Our History Books Are Being Rewritten.
By Chris Van Buskirk

American History is being systematically revised and this process has permeated not only schools, but the mass media as well. In virtually every venue where information is placed before the public, it seems these false views are commonly accepted. Abraham Lincoln stated that the philosophy of the schoolhouse today is the philosophy of government tomorrow. There are many topics in History that are not taught as they actually happened, but as some with an agenda wished they happened. Here are three that are particularly offensive:

First: Our Founding Fathers Were Not Deists.

"de·ism [d ìzz m ] noun rational belief in God: a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. Deism was especially influential in the 17th and 18th centuries." (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © 2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

"Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm)

Thomas Paine, by his own admission, was a Deist, along with Ethan Allen. 'll concede that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin probably were Deists, but there is no way that George Washington and John Adams were. Over and above these specific errors is the general idea that "many" of our founding fathers were. Deists acknowledge a general belief in a god, but not a specific belief in Jesus Christ, or in a God that actively governs in the affairs of men. A deist, for example, would not acknowledge that God participated in the formation of our country. And a deist would certainly not acknowledge a personal relationship with Christ as Savior. Granting that three out of the hundred or so Founding Fathers, that is still a minuscule percentage!

George Washington believed that God directly participated in the formation of the nation and the course of the Revolutionary War. One such example of his belief is contained in a letter he wrote to John Armstrong: "I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the Unites States…" (p. 655, America's God and Country, William J. Federer )

John Adams, in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1787 said, "And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector is all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessings upon this nation." (p. 10, ibid.)

Neither of these quotes speaks of a mindset where the creator "does not interfere in how it runs." This raises the question as to exactly what describes a Deist. Ethan Allen, most famous for capture of Fort Ticonderoga at the outset of the Revolutionary War, demanded the fort's surrender, "In the Name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." (p. 26, America's God and Country, William J. Federer )

Perhaps the most telling view was displayed by Ben Franklin, when he stood up during the Constitutional Convention and said, "The longer I live, sir, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men." (p. 248, America's God and Country, William J. Federer )

One grievous error a Deist makes is the lack of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. George Washington's own words contradict the notion that he was a Deist, "…be merciful to me,O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake… Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation…"( p. 659, America's God and Country, William J. Federer )

There are other examples, and the list is distinguished. John Adams, John Witherspoon and Patrick Henry are perfect examples. Patrick Henry wrote his sister, "O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus Christ will carry those who love and serve him." (p. 290, America's God and Country, William J. Federer )

The final evidence is the sheer weight of the number of times our Founding Fathers quoted the Bible. In a review of 15,000 items from the founders, the Bible was found to have directly contributed to 34% of their quotes. 60% came indirectly, so the Bible can be credited in some way for 94%of the quotes of the Founding Fathers. (p. 48-49, America's God and Country, William J. Federer ) All in all, it is fairly clear that our founding fathers were Christians, not Deists. And to further clarify, Deists were not the driving force behind the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion, Baptists in Virginia were. But that's another story.

Second; There is no such thing as the Separation of Church and State.

How many times have we heard of cases recently from the Supreme Court and lesser courts citing the "Constitution guarantee of separation of church and state"? First and foremost, it needs to be clearly understood that the phrase "separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the Constitution!

Which begs the question: if is doesn't exist in the constitution, how did it become such a common phrase today? The answer begins in 1802, and continues in 1947. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson responded to a letter written to him by the Danbury Association of Baptists. In his letter back to them he said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared 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." (p. 121, American Government for Christian Schools, BJU press..) For a hundred and forty-five years the phrase did not become part of any court case, especially any case before the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the findings of the court were typified by the high court's decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; "These and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation…"

Unfortunately the high court had to fiddle with things, and reversed its earlier decision in the 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, stating; "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable." In effect, the Supreme Court ignored 145 years of precedent and quoted a man who was not even one the framers of the constitution and wasn't even in the country the summer it was created. The deluge began there, with a host of court cases further eroding the establishment clause of the First Amendment. What was originally created to prevent government interference in churches became a way to prevent religious "interference" in all aspect of public life. In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that a prayer read in Public Schools is an unlawful establishment of religion. Again, the Supreme Court ignores 175 years of Constitutional law and this time quotes no precedent for its ruling.

In 1976, The ACLU sues to remove Christmas pageants from public schools. In 1979 they sue to remove Christmas displays from public property. In 1981 they sue to remove the Ten Commandments from Public schools in Kentucky. Then the Supreme Court ruled, "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it would be to induce the students to read, meditate on, perhaps to venerate and obey the Ten Commandments. This is not an acceptable objective." (United States Supreme Court, Stone vs. Graham.) Now imagine that, we can't have students meditating on and perhaps obeying something offensive like, "Thou shalt not kill!" But as Dred Scott found out, the law is what ever the Supreme Court says it is. We may have to live with it, but we must not believe it's in the Constitution.

Third; Puritans were not "Puritanical."

A recent novel by a best-selling author purports to trace the lives of the Winthrop family down through three centuries. The jacket of the book shows people dressed in the garb of different eras, all of them ominously overshadowed by a brooding gray eminence which presumable is the specter of John Winthrop, Senior. A quick look inside confirms that the author has indeed accepted the modern stereotype of the Puritans. Nearly everyone today seems to believe that the Puritans were bluenosed killjoys in tall black hats, a somber group of sin-obsessed, witch-hunting bigots, whose main occupation was to prevent each other from having any fun and whose sole virtue lay in their furniture. (The Light and the Glory, Marshall & Manuel, p. 170.)

Perhaps even more offensive was a recent news report that quoted some nameless source who equated the Taliban of Afghanistan with the Puritans of New England! No other single group of people is more responsible for the creation of the United States. Nineteenth century historians gave the lions share of the credit to the Puritans for setting the direction of this nation. The anti-Puritan bias began in the twentieth century. Again, consider the stereotypes. Puritans are equated with the Salem Witch Trial, thus equating the Puritans with religious bigotry. Puritans are equated with The Scarlet Letter, thus equating Puritans with any condemnation of sexual promiscuity, or an "invasion of privacy." Puritans are blamed for expelling Roger Williams from the colony of Massachusetts, who went on to form the colony of Rhode Island, which is equated with the principal of religious liberty, thus equating the Puritans with intolerance of religious liberty.

It is sincerely a shame that these and other stereotypes need to be corrected in the first place. For example, the truth about the Salem Witch Trials is entirely different than the current perception: Puritan ministers of Massachusetts, rather than being fanatical prosecutors, actually urged caution and restraint. Cotton Mather, who is often accused of urging authorities on, said, "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape than that one innocent person should be condemned." (p. 67, United States History for Christian Schools, BJU press.) In fact, many in the town of Salem later regretted the part they played in the trials. One of the judges of the trials, Samuel Sewell, in remorse, went to church, confessed his guilt to the congregation and asked for forgiveness. Anne Putman, one of the hysterical girls, likewise stood before the congregation in Salem and humbly apologized for being "an instrument for the accusing of several persons of a grievous crime, whereby their lives were taken away from them, whom now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they were innocent persons." (p. 67, United States History for Christian Schools, BJU press.) The citizens of Massachusetts held a day of fasting and prayer to implore God's pardon for their actions.

While on the one hand we still have with us the phrase and respectful attitude for the "Puritan work ethic," the sad fact is that the worthy contributions of the Puritans have been blurred and blemished by the deliberate distortion of their character.

This is by no means a complete list of the inaccuracies, misperception and revision of American History, but it is enough of a list to suggest that it indeed is happening. Part of the fault lies in the overall failing of public education; our students aren't learning any more History than they are Math or English. But the sad fact is that even what they are learning simply isn't true, and this deficiency will (and is) affect our nation's collective mindset. The adage that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it is just as true as the consideration that how we face our future is based on our perception of our past.

Back To Essays Index