Comment Of The Day on “Comment Of The Day: ‘Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/27/18: …And Slanted History’ [Item #5]”

This concise but useful comment of the day takes the baton from the previous one, which discussed the reasons for the increasing politicizing of American history, often with the objective of vilifying the American experience.

Here is JutGory‘s Comment of the Day on the post, Comment Of The Day: Morning Ethics Warm-Up. 11/27/18: … And Slanted History” [Item #5]

Tempted to write several times, but never felt I would have the time to do my thoughts (or the topic) justice. Not that I consider myself a good student of history, but even big idiots can usually crack the 90th percentile (and I am a bigger idiot than most).

Progressives are undoing a grand bargain. Grant won; Lee lost; Grant let the defeated army walk home; and Lee agreed the cause was lost. Both sides saved face; they agreed to bury the hatchet. The South had formal and substantive arguments that formed the basis for secession (or war). That issue was put to rest and both sides were able, through the wisdom of the generals on both sides, to put an end to the fight.

The hatchet has been dug up by the progressives. The honest differences cannot be entertained. There cannot be honor on both sides, which was the deal struck (even for the losing side). The implicit agreement to let the past be the past has been ripped open by those lacking the wisdom of the Founders, who kicked the can down the road, or Grant and Lee, who decided to stop kicking it.

By insisting on good and evil, on right and wrong, the progressives want to dismantle the gentleman’s agreement that has allowed the United States to move forward. They want to move the country backward.

In light of this, a few clarifications are needed: clarifications lost on most Americans because, but for the stupidity of the progressives, they would not be needed.

The American Revolution was not a revolution. The French Revolution, which sought to overthrow the government, was a revolution. The United States merely asserted (declared?) its independence.

The Civil War was not a Civil War (or a War if Northern Aggression). England had civil wars, where two opposing sides fought for control of the government. That was not our “Civil War.” We had the South engaging in a War of Independence, neither a Revolution, nor a Civil War. If we named our wars correctly (or more accurately), we might have a better understanding of history.

Progressives have no time for these nuances, because they impede progressivism. They must get beyond the deal struck by Grant and Lee because that deal prevents the demonization of one side that, in turn, prevents them from “progressing.”

14 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day on “Comment Of The Day: ‘Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/27/18: …And Slanted History’ [Item #5]”

  1. A profound and timely observation, Jack. Today, Progressivism has become a political cult steeped in revolutionary socialist ideology. Today’s progressives are acutely aware the only way they can retain political power is to continually recruit new comrades into their clanship as they attempt to deconstruct our culture and nation.

  2. Loved this comment and it is so true. Grant understood what Lincoln had in mind when he met with Lee, and the surrender document forever put to rest the thought of endless treason trials and proscriptions and the like. It gave us the chance to start rebuilding our society. Even if we didn’t do a perfect job, we managed to build a great country after the war.

    • And we see later in history after WWI what happens when the victors are looking to punish the losers rather than trying to move on and build a better future.

  3. Wonderful essay. I especially liked the reclassification of the wars. I had never thought about it that way and this characterization makes tremendous sense. I will be incorporating this in my future discussions on the topic.

  4. There’s a book title in there, Jut, preferably the title of a new history book for all American elementary school children.

  5. The American Revolution was not a revolution. The French Revolution, which sought to overthrow the government, was a revolution. …

    Mmm… there is a grave danger of a certain kind of historical error here, one that projects the values of the present onto the past and so misinterprets what people were up to.

    It was the French Revolution, itself, that changed the meaning of the word to that. Before that, it had the same meaning as in Britain’s Glorious Revolution of 1688, much like “all pervading reorientation/resetting”. The French Revolution’s exponents – like that thoroughly misguided agitator, Tom Paine – claimed that that was all that was too, thorough but not truly violent and Procrustean (they were even somewhat wrong about that in North America, when they applied it to the actual fighting after 1776 rather than to the metamorphosis before). Anyway, the French Revolution worked out differently from how it was advertised, which shifted the meaning. But it’s misapplication of modern experience to hold up earlier examples to that measure: they were genuine revolutions in the sense then obtaining.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.