Blog 4 History

Last week was pretty serious around here for the most part, so from the lighter side of history:

(Source)

I received a surprise email from the publicist at McFarland that a new review of my book, The 11th Wisconsin in the Civil War: A Regimental History, McFarland & Co. (Fall 2008) recently came out, which was a surprise as the book has been out for almost 2 years! Anyway the magazine is Blue & Gray and the reviewer is David Powell who looked at three regimental histories and I thought he had some great comments about regimental histories. I think they are still very vital to Civil War memory, understanding and most certainly scholarship, it just depends on the quality. As Mr. Powell noted, for historical purposes even a very basic regimental history can offer some value. Anyway, to the top right is a sample of the review and if you wish to read the whole review you will have to get their latest issue.

I am finishing up my research paper for my Civil War Command and Leadership class that I spoke of a few months ago. Next week I start a full load of 12 credit hours which will place me at 27 credit hours with one class and my thesis remaining (9 credit hours). It’s a good thing we have David here now as well, seeing that I will be very busy.

Here are the classes I have coming up:

HIST557 History and Popular Culture – A class that I am interested in seeing the curriculum as there were no books to purchase all materials will be downloaded!

HIST520 Graduate Seminar in U.S. History – Looking forward to this challenging class. The books that I have had to purchase so far: The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War by Alan Brinkley; Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 by David M. Potter; Search for Order, 1877-1920 by Robert H. Wiebe; and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe. I have already read Daniel Walker Howe’s book which is fantastic. I have also started reading New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War which will challenge me and this good, so I see this course as a great challenge and one I welcome.

HIST555 The United States in the 20th Century – For this class I have purchased Pivotal Decades by Jonh J. Cooper; and Liberalism and Its Challengers: From FDR to Bush by Alonzo L. Hamby. Another great class that I anticipate will be be informative.

Publishers have also sent me some interesting titles:

”Deliver Us from This Cruel War”: The Civil War Letters of Lieutenant Joseph J. Hoyle, 55th North Carolina Infantry by Joseph J. Hoyle, Jeffrey M. Girvan (Editor). McFarland, 2010. I liked Mr. Girvin’s chapter “Studies of the Common Soldier in the Civil War” which is a historiography on the recent studies of Civil War soldiers.

Beyond the March of Death: Memoir of a Soldier’s Journey from Bataan to Nagasaki Myrrl W. McBride, Sr. Foreword by Myrrl W. McBride, Jr., and Gerald F. McBride. McFarland, 2010. I read this book in a few hours on Sunday afternoon in an attempt to get my mind off health care and I am happy to report Myrrl W. McBride’s riveting, insightful and at time colorful narrative of his time as a POW from his experiences during the tortuous Bataan Death March to his time in Japan as essentially a worker slave. A great read!

The Last Leaf: Voices of the History’s Last-Known Survivors by Stuart Lutz. Prometheus Books, 2010.

And finally, The Long Shadow of the Civil War: Southern Dissent and Its Legacies by Victoria E. Bynum. UNC Press, 2010. This looks like an interesting accomplishment by Mrs. Bynum that I look forward to reading. From the Publisher: “Victoria Bynum relates uncommon narratives about common Southern folks who fought not with the Confederacy, but against it. Focusing on regions in three Southern states–North Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas–Bynum introduces Unionist supporters, guerrilla soldiers, defiant women, socialists, populists, free blacks, and large interracial kin groups that belie stereotypes of the South and of Southerners as uniformly supportive of the Confederate cause.”

I arrived at school this morning early. I did not sleep well, I felt, well frankly, on the down low and tossed and turned all night. I stayed up last night and watched the mockery that is the United States House of Representatives. This is not change and “ethics” at work, it was more of the same. No one would deny that we need health care reform. I was hoping that it would not come in the form of a Trojan horse that has one ultimate goal.

Back to my story, waiting there in my classroom was Gustaf, a foreign exchange student from Sweden. A nice young man and whom I have gotten to know and think very highly of. He is socialist, comes from a socialist country where they have government run universal health care. Gustaf greeted me as he usually does with a question or two about what today’s lesson might entail. I was not myself and he sensed it, so in his broken but yet very good English he asked, “So you watched the Congress last night?”

Apparently Gustaf’s host family had. We had a 10 minute or so discussion on the Sunday evening events and he then said something remarkable to me: “Mr. Wehner, the health care bill does not seem very American. I don’t understand how America would want to do this.” He spoke of our ideals and values which he learned in his U.S. Government class — which I DID NOT teach.

Sweden is a country of about 9 million and according to Gustaf they pay very high taxes and the health care is not bad. But he wondered out loud, “how will it work for 300+ million?” Good question, I replied.

Though our conversation did not end with an enlightened discovery of what the future will hold, it did nonetheless brighten my mood and lift my spirits. We are exceptional and even to a socialist — a good kid who recognizes the greatness of our country while those spoiled by her freedoms cannot.

Also, I found this national address from President Ronald Reagan and thought I would share. I have a new website in the works for history teachers and well, will speak more about that later.

This is for all Americans and for all who teach American history.

Healthcare reform has been a major political issue for the last two decades. The Clinton Administration discussed and attempted to reform the healthcare system in 1993 to no avail. This week the House of Representatives passed sweeping legislation that could change the face of American healthcare at the most fundamental levels. The political fallout of the passage of this legislation could be detrimental to the Democratic Party during the 2010 mid-term elections, as many voters believe that their elected representatives have simply ignored the will of their constituents. My 13 year old son asked me tonight, “what’s the big deal, doesn’t this help people?” While this question appears quite innocuous, it also cuts to the heart of the issue, “What’s the big deal?” For me, the answer is fairly simple; the encroachment of the Federal Government over its citizenry (as laid out in this bill) is simply inexcusable.  I spent more than a decade in the medical field and have seen first-hand the over-burdened Emergency Departments of local hospitals, and while one could argue the need for healthcare reform, the current bill far oversteps Congressional authority to institute such reform.

                A number of states have filed suit in an effort to enjoin the Federal Government from enacting this legislation, a copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here.  While various arguments have been waged concerning the legislation (from the expense of the bill to the increase of the individual tax burden); the idea that the Federal Government could compel an individual citizen to purchase health insurance or face punishment is appalling. This singular issue violates every notion of Federalism envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. I admit that I am a staunch originalist and firmly believe that any powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the individual states. I can say with absolute certainty that nowhere in the United States Constitution is health insurance listed as an absolute right.  The Tenth Amendment protects the individual states from an overbearing Federal Government, but in this case this pesky Amendment has been simply ignored. If the Democrats in power are so convinced of the Constitutionality of this bill, I submit that they should invoke Article V of the Constitution and call a convention which would require a two-thirds vote of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment regarding the right to health insurance. Of course such action will never be undertaken as recent polls have shown the unpopularity of this bill across the nation. One could also argue that this legislation is a clear violation of the Commerce Clause, but I will not address that issue in this piece because the violation of Federalism is of far greater concern in my mind.

                I believe this issue will reach the Supreme Court of the United States, and some legal scholars doubt the validity of the argument presented by the various States Attorneys General in their suit, but in my mind the validity is clear, an overbearing Federal Government must be stopped from infringing upon the individual rights of a citizen. Furthermore, I believe that the President’s admonition of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address over political contributions, could come back to haunt him when this case does reach the high court. I believe that five of the nine justices are quite likely to take the side of Federalism over the side of a stronger federal government, which could spell disaster for this Administration’s defining legislation.

                While I believe that some reform of the healthcare system is proper and necessary, my belief in the individual rights of the citizenry is much stronger. I have the absolute right to decide when, where, and what to spend my money on, and the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to compel me to spend that money on health insurance. Any argument to the contrary is simply ignorant and inconsistent with the United States Constitution.  

Both Republicans and Democrats have used it. I understand the argument that the Health Care bill is the largest of its kind: 1/6 of the economy. But there is historical precedent to support the so-called “nuclear option.” Reconciliation has been used and has so in fairly similar ways, just not with such a big and important bill.

My only comment at this time, for a President and current Congress that promised to be the most “transparent” and “ethical” in history, it seems the difficult and more honorable path would be to buck the trend. To stand up and acknowledge minority rights and to honor the constitution, as has clearly not been done – that would have been what this administration promised.

Congress is broken and has been for some time. We The People must consider insisting that our politicians begin to honor the constitution. The Republicans have used this option to lower taxes and do things that Democrats cried foul over, just as Republicans are now doing. Both have been wrong. We need change, real change.

Here is a look at reconciliation’s controversial history:

Dec. 5, 1980 | Though reconciliation was established during the Ford administration as a means to keep spending in check, it went unused until the final days of the Carter presidency. As one of his last acts in office, President Jimmy Carter signed the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, designed to slim the budget deficit through revisions to a range of entitlement programs.

Aug. 13, 1981 | The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, passed by a Republican Senate, cut $130 billion from several discretionary programs, including welfare and food stamps.

Sept. 3, 1982 | A Republican Senate approves the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which first opened Medicare to HMOs.

Sept. 8, 1982 | For the second time in less than a week, Congress uses reconciliation to pass a $13 billion bill amending the food stamp program, the federal employee pay program and farm subsidies.

April 18, 1984 | The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983, approved by a Republican Senate, was a deficit-reduction measure that made changes to the annual cost-of-living adjustments to the retirement accounts of federal employees.

April 7, 1986 | A Republican Senate passes the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, otherwise known as COBRA. The act allows laid-off workers to keep their health care coverage.

Oct. 21, 1986 | The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 cuts $17 billion from the nation’s deficit through changes to Medicare and the sale of the government’s stake in the Consolidated Rail Corp.

Dec. 22, 1987 | Democrats, back in control of the Senate, pass the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 establishing federal standards for nursing homes under Medicare. The measure also expands Medicaid eligibility.

Dec. 19, 1989 | Democrats approve the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, stripping $39 billion from the deficit while overhauling doctor payments for Medicare.

Nov. 5, 1990 | President George H.W. Bush signs a Democratic measure, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; In addition to establishing pay-as-you-go rules for federal spending, the bill also implemented tax increases and added cancer screenings to Medicare.

Aug. 10, 1993 | Democrats, in control of Congress and the White House, pass the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993. It cuts $504.8 billion from the budget while creating new tax rates for businesses and individuals and also establishing federal vaccine funding for children.

Dec. 6, 1995 | Republicans, back in control of Congress, pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 through reconciliation. President Clinton vetoes the measure.

Aug. 22, 1996 | President Clinton’s welfare reform bill is passed by a Republican-controlled Congress through reconciliation. The bill separates Medicaid from welfare for the first time.

Aug. 5, 1997 | Republicans use reconciliation to pass President Clinton’s Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Besides setting the U.S. on the path to a balanced budget, the bill created the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The same day, a tax-cutting measure is also passed through reconciliation.

Sept. 23, 1999 | President Clinton vetoes Republicans’ Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999.

Aug. 5, 2000 | Republicans in Congress pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton vetoes.

June 7, 2001 | A day after his party loses control of the Senate, President George W. Bush signs the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, his first major tax cut.

May 28, 2003 | President Bush, with Republicans back in control of Congress, signs the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003, his second round of tax cuts.

Feb. 8, 2006 | After Republicans use reconciliation for the third time in his presidency, President Bush signs the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005; the bill cuts spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

May 17, 2006 | President Bush signs an extension of his earlier tax cuts approved by a Republican Congress in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

Sept. 27, 2007 | Democrats, in control of Congress once again, use reconciliation to pass the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. President Bush signs the $20 billion reform of student aid.

Sources:

* The Brookings Institution
* The Library of Congress’ THOMAS
* Congressional Research Service

My source

One of my AP US History students showed this to me and I thought it was cute so I will share here with you! (Video below)

What follows is an email interview with Victor Davis Hanson who is one of our premiere military historians. More importantly, Dr. Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow of Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno. Also, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. As the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College, he teaches each fall semester courses in military history and classical culture. Dr Hanson was recently awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 and the Bradley Prize in 2008.

Additionally, Dr. Hanson is the author of numerous books, among them Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, which in my opinion is a must read and a book that I find myself picking up often and referring to while I teach A.P. U.S. History and in particular my discussions of World War II with my students. Also, and the main reason for this interview, the upcoming book The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.

I hope you enjoy the interview.

B4H: As you stated in your upcoming book “The Father of Us All” war is rarely the result of miscommunication or misunderstanding. However, why was B.H. Liddell Hart wrong to state that “War is always a matter of doing evil in hope that good may come of it?” You did not agree with his statement.

VDH: I am not sure that using force to stop the SS is “a matter of doing evil”, especially in matters of self-defense. I know what Liddell Hart meant, but he phrased it wrongly: when a large bully attacks you and your loved ones, fighting back is a moral act; while begging for mercy or collapsing in a fetal position is a sort of evil thing that will result in the deaths of your dear dependents. So there is a sin of laxity as well as commission; as Aristotle reminds us being moral in one’s sleep is easy. Evil in 1939 was talk/talk/talk to Hitler while he planned to exterminate Poland.

As you noted, since the Peloponnesian War societies have sometimes convinced themselves that war would be short and that the enemy unwilling to commit to extended war. Is this getting worse today as modern societies adapt more “liberal” viewpoints? Has this really changed at all? Hasn’t this disillusionment always been a part of war?

As technology makes life better and the pace of our existences more rapid and rich, it is natural in such circumstances of impatience to think that war can be refined so that fewer are killed and its effects mitigated. Sometimes this is possible (cf. Panama or the Balkans); but human nature remains constant, so the old challenge/response cycle in which enemies react and escalate is still with us, along with those old human catalysts for violence—pride, honor, and envy. Going into the oil-rich, strife-ridden heart of the ancient caliphate to remove a thug and foster democracy is not quite the same thing as invading Grenada, so there will be times when all the high tech and sophisticated thought in the world won’t ensure an easy fight.

Why do democracies struggle to maintain prolonged war and is this not a serious issue from here on seeing that the nature of war has changed?

For a variety of reasons: 1) the people prefer their governments to spend money on themselves, far more easily defined as not spending dollars for tanks or bombs when there is a perceived need for social welfare programs; 2) democracy reflects majority opinion, itself fickle and predicated on popular perceptions: just as crowds get riled up and follow fads in mass fashion (see Thucydides book 2 on this), so they deflate suddenly as well when the promised benefits require more expense than anticipated; 3) majority votes often lead to sudden decisions. Herodotus said it was easier to persuade thousands of democrats at Athens to go to war than a few oligarchs at Sparta, the point being that once a majority is reached, it is very hard to question its legitimacy and action shortly follows, whether to abruptly go to war or to abruptly quit. Perhaps the greatest example of such democratic energy is a relatively unarmed America’s declaration of war in 1917, and then a million men in France by late spring 1918 (at rates of arrival in Belgium and France up to 10,000 doughboys a day).

All that said, when democracies find themselves in existential wars, in which their very survival is predicated on success, they are quite willing to mobilize to an astounding degree, whether Athens in 431 or America in 1941. The people’s nod is the public sanction, and there is no grandee or strong man to blame for the decision to fight.

I was taught that a military and the way it fights reflects the culture that produced it, is this still true? Why or Why not?

Yes, I think so with some qualifications as I wrote in Carnage and Culture. Culture–whether driving on the left side of the road or preferring mounted skirmishing to head-on infantry collisions–reflects popular mores, and to a lesser extent takes account of geography, terrain, and weather and national character. Our frontier, multiracial populace, radical democratic government, reliance on technology, and relative geographical isolation from Europe and Asia tended to make American armies eager to fight decisively, heavily reliant on machines, careful not to suffer casualties, mobile and rapid and eager to fight conclusively in order quickly to return home and demobilize.

Now with globalization, note that there is an increasingly uniformity in military practice as cultures start to blend into a Westernized pastiche. Just as we all agree that container ships are the most efficient methods of sea-borne commerce, so too the Western notions of military organization, high technology, and classical strategy and tactics tend to be embraced by most of the world. A soldier in Egypt is uniformed almost like one in Europe; a Vietnamese tank looks like an American model more or less; China flies Western-style jets, and even al Qaeda models its IEDs on concepts of Western land mines, parasitical as they are on things like Western cell phones, plastic explosives, garage door openers, propane canisters, etc.

Warfare has indeed changed: terrorism and insurgency have seemingly stifled the traditional Western way of warfare, has it not?

Yes, since classical times, tribes and poorer backwater states have plagued the military superior nation state in a variety of ways: they borrow, steal, and buy advanced technology (that they cannot make or often even repair) from Western powers; they can divide Western powers, or hope for a Civil War among them; they are often helped by anti-war movements, which call into question a consensual society’s moral or logical support for optional wars; they count on notions of asymmetry in which relatively more leisured and wealthy Westerners are less likely to submit to deprivation and risk early death than others for whom life is not so good–especially when war is fought at a distance and deemed by a public not to be a matter of national survival. Nothing we have seen in this context since 9/11 is thus new.

Is technology the answer to today’s unique warfare? Is there even an answer?

Technology is an accelerant, that closes the margin of error and nuances strategy and tactics; but that said, war is still fought by humans; their natures are unchanging; and thus the principles of what makes them fight, and why, and how they win or lose remain constant, mutatis mutandis. Predator attacks are very different from mounted archery ambushes, but their general aims—to take out key enemy leaders without committing resources to an all out war, remain the same across time and space. The challenge and response cycle between the IED and the up-armed American vehicle was as old as the catapult versus the stone-wall, albeit the time cycle collapsed from decades and centuries to mere days. Right now I am more worried about our planners being ahistorical and captives to technological determinism than obtuse to the role of rapidly changing machines.

You stated that “to begin studying war” the best place to start “is with the stories of soldiers themselves”. Why?

We have a tendency to see military history as a sort of art or abstract science, when it is legalized killing among very human participants. So to read about their first-hand experiences is to be reminded that war is a nasty business that is more than moving armies around on boards, although it is that too. There is a morality to military history that begins with understanding a lot of young people are going to die quite unfairly before their time, usually on their assumption that their premature ends are for a noble sacrifice for their loved ones to the rear. That perception should predate discussions of relative strength, balance of power, deterrence, alliances, etc. All these quite necessary referents derive from the general truth that, in the end, 18 year olds are going to kill someone and die. I think one learns as much about the face of war from E.B. Sledge as from Clausewitz, though both are necessary to understand war in general.

You said that most wars do not end as they start, is that not the nature of the beast? Wars rarely start and end for the reasons that the combatants initially thought? For example, the American Civil War and World War I. No one in 1860 would admit the war was about slavery, yet by 1863-64 it was indeed about slavery. Also, the reasons for fighting WWI if asked of a soldier in 1914 would changed significantly by 1918, did it not

Yes, as wars continue and the costs pile up, sometimes governments must reestablish the bases for war, adding new writs as others are deemed insufficient or no longer convincing; sometimes this is legitimate and honest as unforeseen enemies and issues arise—all predicated on ongoing success or failure. The Civil War was variously officially to be fought by the north to preserve the Union, to eliminate slavery in the Confederacy, to end slavery in both southern and border states, and finally to create a more perfect, more equal Union. What Union soldiers thought they fought for in 1865 was not quite the same as it had been in 1861. WWII started out to save Poland from Germany and Russia, and quickly ended up to save England and employ Russia to stop Germany. I don’t think anyone ever envisioned December 1941 ending up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In summer 1950 the war was to save a small bunch trapped at Pusan not to fight on the Yalu 700 miles to the north; no one quite knows where wars will lead or why they transmogrify, so it wise to factor in the unpredictable from the start.

If there is no longer a need to plan for a “decisive battle” (as it is not longer practical) than why do modern military organizations still continue to develop massive armies, tanks, ect? When will we ever need to have a large armored or navy force?

I don’t think it is wise to see war as linear, as progressing from genesis A to a telos B, as if age-old tactics suddenly come to an end due to technological changes. Believe me, if tomorrow China invades Taiwan, North Korea crosses the 38th Parallel or Syria, Egypt,and Jordan send columns into Israel (all not impossible), lightly-armed counter-insurgency forces will be of little help: we will want tanks, planes, missiles, and howitzers—and plenty of heavy army divisions. Decisive battle on a grand scale is more difficult with satellite observation, globalization of the economy, would-be international law and morality, and the nuclear genie, but still possible and perhaps very likely soon. We need to be prepared for all contingencies with the ancient wisdom that the last war is not a sure guide for the next.

Is it time for the United States to consider withdrawing from its world leadership position and maintain a pre-WW2 isolationist position?

Been there, done that, and we know where it leads—more so now in the nuclear age. Like it or not, our 70-year policy of opposing tyrannical anti-Western, and often authoritarian nations abroad, rather than wait for their aggression to hit our shores, is far preferable in the long-term calculus of costs to benefits. Take the most controversial wars imaginable—Iraq and Afghanistan—and one can still distill that our proactive efforts to stop jihadism and the Middle East cycle of dictators abetting terrorists and disturbing the region have led to lots of insurgents and terrorists killed, no major attack on the US home soil, two of the worst governments who riled up anti-Americanism into two of the better governments in the region. I am glad today Noriega has not had two more decades of mischief in Panama, or Milosevic another decade to destroy the Balkans or Saddam another seven years of endless chances to recycle his petro-wealth into both regional war and support for terrorists.

Why?

Why engagement rather than isolationism? Wars are prevented by redlines, or active engagement with would-be belligerents in which aggressors accept that certain behaviors will earn a counter-response, whose effects are not worth the saber-rattling risk. If such deterrence is real and known to the enemy, then a Hitler, Stalin or Mao is less likely to start a war in the first place. Take most wars—the Falklands War or Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait—and one can find its genesis in the miscalculation of a belligerent who, quite logically, but wrongly, took initial signs of his opponent’s weakness or indifference as a argument to take a risk, in a sort of cost/benefit analysis. Had the Thatcher government said to Argentina that any attack on the Falklands would lead to a massive British air and naval response against Argentinan forces anywhere in the south Atlantic, or had Ambassador Glaspie warned Saddam that invading Kuwait would earn him the bombing of Baghdad, and had they been able to convince Gen. Galtieri or Saddam Hussein of their seriousness, then perhaps the subsequent wars might have been prevented. Nothing is for certain in war given human fickleness, but as a rule preparedness, deterrence, clear signals to would be aggressors, and a willingness to make sacrifices to avoid larger catastrophes tend to prevent wars or mitigate their severity.

Finally, where do you see the United States in 20 years, both militarily and politically?

I think it will be militarily preeminent, but its supremacy won’t be unquestioned when a billion-person China or India can marry their newly energized capitalist economies and limitless manpower to high-tech, Western weaponry. Our status ultimately hinges on the degree that we maintain a free market, productive economy, encourage immigration of the risk-taking and entrepreneurial, avoid tribalism and social unrest, and retain a tragic sense that military forces are necessary as a deterrent against greater evils than peacetime military expenditure. Clearly much of this depends on a competitive educational system that instill a tragic sense of self, rather than the current trends to a therapeutic curriculum that emphasize questions of self-esteem in lieu of imparting facts and inductive methodologies.

A routine investigation of a stolen vehicle led to the discovery of a Civil War era cannon near Atlanta, Georgia. Upon entering the garage of the suspect’s home the investigators made a unique discovery:

Old bronze greeted them. It shone green in the light. The deputies looked more closely: It was a Civil War cannon barrel, battered with use, adorned with an eagle.

In finding the box, the Spalding County Sheriff’s Office likely solved one mystery, but created another.

Namely, whose cannon is it?

State officials say the gun belongs to Georgia. Atlanta representatives say it belongs in the city. Wait, say federal officials; the cannon could be the property of the U.S. Army. And then there’s Arkansas, where the weapon once helped train cadets in the art of war.

In the past few weeks, representatives of each government has telephoned the Spalding County Sheriff’s Office, asking after this aged piece of bronze worth as much as a suburban starter home. Each spoke to a 26-year-old lawman who, until recently, didn’t give the Civil War much thought.

“I was never a history enthusiast in school,” said Spalding sheriff’s investigator Josh Pitts. “But I’ve learned a lot in the last month.”

Read More…

           The Texas Board of Education has received more attention from the national press in the last few weeks than at any time in recent memory. The attention surrounds the Board’s evaluation and proposed changes to the Social Studies curriculum for public school children in Texas. The conclusion has also been drawn that the changes in the Texas curriculum could have wide-spread implications for school districts across the country as new textbooks are developed next year to reflect the changes proposed by the Board. I must admit that I initially took little interest in the meetings last week in Austin (Texas Board of Education meetings are generally less than surprising or interesting), until information began to come out about some of the proposed changes.

            Revisionist history is dangerous to the American identity and has always frustrated and angered me. Whether revisionism comes from the far left who wish to cast American history in a less than flattering light by emphasizing darker periods of history at the expense of the achievements of the founding fathers; or from the far right who seem to see religion woven into every bit of the American fabric, revisionism is dangerous. One cannot deny that the principle of freedom of religion was a motivating factor in the development of the Republic, but the Texas Board of Education has taken this principle to an extreme and intends to emphasize Christianity as the motivating factor for American independence. Ken Mercer, a Board member from San Antonio was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids.”

           This is a rather innocuous quote and on its face is arguably valid. However, the question arises as to where this view leaves some of the most well known framers, most notably Thomas Jefferson. It has been widely accepted that Jefferson was a deist not a Christian. Furthermore much of Jefferson’s inspiration and views of government emanated from the writings of John Locke. One of Locke’s most well-known writings was “Letters Concerning Toleration” written after the European wars of religion. In this letter Locke wrote, “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.” Jefferson was undoubtedly familiar with this staple of Locke’s writings.

            While the Christian faith was important to many of the framers, The Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) are devoid of Biblical quotes or references. One would assume that if Christianity were the major motivating factor for the framers, then such references would have been included in The Federalist Papers as this was how the idea of a free Republic was communicated and sold to the citizenry. I am not diminishing the role of faith and American history, but a proper understanding of the foundations of American political thought are vital to teaching the facts of American history rather than the opinions of modern American politicians. We must not trivialize the contributions of the Christian faith to American history, nor can we over-emphasize and revise the faiths of the individual framers at the expense of historical accuracy in an attempt to further some political ideology.

            The issue of religion is just one of a number of questionable positions taken by the majority of the Texas Board of Education, but it appears to be the most radical. Of the 15 elected members of the Board, only one has a background in history education. The remainder of the Board is composed of lawyers, realtors, business professionals, a dentist and a community organizer. How exactly are any of these people qualified to set curriculums for History and Government teachers? The best outcome that any history educator can hope for is that politicians get out of the education business. It is my goal (and prayer) that history is taught without any bias whatsoever. I don’t want liberal nor conservative revisionists. Politicizing history only denigrates the American identity.