Some historians and wanna be historians love to do the “I told you so” in regards to American history. They love to point out how Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator, Washington did tell lies, and that Jefferson not only owned a bunch of slaves, he fathered children by one of those slaves. Indeed, all of the above observations are mostly true and have been corrected as such by social historians during the past several decades. For as we know, though Lincoln played a role in emancipation, he cannot be given much credit, Washington loved to tell lies and during the Revolutionary War he depended on telling as many lies as possible, and finally, Jefferson and Sally indeed had a sexual relationship that probably included rape. All of this is cause enough, for some, to remove them from their pedestal and probably remove them as being worthy of much study.
[I am not a fan of the phrase "politically correct" whatever, but no one can prove to me it does not exist. Therefore, the question here is valid until someone can prove otherwise. I am not proclaiming that the so-called "political correct" nature of history is necessarily a part of this topic.]
For some the past is a usable device to shape the present (memory) and possibly make up for past injustices. J.H. Plumb wrote in 1969 that “True history… [was] basically destructive… For by its very nature it dissolves those simple, structural generalizations by which our forefathers interpreted the purpose of life in historical terms.”
As Gordon S. Wood has noted recently, “During the past generation historical scholarship apparently has fulfilled its destructive role only too well.”
And in many respects this “destruction” has been a positive as numerous myths have been corrected. Such things as the Lost Cause myth, slavery and racism, and many other mistakes and tragedies of our past.
However, these same historians and teachers are sometimes slow to point out myths or falsehoods still taught; I wish I knew why? I could suggest a few ideas but…
For example, I remember a few weeks ago during Constitution Day some blogs and a couple of news stories promoted the idea that the Iroquois Confederacy greatly influenced and shaped our American Constitution. After all, MAYBE, this made us feel better when considering the bad things Whites did to Indians.
Evidence: there have been over the last few years our own government, newspapers like the New York Times, colleges and universities, and those dreaded history blogs, Blogs, Blogs, Blogs [UPDATE: American Creation just deals with the issue and does not promote it] that have promoted this myth. Why is this myth acceptable to anyone? I don’t know. All I know is there is not a shred of evidence that backs up this myth, yet it still exists in many areas of academia.
I’d recommend taking a look at Timothy Shannon’s “Iroquois Diplomacy on the Early American Frontier.” It is written in a clear and concise fashion for general audiences and at several places points out that the Iroquois influence on the Constitution myth is just that. He also takes the United States government and the NYT to task for their perpetuation of this myth. To gauge what the scholarly consensus is, I think you might need to provide a bit more evidence than a link to a lesson plan (from an educational school, not a history program) that is nearly a decade old and a link to a history blog that also professes “Now, I am not saying that I agree with this Native American/Constitution theory. While it is quite an interesting proposal I personally believe that the evidence to support it is circumstantial at best.” In fact, if you take the time to read the comments on that blog, as well as research by historians working on the era (helpfully summarized in the footnotes in Shannon’s volume), you will find that few academics actually support this myth (and the traction it has come from areas outside of the academy).
Peter, sorry, there are enough academics who support it to make it worthy of this post. If that were the criteria for posting anything, than why bother at all!!!
Chris
“Jefferson and Sally indeed had a sexual relationship that probably included rape.”
Chris – there is still wide disagreement over that assertion:
“Although the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been for many years, and will surely continue to be, a subject of intense interest to historians and the public, the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known.”
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
I agree that it is not “definitive,” I think if you look at the tone of my post I was being a bit harsh on those historical figures intentionally.
Chris
Thanks Chris, I understand. Enjoy your blog.
Iroquois influence in the constitution is not a myth. Only white resistence stop historians to recognize the truth.
after i read the “hemings of MontecellO” I was convinced Sally Hemings and TJ had what would have been a marriage if it could have been
Sally asked for and got very personal momentos after TJ’s death, the kinds of things you want if you loved the deceased. They did not get together til after Mrs Jefferson’s death, there is no indication of sex with other slave women even though this evidence very much sought after by TJ’s enemies, book says as far as I remember. Sally was 1/4 black Her grandmather was an African who slept with sea captain. After granma’s birth, he tried to get hais daughter his blood to raise himself He tried to kidnap her to get her away from slave owner but was unsuccessful afte a couple tries. Very interesting.
I have read that THmas Paine was fascinaed by the Iroquois and hung out with them frquently True? Have to read more Ben Franklin had a familiarity with them I think they did have a kind of democracy. I think a lot of people had comtact with them Itmakes sense ythat the early guys who were in proximity abd were interested in alternate political systems would study them.
Iswear to god i have a memory learnin g abpout this in my6th grade history of new yoek class in the ’60s an i nuts?
Not a shred of evidence? You can say its open to interpretation, but saying there is no evidence is dead wrong. Political correctness probably plays a huge role in how the research is spread to the public, but not on the research itself. Also, criticizing “Blogs” is much different than criticizing Donald Grinde Jr, of Weatherford (Indian Givers), the Oklahoma Law School. AP history teachers should show much better judgment, or at least a shred of proof, to their claims!