Blog Post

AEIdeas

The outrage began with the calls for removal of the Confederate Flag and exploded to assaults on John Calhoun, Woodrow Wilson, and most recently on Thomas Jefferson. My purpose here is not necessarily to defend the merits of these individuals, as I find some more deserving of recognition than others. Rather I argue that the protests calling for the removal of affiliations with these historical characters or movements very closely resembles mob rule, and that these protests are founded on the snare of “historical presentism” whereby one applies contemporary moral judgments and worldviews to those of the past.

James Madison’s fears of mob rule and majoritarianism is a well explored topic. Suffice it to say that in Federalist 10, he wrote to the citizens of New York that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

This overbearing force today comes in the shape of tyrannical college mobs who demand any affiliation with people they don’t like be permanently removed. This movement derives its strength from purely negative energy and hypersensitive accusations of prejudice or racism.

Not surprisingly, these mobs have neither a factual or nuanced historical understanding. Do the protesters calling for the banning of “Confederate Flag” know that this flag was actually the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by Robert E. Lee, who spent the rest of his post-war life trying to reconcile the south to the Union? It was neither the Stars and Bars nor the banner of the Confederate States of America.

Similarly, do the students at the College of William and Mary who so offensively defile the reputation of Thomas Jefferson as a “racist” and a “rapist” know that Jefferson was a lifelong opponent of slavery and that the Hemings affair is at best disputed by historians? Not only did Jefferson refer to the institution of slavery as a “moral depravity”[1] and a “hideous blot,”[2] but he also dedicated his early legislative career to gradual abolition. In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson denounced King George III for having “prostituted his negative [veto over colonial laws] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [slavery].”

In 1778, he drafted a law that would prohibit the importation of slaves into Virginia. In 1784, he wrote what would be the precursor to the Northwest Ordinance that outlawed the expansion of slavery into the northwestern territories. Should we blame Jefferson for not being single handedly able to eliminate a quandary that required a devastating Civil War to rectify?

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., provides further proof of Jefferson’s anti-slavery sentiments. One panel reads “Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” Does this give the impression of someone seeking to promote an ideology of white supremacy to keep chattel slavery in perpetuity?

Are those who would accuse Jefferson of being a rapist aware of the Report of the Scholars Commission that was composed of thirteen premier historians? The commission found that:

After a careful review of all of the evidence, the commission agrees unanimously that the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in his more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly false…Our dissenting member believes that there is not sufficient evidence to state conclusively one way or the other whether Thomas Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings.

It seems to me that these arguments are not being addressed by the media. Even more discouraging, professional historians have failed to provide adequate historical instruction and enter into the debates around these contentious issues.

All of these protests of historical occurrences are symptomatic of a deeper, more grievous problem, that of historical presentism. This is defined as the application of contemporary moral judgments or worldviews to the past. Any trained historian knows that this is among the easiest traps into which one can fall.

The task of the historian, or the modern university student for that matter, is not to descend from on high and mete out judgment. As historian Herbert Butterfield stated, the historian should be a “recording angel” rather than a “hanging judge.” When one studies the past, it is meant to be a deeply introspective experience. The goal is to enter into conversation with historical figures, to understand their world as fully as we can, to learn from them, and to let them challenge our worldviews. As historian Ashley Cruseturner so aptly states, “History represents the preservation of our collective past as well as the study of change over time…The role of the historian encompasses a sacred duty to offer a multi-dimensional picture of the past (and the people of the past) in the context of the past.” This means that in terms of sensitive topics such as human slavery, we should understand, but not excuse, the situation of the times. We should reflect upon the reasons that we are so horrified by chattel slavery and use these reflections to institute substantive change in our times – not symbolically condemn someone relegated to the grave.

These are dangerous times for the study of the past. Historians can no longer afford to sit idly by as uninformed or misinformed tyrannical mobs seek to stamp out the history they do not like. It is a threat to the preservation of the past. It is a threat to free speech. It is a threat to proper historical understanding.

It is particularly alarming when Annette Gordon-Reed, a historian and law professor at Harvard University, can make the following flippant remark in a live broadcast of Backstory with the American History Guys, a public radio program that brings historical perspective to current events. Sitting in the audience of the live broadcast of their most recent segment at the National American History Museum, I listened to Gordon-Reed — when asked whether she would remove Princeton’s affiliation with Woodrow Wilson — say that “If we eliminate all statues of white supremacists, we won’t have any statues.” Not only is this an unfair and prejudiced remark, but it shows the pervasiveness of the problem of historical presentism, including among the Ivy League.

One of the practical goals of history is to provide a civic education and civic identity to draw people together. As evidenced by the latest headlines, this is clearly in serious decline. As Dr. Wilfred McClay stated. “We need an approach to the past that contributes most fully to a healthy foundation for our common, civic existence—one that stoutly resists the culture of fracture rather than acceding to it.”[3]

As informed Americans, we must resist the tyranny of the college mobs. More importantly, we need to push back against the visceral instinct to condemn the past and deny historical presentism in all its manifestations.

[1] Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 10, 1814, in PTJ:RS, 7:652. Transcription available at Founders Online.

[2] Jefferson to William Short, September 8, 1823, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Earl Gregg Swem Library, College of William and Mary. Transcription available at Founders Online.