was imperfect under the law of the land; correcting flaws in its application to blacks was part of the reason for the Civil War that was being fought under his remarkable and eloquent aegis.
Independence Day isn’t about being perfect and celebrating that perfection. It’s about acknowledging the wonderful and optimistic vision of the original founders, being thankful for those in the past who have preserved it, and trying to honor it in the future. There are those who think our present government to be so pernicious that it has perverted the intent of the Declaration of Independence. There are others who, like me, think our government flawed but basically sound and that no such perversion has occurred, although course corrections are sometimes required—and have always been required—in our not-so-long history as a nation.
Speaking of that history—I’ve written before about the fact that the criticism of Lincoln by his own contemporaries was at least as bad (and very similar) to that meted out to Bush. This does not mean I’m equating the two in terms of statesmanship or vision or judgment; I am not. But my high estimation of Lincoln—and yours—was not shared by most of his contemporaries.
Here’s a quote on the subject from the excellent book American Brutus, Michael W. Kauffman’s biography of John Wilkes Booth:
The Civil War was unlike anything known in modern times, and the nation came closer to collapse than most people realize today. Emancipation of slaves, confiscation of property, and the draft often led to deadly clashes between the public and civil authorities. The political storm threatened not only the federal government, but state governments as well”¦In the middle stood Abraham Lincoln, blamed for the war and fired upon from all sides. It was not just the fringe element who hated the president; judges, senators, editors, and otherwise respectable citizens left no doubt of their contempt for him as well. One senator compared Lincoln to the tyrants of history, saying “They are all buried beneath the wave of oblivion compared to what this man of yesterday, this Abraham Lincoln, that neither you nor I ever heard of four years ago, has chosen to exercise”¦”
As I’ve written before, this isn’t the sort of thing one hears about in grade school or even high school history classes. Ordinarily one has to be in college level courses to be exposed to these rather startling facts of history as it was actually lived. But most people stop taking history courses before reaching that point, unfortunately, and therefore have little of substance to refer to when attempting to compare our present situation to the past.
Some believe the teaching of the history of the United States should involved focusing on the bad—the errors and misdeeds—over the good, and that teaching the latter is somehow jingoistic. Some believe that anything offending the tender sensibilities of some child or group of children or parents should be excluded, as well, and that history should be a PC endeavor to cater to all interest and ethnic groups.
I would like instead to see the teaching of a realistic and representative balance between the good and the bad in our history; and an awareness of the fact that although this nation is indeed flawed, that is only a reflection of the flawed human condition rather than some special and unique failing of our own. On balance, the US has a more heroic and inspiring vision than most, and has lived up to it far better and far more often than one might have expected, given the nature of humanity. And this is something to celebrate.
Mark Steyn has written that Prime Minister Howard of Australia has said the teaching of history in that country should be taught as a “heroic national narrative.” That’s a novel thought, is it not? But I think our history could honestly be described that way. Remember, real-life heroes are not Supermen; they make errors and have weaknesses, and they struggle to overcome them. Our own Civil War was an example of one of these struggles to correct a major flaw in the execution of the concept that all are created equal, and to more perfectly fulfill the original vision in the Declaration of Independence. There will be other such corrections, no doubt, in our future—hopefully, neither as wrenching not as bloody.
But we must be careful not to overcorrect or overreact; the Fourth of July is not a day of national breast-beating. It’s as good a day as any, and better than some, to celebrate the remarkable and laudable vision under which this nation was founded, and to be deeply grateful for those who have preserved and expanded that vision. The fact that its execution will always be imperfect is no reason to consider ourselves the villains of the piece. There are enough true villains out there for comparison, if anyone cares to look.
[NOTE: This is a repeat of a post that first appeared last year.]
Excellent point, neo. I’m teaching my two boys as much as possible about history in general, and American history in particular, neither of which seems to get any airplay in elementary or middle school.
Also kudos for reiterating the parallel in vituperation between Lincoln and Bush. If anything, Lincoln got it even worse than Bush. His own Secretary of State (Seward, IIRC) initially considered Lincoln an incompetent backwoods bungler. Any history of the Civil War makes Bush’s handling of the Iraq War look like genius.
Truman also received a lot of criticism, and for the same reason as Lincoln and Bush: he made tough, unpopular decisions and stuck to them.
That’s why on an previous thread (here?) I maintained that it was impossible to assess a Presidency accurately for at least a generation afterwards. Only once the dust has settled, and passions of the day are banked, is it possible to begin weighing the pros and cons of an Administration with any hope of realism.
Nietzsche wrote on of the clearest and most profound essays ever on the value of history, entitled “On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life”. Briefly speaking, he considered three or four modes of studying history:
1. The antiquarian, or love of one’s own. Value: a nourishing of roots. Pitfall: triviality
2. The monumental or heroic narrative. Advantage: a spur to human greatness. Disadvantage: A simplification and therefore false.
3. Critical: “wie es eigentlich gewesen war”, the academic, or how things actually happened. Value: fidelity to truth. Pitfall: makes it impossible to believe in origins, breeds ineffectual cynicism.
Another problem that Nietzsche identifies is what plagues us today under the guise of multiculturalism: a surfeit of history, a kind of cafeteria-consumer approach whereby there is too much to digest properly.
He stresses the need for a “horizon” and continually asks what is the benefit of history for living?
Sometimes it helps when yours enemies are true villains. Revolutionary war was greatly inspired by cruel and unreasonable reactions of British authorities. Americans were lucky that King George III was really mad. This was an important argument for republican government: the only way to exclude situation when unlimited power can be given to a madman.
PBS’ latest offering on the American Revolution history is called: “Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America” It’s told from a British point of view. Hancock and Sam Adams’ motivations are described in simplistic negative terms in almost the same breath.
Hancock is an ultra rich smuggler whose business is squeezed by increased enforcement. Sam Adams holds a grudge against the British because he believed they mistreated his father. There’s a sort of Cheney Bush parallel being suggested there (without mentioning their names). Cheney/Hancock the influential businessman in an important industry and Bush with the Hussein tried to kill my father so let’s start a war angle. Paul Revere is shown to be a propagandist. He created an inflammatory image of the Boston Massacre. Perhaps he’s supposed to be the Limbaugh of his day!
I haven’t seen the whole thing, perhaps there’s some parallel between Rumsfeld and Washington I missed or wouldn‘t understand!
Also the American militia is compared to Hamas and Hezbollah. (with the caveat that it’s a simplistic analogy) The Battle of Bunker hill is compared to Hamburger hill in Viet Nam. Tarring and feathering is mentioned briefly. The colonists like to call the Redcoats “lobsters”. You can’t help but feel sorry for them, being ambushed on their retreat from Lexington.
http://www.pbs.org/previews/rebels_redcoats/
Thats why I took to writing historical novels – because our real history is a great deal more nuanced and complicated than you would gather from the oh-so-PC textbooks…. these days, one can get by without learning anything about what a grand and noble experiment the creation of our nation was and what a terrible and wrenching experience that the Civil War was. (Besides being a damn close-run thing!?) Where could you begin to get a sense that our ancestors (actual and metaphorical) were people of courage, decency and optimism – certainly not in any current textbooks , and if DC is correct, not on Public Television, either.
Celia Hayes
Author – “To Truckee’s Trail” & the “Adelsverein Trilogy”
I think that if epic poetry was still in fashion the history of the USA would inspire a whole series of epic poems to rival the Iliad and the Odyssey.
gpc31 Says:
“Another problem that Nietzsche identifies is what plagues us today under the guise of multiculturalism: a surfeit of history”
That and the modern history is a ‘you suck narrative”
On this July 4, as we celebrate the freedoms that have long brought refugees and asylum seekers to our shores, it is all the more poignant to hear Dr. Crosby say:
it is tragic and ironic that these abuses were perpetrated by the United States, the very place to which many of my patients come to seek refuge from torture.
Bush with the Hussein tried to kill my father so let’s start a war angle.
“President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists
Bush: God told me to invade Iraq
I don’t see why you can’t teach the upside and downside of history in high school. The problem I had, a many years ago, was that history and geography were mashed into one time slot and one subject heading, with the predictable result.
It wasn’t until my senior year, when a series of unlikely events resulted in the quick loss of two teachers, that an unlikely teacher was hired. I already had some interest in history, but he really woke it up.
I don’t now recall his name. He was an older man, probably bored with retirement. He claimed he had gotten into WWI by lying about his age (and presented a brass helmet to prove it), had gotten into WWII and Korea the same way, and had stayed out of ‘Nam only because it was no longer possible for him convince anyone. In the heat of August and early June, with no air conditioning, he wore a suit and tie with not the least sign of being hot.
At the beginning of each class, he copied the day’s part of the syllabus onto the blackboard, word for high-falutin’ word, typos and syntax errors included. Then he read them aloud, respecting the grammar errors and pronouncing the typos. For the rest of the class he talked about the events as one who had actually been there. And he did it without the modern conceit of raging against The Man, The Corporations, The Wicked Republicans, or Imperialist Warmongers.
Hey, Twoofy, why don’t you give it a rest for at least one weekend a year? You can go back to your BDS obsessions after this weekend. And whatever are you and your kind going to do after 19 January 2009? Guess you’ll just have to find some other target of your official hatred.
And which one of Dr. Crosby’s patients was actually “tortured” by the U.S.? Oh, that’s right, none.
President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists
The above is a good example of the type of untruthful propaganda quite common to terrorists and apologists for the terrorists. They eat up this type of excrement like it was ice cream.
Dear neo-neo:
Lovely statement about history, and the nitty-gritty of life. You have it said the way I see it–the American enterprise of freedom and responsibility is grounded in muck and dirt, but it is very beautiful nonetheless.
The fact that we still collectively go to a field or park to watch fireworks rather than fire AK47 into the air is a testament to the fact that we have not lost our ways.
And it is important to teach all aspects of history. And as is – not revisionist.
I have been trying to collect as many History books as I can before print goes out of fashion so that my daughter will have something to learn if our schools and colleges fail in this fundamental aspect.
The fact that we still collectively go to a field or park to watch fireworks rather than fire AK47
Hummm, the law ad order keeps out firing AK47 into the air, that’s why. Otherwise if you disassemble the police force and the army force you find worse than firing AK47 into the air.
And it is important to teach all aspects of history.
Wonder if your nation had 5000 years of history how much be important your history to your nation, although your history had black periods?
Sadly in time your nation celebrating independence day in same time the same nation take other nation’s independency, this tells how people short in seen themselves and forgot other nation independence importance to other nations due to very short mature history of your nation.