Revisionism: How It Works, Why Its Claims Are False, and What Can Be Done to Stop It
Revisionism, though not a harsh-sounding word, is bringing about harsh consequences in our nation. Revisionism, in the negative sense of the word, is the manipulation and distortion of accurate historical record and evidence, usually to fit a selfish political agenda. This is precisely what is happening in the United States. One of the areas in which it happens so frequently is in the teaching of the history of our Founding Era, and the exploration of our Christian heritage. Because of its rampant success in the last several decades of our country’s history, revisionism has paved the way for American citizens to watch idly and blindly as our God-given freedoms, such as the right to the free exercise and expression of the Christian religion, the freedom to speak the truth openly, the right to live without government sustenance or interference, are being striped away. American youth no longer have a sense of love for their country or a duty to stand up for its principles, and as a result, are not very concerned about the rights of their fellow citizens. Because of this, generation after generation of Americans is witnessing more violent and atrocious crimes on a more and more frequent level. To make the problem worse, revisionism has established and defined the doctrine of the “separation between church and state,” which seeks to prohibit Christians from using their godly influence in the public spheres to help heal these social and cultural ills. And because many Christians are ignorant of their Scriptures and of their history, even distinguished theologians are acquiescing to this false and perverted standard. Clearly, revisionism needs to be examined, answered, and combated. My purpose shall be to demonstrate several of the methods which revisionist historians use in order to blot out our true history and our Christian heritage.
One thing revisionists do to promote their anti-God propaganda is simple, and predictable: they lie. They will declare a flatly blatant lie, declaring it with emphasis and passion; and, because of the overall ignorance and ill concern of the masses, the lie will be believed. One appalling example is a quote from renowned historian, author, and college professor Gordon S. Wood, who stated publicly that “the Founders were, at most, deists — they believed God created the world, then left it alone to run,” and that they were terrified of Protestant Christianity playing an important role in American public life and thought. He offered no evidence whatsoever for this radical statement; he simply made the claim as if it were unquestionably true. This kind of language is now not only being incessantly repeated by today’s elite in literature, education, politics, and other circles, but it is accepted by the American public as if it were common knowledge. But such claims are at direct controversy with history and common sense. Consider, for example, the moving words of Patrick Henry, a prominent Founder and Revolutionary leader:
“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided proofs of my being a Christian.” (1)
Also consider the prayer of George Washington (and keep in mind that a deist who believes in a God who leaves the world alone should see no use in praying): “I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.” (2)
In addition to these, contemplate the words of Benjamin Franklin, who, though not a Christian, proclaimed at the Constitutional Convention,
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.” (3)
And yet, despite these examples, revisionist claims are still widely accepted that the Founders were deists and skeptics of Christianity, even though crystal-clear evidence shows the contrary.
Another example of revisionists’ attempts to promote their views with impassioned falsehoods is their bold declaration that our Founding Fathers encouraged and intended “a wall of separation between church and state.” This contorted doctrine has even gone to the extent of being accepted by Christian theologians, who have been using faulty history and misinterpretation of the Scripture to advocate the “separation.” One example is an article written by R. P. Nettelhorst at the website of Quartz Hill School of Theology. Nettelhorst is not a professional revisionist, but his thesis and arguments show how the revisionist propaganda is being made effective through the use of flatly erroneous history. Though he quotes lengthy portions of writings from our history, they fail to prove the point he tries to make, namely, that America is and was never intended to be a Christian nation, that separation of church and state lines up with the intent of the Founders, and that this separation is Scriptural. He states in many words that the Founders were unorthodox in their religious beliefs, that they opposed Christianity publicly, and were enemies of the Gospel, and that because of this, they opposed any semblance of government support of Christianity. Once again, this is blatantly untrue history. (4) There are literally reams and reams of evidence to contradict Nettelhorst’s assertion, and among the most compelling are statements affirmed and reaffirmed by our Founding Fathers. Take, for instance, a statement made by George Washington in his Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.” (5) In addition to these are the words of John Hancock, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Governor of Massachusetts, who declared, “Sensible of the importance of Christian virtue and piety to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement … [T]he very existence of the republics depend much upon the public institutions of religion.” (6) And consider the words of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “[It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion.” (7) John Witherspoon, a Christian minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence also observed: “[W]hatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength.” (8) A similar observation was made by Thomas Jefferson, which he made during his presidency: “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.” (9) It is also interesting to notice the indignation of the Founders when they witnessed the disparagement of Christianity by governments, and the support of these same governments for atheism. One example of this is the evident fury of Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution, who expressed it in a pamphlet decrying the French Revolution and the newly established French government. He said,
“The animosity to the Christian system is demonstrated by the single fact of the ridiculous and impolitic establishment of the decades, with the evident object of supplanting the Christian Sabbath. The inscriptions by public authority on the tombs of the deceased, affirming death to be an eternal sleep, witness the desire to discredit the belief of the immortality of the soul. The open profession of atheism in the convention, received with acclamations; the honorable mention on its journals of a book professing to prove the nothingness of all religion; the institution of a festival to offer public worship to a courtesan decorated with the pompous title of “Goddess of Reason”; the congratulatory reception of impious children appearing in the hall of the convention to lisp blasphemy against the King of kings, are among the most dreadful proofs of a conspiracy to establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity, — to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes, and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.” (10)
Enough evidence has been shown to sufficiently demonstrate that revisionist doctrines are clearly at contradiction with simple fact. However, revisionism still maintains influence over the general populous.
Blatantly lying against historical fact does not always effectively serve the purpose of revisionists, however. They have many other tactics as well. Perhaps the most often used ploy is to present historical fact, but to those facts to fit their views. Interestingly, one of the most famous examples of this kind of revisionism came from the United States Supreme Court in 1947 in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education, in which the court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The first sentence of this ruling by the Supreme Court was a quote taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson during his Presidency. The Supreme Court used an extremely minuscule portion of Jefferson’s letter to pave the way for future court decisions to be made for removing Christian influence from public schools and other places of public life. Yet the quote was misinterpreted by taking it out of context. The context of the letter, as well as the purpose of it, are both equally important in finding out what Jefferson meant by a wall of separation between church and state. The letter which Jefferson wrote was written as a reply to a Baptist congregation, which was concerned that a national denomination might possibly be established (the very thing that the First Amendment to the Constitution prevented the federal government from doing), and that their denomination, being unpopular at the time, would endure persecution at the hands of the government and of those who disliked them. They further expressed their concern by stating that, “[O]ur constitution of government is not specific . . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (11) Jefferson replied to assuage their fears and told them,
“Believing with you … that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” (12)
Here, Jefferson’s definition of separation of church and state simply means that matters of conscience belong in God’s jurisdiction only, and that the government cannot legally intermingle with the affairs of the church. The Supreme Court’s definition was exactly the opposite; they thought that they had the right to tell Christians what they could and could not do in public, and this view of the “separation” has been passed on as the view of the Founders ever since then. This is due, once again, to the flawed and yet effective methods of revisionism – methods that continue to eradicate any trace of our Christian heritage.
Another ploy used by revisionists in perverting historical evidence, or misrepresenting historical evidence, is the use the lack of evidence to prove a positive statement; in other words, using negative evidence – lack of evidence – to make a positive assertion. For example, revisionists claim that, because George Washington avoided the discussion of doctrines of the Christian faith, he was a deist, skeptic, and unbeliever. There are two problems with this statement and way of thinking. The first of them is that this sort of reasoning is pitifully faulty. One may just as boldly assert that because someone does not engage in enraptured discussions of the principles and rules of golf, that he must enjoy baseball instead. Yet, this assertion is made, the logic applied to many other instances, and it is widely believed and accepted. The only way you can reasonably assert that someone likes or dislikes golf or baseball is dependent entirely on what the person says or does; namely, that the person says that he likes either of the two sports, plays it on a regular basis, or says and does the contrary. The same kind logic is applied to this situation. The second problem with the original argument is that it is historically inaccurate. Though it is true that Washington did not seek to engage in theological discussions, yet several of his writings do implicate what he believed concerning Christianity. A good place to look for such evidence is his authenticated prayer journal entitled “Daily Sacrifice.”* Portions of these prayers not only indicate a belief in a Divine Providence that superintends and sustains the human race, but they also express his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as his Redeemer and Lord, and his belief in the Holy Spirit. He made such prayers as: “I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.” And also:
“Eternal and everlasting God … Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy holy spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the ever lasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works …”
And it goes on. Other evidences of his strong Christian belief and character are within his correspondence, other private and public papers and statements, and eyewitness testimony. One of the most convincing of the latter category is a letter written by his granddaughter, whom he adopted. She lived with him for the first twenty years of her life, and therefore is a very good eyewitness source. She wrote a letter testifying of his Christian conduct, and then concluded with, “I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. …Is it necessary that any one should certify, ‘General Washington avowed himself to be a believer in Christianity?’ As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.” Again we see the grim fact that even though these methods of revisionism are appallingly weak under the slightest scrutiny, yet the truth is not known and these methods are being used to destroy the Founders’ vision of America.
The inevitable question then arises in the mind of the one observing these facts: “Why then, if there is a mountain of indisputable evidence that is so plain and clear, is revisionism so tremendously effective in shaping the average American’s outlook on our history?” There are several reasons. One of them is that Americans are taught such propaganda from the start, and are never shown any information to the contrary. But even though it is not difficult to find such evidence against revisionist claims, yet most Americans have no curiosity to find out whether or not the traditional view of history is right or wrong because the mass majority of Americans are not curious about their history. Even if some did not necessarily believe every word that they are taught, yet the searching for primary sources, though not impossible, is complicated and, at times, difficult and frustrating. On the other hand, it is much easier to access the opinions of modern commentators and the more one reads of them, without sufficient and solid backing from primary sources, one finds himself inevitably in a dizzy world of endless and meaningless controversy. After time, the inevitable result is that one accepts what he has heard or read, quits the search for more adequate knowledge, or becomes depressed. It is for this and other multiple reasons that Americans look upon the study of history as dull, uninteresting, and meaningless. In addition to this, most Americans are never taught to think things through and to examine information critically, and revisionism sounds intelligent to the uninformed mind. In summary, because most Americans practically have no means to effectively combat revisionism, its lies gain wide acceptance and are therefore widely effective.
Revisionism has paved the way for America to drift quite a scary distance from the track on which the Founders of our country placed it. The results of this have manifested themselves in many ways – in our schools, in our culture, in our courts – and the sacrifice our forefathers made on the battlegrounds of the Revolution are being rendered practically worthless. Yet there still may be hope. We have examined the problem, and we have observed the symptoms. The best way to treat the problem from the position of an ordinary American citizen is to find, read, and familiarize oneself with the original sources. They can be found without paying heavy expenses. The second thing to do is to learn and develop critical thinking skills; analyze what you read; otherwise those original sources will profit you nothing. Historians today who are, in all practicality, revisionists, often have very easy access to primary resources, and yet because they often do not look at the evidence critically, honestly, and entirely, that information is worthless to them. We must avoid making the same mistake. The third step is to share these sources and what you know with others around you in any way you can. The communication of new and reputable ideas is often very powerful and effective, and is the most effective practical tool in combating long unquestioned lies. Just as revisionists have been effective, so also can we be effective. By using good facts, good history, common sense, and communicating this knowledge far and wide, we can help our fellow Americans see what our country was really intended to be.
*Scholars disagree over whether or not this journal is DEFINITELY Washington’s. All that we know is, is that it was discovered among his papers belonging to his descendants when they auctioned several of Washington’s papers in the late 1800s. Some scholars say it is Washington’s, others say it isn’t. The mystery remains. However, Washington’s other writings do indicate that he was a believer in the truth of Christianity, and there is nothing in his writings which proves that he was a deist, or a rationalist, or the like.
4 Responses to “Revisionism: How It Works, Why Its Claims Are False, and What Can Be Done to Stop It”
August 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”
This one is likely apocryphal.
On the Daily Sacrifice, the Smithsonian refused to accept it as authentic and Frank Grizzard of the Washington Papers proved in an handwriting analysis that it wasn’t Washington’s writing.
As far as his being a rationalist, he sounds like one to me here:
“I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious alarming height mentioned in your letters. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind.”
– letter to Sir Edward Newenham, 22 June 1792
“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In the enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
– letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, 27 January 1793
August 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
The quotes from Washington are expressed by Christians past and present. Christians did and do appeal to reason to settle religious controversies, but they do not exclude the role of the Bible in reason, and Washington didn’t deny it here. So these quotes do not unequivocally prove that Washington was a rationalist.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 am
Wow, great post. It is always encouraging to read of the sincere faith of so many of the Founders in thier own words.
As per your comments abou the current state of education and historical knowledge in America, as a future history teacher, I certainly have my work cut out for me. I look forward to the challenge, and do not plan on keeping my mouth shut about what the founders believed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Way to go, Rob!
I give you my hearty support in your endeavor (neat, you’re becoming a history teacher)!
If you don’t mind me being my own salesman for a moment, I would like to point you to my great resource “The Founders’ Bookshelf.” It is a HUGE collection (to which I periodically add new materials) that links directly to primary sources, mainly the Founders’ original writings, made freely available online. On the websites where these writings can be read and searched, you do not need to give away your username or password, you do not need to subscribe to anything, and you do not have to pay anything (except for the electric bill for turning on your computer, of course) to view these writings. I hope that this resource proves valuable to you; it is the cornerstone upon which all my research most heavily relies.
Leave a Comment