Posted on 04/08/2024 8:14:25 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
There are a lot of people out there who think I have a lost my marbles for coming to the conclusion that a large percentage of books written prior to the 1900s are the only books you can trust when it comes to American History. What people fail to understand, is that the 1619 Project is actually not new. Sure, it's relatively "new" to use racial issues as the focal point, but manipulating U.S. history to advance progressivism goes back to the Progressive Era itself.
In his book "American inquisitors; a commentary on Dayton and Chicago", Walter Lippmann wrote the following: (page 67)
In 1917 the United States for the first time in its history became the associate of Great Britain in a great war. A part of the American people objected openly to this association. A still larger part, while they did their duty loyally, nevertheless detested the war, and believed in their hearts that the United States had been inveigled into it by the cleverness of British diplomats. The patriotic tradition which they had learned from their school textbooks disposed them to suspect all political contact with Great Britain.To offset this latent distrust of our associate in the war, a great corps of historians was mobilized, partly under government auspices, who proceeded then and there to revise the whole American historical tradition by obliterating and explaining away the memories of the Revolutionary War. This willingness on the part of well known historians to manufacture a new patriotic tradition to suit the political necessities of 1917 was resented. The prestige of scholarship was injured. It was made plain that history is something that can be cut and shaped to suit the purposes of the moment.
Nevertheless, in the wake of these propagandist historians there came a school of critical and honest historians. Once the authority of the patriotic legends had been dissolved, the opportunity of the critical historians presented itself. American school history, particularly in its bearing upon Anglo-American relations, began to be rewritten, first by those who wished to create a new, a pro-British legend, and then by those who wished to do away with all legends and to tell the truth which objective research had found.
After the war was over, after the peace treaty had been rejected, after the country had violently reverted to normalcy, the popular reaction against the revision of the patriotic legends got under way. No distinction was made, of course, between the revision carried out as propaganda in the interest of the Allies, and the revision carried out by scholars in the interest of the truth.
When I say that 100% of the people reading this were exposed to progressive propaganda while they were in schools, I'm not kidding. Unless you happen to be old enough that you were school age in the 1800s, which is at this point statistically impossible, these issues all go way back prior to the 1960s even. What you read when you were in school was 40% or 70% of the way toward the 1619 Project. It may not have all been a lie, but it was a lot of lies or even mostly lies. I can't tell you how many people I've met who think that "I went to school in the 1950s, I was taught the truth." No. You didn't. What was in the schools in the 1950s was a lie too.
It's important to understand, Walter Lippmann was a progressive. So when he writes "the revision carried out by scholars in the interest of the truth", he means "the revision carried out by scholars in the interest of the progressive truth." This quoted section refers to 3, that's three groups of historians. The original knowledge of the Founders, which he sneers his nose at as promoting "patriotic legends", then there's the government backed propagandists, then there's the new progressive truth tellers. That's three groups of historians. This is crucial to understand. When the progressives who wanted World War I used history to "make progress" were finished, they didn't just flip the switch and go back. No no, they continued to "make progress" and they said "here is the new truth". We progressives already "obliterated and explained away the memories of the Revolutionary War", so over the long term let's not give up our position. We now own this. Let's now tell our own truth. Back then it was only a distortion with subtle attacks, moreso than today's overt attacks, but that doesn't matter. The degree of attack is still an attack on our Founders knowing who progressives are and what they represent.
That's why we are where we are today. The Founding Fathers stink and the Founding Fathers are bad people and the Founding Fathers suck - because of over a century's worth of mud thrown at them by progressives who knew that even back in the 1920s, if there was ever going to be a truly "progressive" United States, those Founding Fathers must, MUST be abolished.
And here we are. The progressives have more patience to achieve their purpose than you or I could ever understand.
May I interest you in an audio book? I'll never charge you for it. I gladly hit these progressives for free.
Evil knows no bounds.
Bookmark
For this particular book “American inquisitors”, I only recently came to know of its contents. Highly unlikely to have that quick of a turnaround on a work.
No need to reply to this comment, just wanting to plant the seed here: I would be able to do a lot more, should you be willing to play a small part. As a lover of audio books (through necessity or otherwise) that could give you a choice of what is to come should you care to have such choice.
FWIW, I did just post a new audio book today though. The keywords audiobook and librivox will be common, but I’m trying to specifically use the freeperbookclub tag for them. There are a dozen here now:
https://freerepublic.com/tag/freeperbookclub/index?tab=articles
Several people asked about the Lippmann book, I’ll consider it a request and put it in my rotation so that it gets created.
Yes, Woodrow Wilson.
How you battle and beat them is we wake the dead. Old historians who once upon a time told the truth need a voice, they will have our voice.
They can be revived through audio books, all of this work is in the public domain. We have the modern convenience of microphones to achieve our purpose.
When the situation is then created of historian vs. historian, who wins? The new historians who lie through omission cannot win this.
As for Zinn, let’s not forget that in the foreward of his book he pays homage to Charles Beard. So we can see how it all ties together. All of the evils begin in the Progressive Era.
Thank you!
Tories were the first. They were constantly and consistently anti-Founding Father. Abolitionists, while having many in their ranks who were anti-Founder, were not universal in their condemnation.
In contrast, for progressives the Founding Fathers are universally wrong and evil. Now, while the progressives were much closer to the tories in their universal hatred of the Founders, they were not tories. Tories were monarchists, not progressive ideologues. Just the same, progressives were not like the abolitionists either. Some abolitionists did start out hating the Constitution and/or the Founders. In contrast, Progressive elitism prevents them from ever changing their minds. Progressives believe they are the best of the best, and anybody who disagrees with them are stupid for ever considering alternatives. Progressives will not give up. Progressives will not relent. In the eyes of progressives, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution - limited government - is universally wrong and evil.
Progressivism didn’t exist until the 20th century, give or take 5 - 10 years or so right at the very end of the 1800s.
That’s why some of the best defenses of the Founding Fathers ever written or spoken were authored by the abolitionists themselves - who discovered that like them, the Founding Fathers many of whom were abolitionist also. Unlike progressives, abolitionists could and did have a change of heart because there’s no conflict between constitutionally limited government and abolitionism the way there is a significant conflict between constitutionally limited government and big-government statist progressivism.
For example, Frederick Douglass routinely defended the Founding Fathers themselves, and/or the U.S. constitution. Douglass’ defenses of the Constitution are some of the best ever written. Here is an example from 1860:
https://librivox.org/search?title=The+American+Constitution+and+the+Slave&author=Douglass
(Direct download)
https://www.archive.org/download/snf088_2112_librivox/snf088_amerconstitutionandtheslave_douglass_pa_128kb.mp3
Likewise, abolitionist George Livermore wrote “An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers” - yes, defending the honor and the good name of the Founding Fathers.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4172958/posts
Progressivism is America’s cancer, not anything else. It begins in the Progressive Era.
The American Constitution and the Slave - public domain audiobook at LibriVox
Also, full original text: Mr. Douglass, in reply to Mr. Thompson
George Thompson was an abolitionist who thought he was a big deal until Douglass stood up and gave him the smack down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.