One of the benefits of political and social crisis is the rise in the interest in history within the general population. During ordinary, less disturbed periods of history, far less attention is focused on the political events that occur outside one’s local social field of vision.
In times of political crisis and social turmoil, however, the collective mass-mind begins to awake and rub its sleepy eyes. Our current crisis is no different, and accusations of historical revisionism can be heard ringing from the voices of various political interests vying for cultural power. The debate over our “real” foundling history has been a major contributing factor to our turbulent political climate that has erupted over the past two years. The loudest accusations of historical revisionism come from the political far right, who make the charge that leftist professors have taken over our public education system, distorted our founding history, and indoctrinated our youth into Marxism.
While there is some legitimacy to the claims made by those on the far right concerning the current slant in our historical education, these charges are also blurred, bent out of proportion, and torn out of context. The constant cadence of “we must return to our founding principles” that we all hear oozing from the religious right, is actually an attempt to revise history as well. In response to the revisionist history currently being propagated by many on the far left, we see the religious right “coming to the rescue” by attempting to posit their own brand of revisionist history.
However, not all historical revisionism is an attempt to sneak in a particular ideology. I see two types of revisionism that need to be identified and distinguished in order to have constructive discourse on the subject of our “true history.” The first I briefly mentioned above – having a prior commitment to an ideology or traditional belief that takes precedence over the actual known facts of history. This type of historical revisionism employs omission and misintegration, i.e. leaving out important information while also taking selective bits of useful information and molding them to fit one’s prior commitment. This tendency is not restricted to any one group or individual. It’s a universal human tendency that one is required to remain consciously aware of, while engaging in any honest pursuit for truth. If one’s prior commitment to a particular ideology is allowed to lead the way, we will get a particular “brand” of history; be it liberal or conservative.
There is a second type of revisionism that is essential to any true investigation of fact. When new information from various fields of study overturns our understanding of what we once thought about our past, then revision is mandatory for the integrity of truth. Often, this new understanding can be painful to integrate with widely accepted beliefs and long-standing traditions. Sometimes, the pressure is far too great for one to bear, and the new information is simply rejected at all cost. The clearest display of this type of revisionism, and the response to its painful revelation, can be clearly seen in the debates that became quite heated this past summer concerning our founding fathers, and our founding “principles.”
Leading the charge of this campaign to restore our “true history” is Mr. Glenn Beck and his Beck University staff historian, David Barton. Barton is also the founder of WallBuilders, a website dedicated to traditional historical revisionism. To many people Beck and Barton are champions of our heritage, preserving and defending our “true Christian history” that has been distorted by those “revisionist” lefties. Beck and Barton together supposedly represent our traditional understanding of both the personal religious faith of our founders, and the primary sources that our founders used to create our Republic. Theirs is not an unfamiliar brand of history, for it is the brand that was taught to everyone unchallenged up until the mid 1960s. It is the brand of history that surrounded all of us, and as for me, it was a history that I never thought to question. I took for granted that our founding fathers were Christian men who constructed our Republic on the Bible and Christian principles. That is what I was told in my home, at my school, and in my church while growing up.
I can still remember the day a copy of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason fell into my hands. I thought nothing of it when I first bought the book. Having previously read his Common Sense and American Crisis, I expected more inspiring prose on liberty and justice. My curiosity was further heightened, when upon reading his introduction, I discovered that this book was different than any of his other works. In this book Paine was giving his testament on religion. Having thoroughly understood our founders to have been Christians, my world quickly came to a screeching halt, for within these pages were the most critical observations and opinions on religion that I had ever heard. Moreover, for the first time in my life, here were many of the same questions and critiques that I had held silently for years, being openly and honestly confronted in the clear light of reason. His words ran counter to everything that I had been taught, and inspired my quest for the truth on the subject.
My conclusions differ greatly from those of Mr. Beck and Mr. Barton. The reason for this can be found in our starting points from which we began our investigations. Beck and Barton started with a prior commitment to religious ideology and traditionally held beliefs. Their motivation was to defend their Christian brand of history against the avalanche of new information that is available to any citizen that chooses to look; not to mention the book sales that are generated through selling their historical brand. My starting point was confusion. Confusion between what I had been told was true, and the facts that I had uncovered with my own eyes and mind. My primary motivation was to come as close to the truth as the current material would allow – regardless of tradition, ideology, or popular opinion.
“I have now gone through the Bible, as a man would go through a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the priests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them in the ground, but they will never make them grow.”-Thomas Paine
You are quite correct Mr. Paine – I can never go back to what I once held to be true. Of the seven founding figures that I hold to be essential to the coming about of our Revolution, e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison – I found that they can be placed into three categories that characterize their personal religious beliefs.
1. Solid Christian
2. Anti Faith-Based Religion
3. Not So Sure
Of these seven men, I found that only one could rightfully be called a true Christian, that being Alexander Hamilton. Five of these men were anti-faith, and even anti-religion. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Madison were all anti-religion. Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were not as outspokenly anti-religious, but were far from “Christians.” George Washington falls into the not so sure category, though a strong case can be made that Washington was not so hip with the Christian thingy. One thing is clear to me today: the traditional claim to our founders being Christians has clearly proved to be false, and requires historical revision in the minds of the masses.