We Lost, but When?

I wrote over a year ago about how history is being changed.  Even as a kid, I realized it was happening with the history of Davy Crockett.  What many of us don't realize is how important our history is.  What we learn of our history basically provides the lens through which we see ourselves.  While so many of us were slow to realize the importance of history, others have known for years.  They planned to change history to fit their world view.  They haven't been very secretive in their plans, it's just that we don't pay attention, or don't take them seriously.  The Obama campaign in 2008 told us that they planned to change history.  Listen toMichelle Obama on the campaign trail, she doesn't speak of making history, she speaks of changing history.  That's not a mistake, that is exactly what they have planned.


So maybe the revision of the Davy Crockett story was a test run?  Just to see if we would buy it?  Well, our education system sure did.  Now, they are going big.  They are going after our founding fathers.  I have felt that Texas is one of our last hopes of regaining our country and our past.  But did you know that right now, today, the Boston Tea Party is being taught in Texas as an example of terrorism.  Now, reading the curriculum, it is possible that this lesson is being taught to teach students to reason, to read the information and see it from multiple angles.  From the British perspective at the time, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.  Only through reading the causes of the revolution will a student learn that the American Revolution was justified.  But is it being taught that way?  Frankly I doubt it.  If it were, why are parents being denied access to the lessons?  The "Parent's Portal" to the online lesson plans offers information that differs greatly from the lesson plans being presented in class. If this is happening in Texas, what is happening in California?  In New York?  In Oregon?

Take a look at what is happening, and has been happening for over a decade with our knowledge of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did own slaves.  That is known.  It has been taught since the textbooks published in the 1880's.  What was taught before, but is no longer being taught is that he spent most of his life trying to abolish slavery.  The Virginia Constitution made it illegal for a slave owner to free his slaves.  After George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Virginia even closed that loophole.  It was illegal for a citizen of Virginia to free his slaves.  Jefferson worked tirelessly to change that.  Unfortunately that was one of the few instances that Jefferson failed.  For a true view of Thomas Jefferson, through his own words and the words of people who actually knew him, who actually lived in Jefferson's time, read The Jefferson Lies, by David Barton.   Barton uses Jefferson's own words, the original documents to clear up the lies being told about him.  The interesting thing has been the response to the book.  David Barton has been attacked from every directions by scholars pointing out the "inaccuracies" in his book.  Their evidence of his inaccuracies comes from scholars writing more than 100 years after Jefferson's death.  These scholars use each other as references, completely ignoring the primary sources - Jefferson himself and his contemporaries.  One interesting chapter in Barton's book deals with Jefferson's supposed love child with his slave, Sally Hemings.  Remember in the late 1990's when a DNA test was done using genetic material from one of Hemings' known descendants that "proved" Jefferson's affair with his slave.  Interestingly enough this report came out just as the current president, William Jefferson Clinton was being impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, making the point that infidelity in the White House was nothing new.  Coincidentally, a retraction was released a few weeks after the initial report that the DNA tests actually concluded that with a 97% certainty, Hemings' child was NOT Thomas Jefferson's.  The retraction did not receive the front page of Newsweek treatment that the original, erroneous report did.

Thanksgiving is a couple of days away.  While the Thanksgiving story that children from my generation were taught is a little simple and doesn't give the complete story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, students are more likely today to learn the perspective of MSNBC commentator, Melissa Harris Perry who says that "European settlers brought violence, disease, and land theft to the indigenous peoples who were already in this land before it was discovered."
 
So why is it important to the president's backers to smear the reputation of our country's founders?  Their view of the United States is that it was founded by rich white men who were only interested in making themselves more wealthy.  The system is set up to benefit the rich white men.  It is stacked against black Americans, immigrants(whether legal or illegal), women, Native Americans, against anyone not white and rich.  The president himself says that rugged individualism, self reliance, and small government is "part of our DNA" obviously in reference to our founding principles.  But then he goes on, "but it doesn't work, it has never worked" to the applause of his audience.


That is why it is so important, in the president's view,  to change history.  It has worked.  When applied as our founders intended and as they stated in our Constitution, it always works.

We did lose the election earlier this month.  But that defeat actually started when we lost the battle of truth about our history.  To get back, we have to make truth matter again, and make history matter again.

Why Did Davy Crockett Surrender 140 Years After the Alamo Fell?

It was a Sunday afternoon at my Grandma Lucille's house.  I was sitting in the recliner, reading the Wichita Falls newspaper when I found a story about one of my favorite historical figures - Davy Crockett.  Like most boys, especially Texans, I was fascinated by Crockett.  I remember driving Mrs. Armstrong crazy at the Gruver Public Library finding books about Crockett when I was in second grade.  Oddly enough, I don't remember ever seeing the Disney movies starring Fess Parker.  They were released before my time.  I did see the movie starring John Wayne as Crockett several times.  If only he had made it to the armory with the torch!
Most of my knowledge about the siege of the Alamo came from books.  I read everything I could find from the time I was able to read through now.  I even read Crockett's autobiography when I was in Jr. High.  So I knew about Davy Crockett.  He lived in a log cabin, first in Kentucky, and later in Tennessee.  He became famous as a hunter, explorer, and especially as a storyteller.  Even though he wasn't born Texan, he definitely mastered the art of the tall tale.  My favorite was his claim that he could stare at a raccoon until it would just give up and come out of a tree.  Once he mistook a knothole for a raccoon's eyes.  He stared at it for hours before realizing his mistake.  In fact, he stared at it for so long that the edges of the knothole were worn smooth.

I knew that he had been elected to Congress by Tennessee voters and was a follower of fellow Tennessean,  President Andrew Jackson.  Only recently did learn about his falling out with Jackson over Jackson's Indian Removal Act.  He left Tennessee for Texas after losing his bid for reelection.  He led a group of Tennessee volunteers to the Alamo, where they joined Texas revolutionaries in the defense of the old mission.  Of course, I knew that there were no Texan survivors of the siege at the Alamo.  And that they died fighting.  The story of the battle and the defender's fall came from history texts that referred to newspaper stories from the time of the battle and diaries of Mexican soldiers and the few civilian survivors of the Alamo.  All told the same story.  The defenders knew that Santa Anna had ordered that all the Texans be killed - "no quarter" would be given.  Numerous accounts told of seeing Crockett's body in the plaza surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.

So, you can imagine how surprised and outraged I was to read the newspaper article saying that Crockett and a few other Texan soldiers surrendered and were executed by Santa Anna's officers.  Where did the newspaper get this information that contradicted all the other accounts of the battle?  Now, I was only about 12 years old and inclined not to believe the new account anyway.  But even a 12 year old was suspicious of a newly discovered diary of a Mexican officer who was not only at the Alamo, but almost every other major event of the Texas revolution.  Then I read that the "diary" had never been authenticated.  It was written on at least five different types of paper, some dating years after Texas' war for independence, all cut to the same size to fit into the bound diary.  Later I read that the officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, was not mentioned in any other account of the battle of the Alamo or any other battle mentioned in his "diary."

Now 35 years after the translation of the diary and its publication under the title, With Santa Anna in Texas:  A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, this is the accepted version of the events at the Alamo.  Why would respected historians change the story based on a very questionable document that contradicts accounts written at the time of the battle?

I think there are a couple of possibilities.  The first is to further demonize Santa Anna.  He was incompetent, both as a military leader and as president of Mexico.  His cruelty was demonstrated in his orders to take no prisoners, not only at the Alamo, but at other battles such as Goliad.  Taking no prisoners in battle is cruel enough, but to execute survivors of a 13 day siege goes beyond cruel.  I'm not sure what purpose would be served by adding more evidence supporting Santa Anna's already wretched reputation.

So, how does the revised history change the view of Crockett?  Even while still alive, he was bigger than life.  He was the epitome of the American ideal of self-reliance and integrity.  He was elected to Congress because his story (both the real story and the tall tales) was already known by almost everyone in America.  As a congressman, he showed his true character.  His first speech mentioned in records of Congress concern an appeal for aid to farmers in Georgia that suffered through a long drought.  His response, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."  He then donated his own money to help the farmers.  What would happen today if members of Congress followed Crockett's lead?

As I mentioned before, one of Crockett's biggest supporters was President Andrew Jackson, a fellow Tennessean.  As president, Jackson advocated some very questionable policies, especially those affecting American Indians.  One of the most controversial was the Indian Removal Act that would move the so-called civilized tribes from their land in Florida and Georgia to reservations further west.  Jackson expected Crockett's support, but Crockett refused to support his president in an action that he believed was wrong.  "I was also a supporter of this administration after it came into power, and until the Chief Magistrate changed the principles which he professed before his election. When he quitted those principles, I quit him. I am yet a Jackson man in principles, but not in name... I shall insist upon it that I am still a Jackson man, but General Jackson is not; he has become a Van Buren man."  His refusal to go against his principles cost him Jackson's support in his reelection campaign in Tennessee and he lost his bid.  His most famous quote came after his defeat, directed to Jackson and Jackson's followers in Congress, "You all may go to hell.  I am going to Texas."   

According to several accounts, Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers had numerous opportunities to escape during the siege of the Alamo.  He and a couple of the volunteers actually did leave one night and led a group of volunteers back into the compound.  So Crockett and the others had the chance to save their own lives, but committed their lives to their cause and actually followed through on their commitment.  I really liked Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of Crockett.  He portrayed Crockett as being trapped by his reputation.  He says to Bowie, "I would like to drop over that wall and just disappear.  But those boys are watching me.  What would they do if I left?"  He led by example and felt responsible for his volunteers.  The last entry in his diary says it all.  "Pop, pop, pop! Bom, bom, bom! throughout the day. No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever." 5 March 1836.

I think it's obvious from his quotes and his actions why current politicians and leaders would try to diminish Crockett's image.  In fact one of the sites I looked at in my research was from Texas A&M university.  They said that Crockett was one of the country's first celebrities.  "Sort of an 1800's Paris Hilton."  Would any of our current leaders compare favorably to Crockett?  As I said in yesterday's post, only by knowing what others have done, will we know what we are capable of doing.