History = The Victor's Story

History tells us the path that was taken to get us to where we are today.  Inevitably, that means it is the story of the victor, because we are the descendants of the victors.  That does not mean that the story of the losers isn't history, but it is less important than that of the victors.  The Confederate States of America had a constitution, but we don't study it.  Had the Confederacy won its independence, that constitution would be really important in history class today, especially in southern states.  However, the Confederacy was dissolved in 1865 and the Union was preserved.  Should we study the Confederacy ad nauseum to respect the ideals of the losing side?  There is only so much time to spend on history and delving into historical cul-de-sacs is not the best use of time.  However, in recent decades, that view is being upended.

In his book, Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen argues for including the stories of all the losers.  Now, being a loser does not mean you were in the wrong.  Losers can be innocent victims, like the American Indian.  Stone Age tribes meet Enlightenment powers and are inevitably displaced.  It is a tragedy for the displaced tribes.  Even those that sought to integrates were forced onto reservations.  However, beyond place names and tribal casinos, this has little impact on the US of today.  Again, that's tragic, but what do Stone Age tribesmen have to teach a culture that is literally thousands of years ahead of them?  If an alien race arrives in orbit around Earth, the human race will suffer the same fate as the American Indians, no matter how much we write histories that say it wasn't fair.

Though history is written by the victor, the history of the losers has never been better recorded than today.  As a historian, I think that's terrific, but it should not be used as cause for relitigating history.  We can't give back land to the Mohicans without taking it from people today who had no part in the theft from more than 200 years ago.  Who gets Palestine?  The Palestinian Arabs, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the British, the Ottomans, the Crusader Kingdoms, the Seljuk Turks, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Seleucids, the Achaemenids, the Assyrians, the Israelites, or the Canaanites?  The land has been ruled by all these groups and more.  Which one has the best claim?  How long does the claim hold?

As luck would have it, Western Civilization is in decline and all these losers might rise again.  When the roles reverse - notably in Europe - don't expect the new elites to care that Europe used to be the land of the whites.  Those civilizations don't hold Enlightenment values.

Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest

Born in 1784 and the son of a Revolutionary War officer, Zachary Taylor grew up in Kentucky.  Louisville was a backwater when he was a child but boomtown as he reached adulthood.  In the wake of the 1807 attack by the British on an American frigate (Chesapeake-Leopard Affair), President Jefferson called for an increase in the military.  Thus began Zachary Taylor's army career.  Based in the far west during the War of 1812, he saw little action.  Soon, he was commanding forts along the Mississippi to protect settlers from the various Indian tribes.  He slowly gained rank and was Colonel of the 1st Infantry Regiment during the Black Hawk War (1832).  He came to national attention by 'winning' the Battle of Lake Okeechobee (1837) in the Seminole War (1835-1842).  It was a technical win as his forces took the battlefield, but the cost was 26 killed and 112 wounded.  The Seminole forces lost 11 killed and 14 wounded.  He did not care for Florida and was glad to be sent back to the western forts.  In 1845, Texas was annexed, and General Taylor was sent to Corpus Christi to command the Army of Occupation.  In March of 1846, he led his forces to the Rio Grande and built Fort Texas.  In late April, Mexican cavalry attacked US Dragoons on the northside of the Rio Grande.  On May 8th, 2,300 American soldiers met 3,700 Mexican soldiers at Palo Alto.  The American officer corps, composed of West Point graduates, proved their worth.  The following day saw the last battle in Texas at Resaca de la Palma, another victory for Taylor.  If Okeechobee made him known to the nation, these two battles made him a hero.  In September, he captured the city of Monterey and there was talk of running him for president in 1848.  No one knew if he was a Democrat or a Whig, so both parties courted him.  When it was clear that he leaned more Whig, President Polk - a Democrat - sought to sideline him and sent General Winfield Scott to take over.  Despite having the majority of his veterans reallocated to General Scott, Taylor won the Battle of Buena Vista in February 1847 and cemented his national fame.   Though he wanted to be a non-partisan president, he accepted the Whig nomination.  He was elected by a plurality (47.3%) of the vote, the Democrats having split between former President Van Buren (10.1%) and Lewis Cass (42.5%). During the contentious debates about admitting new states - especially California - from among the territory captured in the recent war, Taylor sided with the North.  Despite growing up as a Southerner and being a slave owner, he sided against the South during his presidency.  He was an American first and a Southerner second.  His political naivete was just fading away and he was starting to assert himself in the political games of Washington when he died of cholera in July 1850.  The Whigs had only won the presidency twice.  First with William Henry Harrison and then with Zachary Taylor.  Harrison died 1 month into office, Taylor lasted 16 months.

K Jack Bauer has written an interesting and informative biography.  It paints a picture of an incurious but persistent man.  Taylor was diligent in building a fortune during his lifetime.  He was one to hold a grudge.  He was beloved by his troops who gave him the name of Old Rough and Ready.  Indeed, Taylor was more likely to be mistaken as a farmer than a general, as he typically wore plain clothes and a straw hat.  After reading this, I had a lower opinion of his abilities as a general but a higher opinion of him as a president.

Recommended.

Bill Maher on Presentism

Bill Maher had a terrific monologue recently in which he talked about presentism.

Presentism: an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.

It is ludicrous to hold people who lived centuries ago to the standards of today and declare that "they should have known better."  He offers a reality check on that view, which happens to be hilarious.  The tearing down of statues and the denouncing of historical figures has ravaged the country since the rise of presentism.  As one who earned a degree in history, this trend has been particularly irksome.  Everyone was bad and we must universally condemn them.

Readers

Approximately one quarter of US adults have not read a book in the last year, 1 in 3 men, and 1 in 5 women.  For people with a high school education or less, 44% have not read a book in the last year.  By contrast, only 8% of college graduates haven't read a book in the last year.  People who earn under $30K per year are about a third as likely to have read a book as someone who earns more than $75K a year.  Reading corelates with success.

Many people cease reading once they are not obligated to do so in school.  That means we have a narrow window in which to provide reading material to a large chunk of students.  Do we offer them books that paint the country in a negative light, a positive light, or a neutral light?  I'm for positive.  Why have someone graduate high school viewing their country as an imperialistic, racist, colonial power?  I could provide a curriculum - all true - that exposed all the worst of the United States and have every student who didn't take it upon themselves to read other accounts to hate America and wish for its destruction.  Such students would be bad citizens.  Why do that?  On the other hand, I could also assemble a curriculum that would paint America as the greatest and most selfless country that has ever existing, a shining beacon of freedom for the world.  Again, all of it true.  Students who went through this curriculum would be proud of their country but ignorant of its flaws.  They would be patriotic citizens who might parrot Decatur: "...our country, right or wrong!"  I could also compose a curriculum that would provide both the good and the bad, which would be the best choice.  However, there's a lot to read for that final version and elementary and secondary civics courses are poor place for them.  This is the format I would choose for those who want to know, who will checkout books on history and read from David McCullough and Stephen Ambrose to William Appleman Williams and Howard Zinn.

Considering that nearly half of high school graduates will read very little once they are released from their brief stint of scholarship, what kind of citizens do you want wandering the streets?  Those who go on to college will read vastly more.  Those interested in knowing more about their country will have all the resources they want.  No need to worry about them, high school was just a primer.  I would choose the pro-American curriculum.

As it happens, that does not appear to be the one selected.  Considering how many young people have mostly negative views of their country, it sure seems as though the anti-American curriculum has been chosen.  From the 1619 Project to the tearing down of statues of historical figures, the United States is swarming with people more interested in tearing it down.  There are few enough people defending the country that politicians think it safer to cave to the demands of anti-American youth.