Why is America haunted by its past?

I have given this topic much though over the years... trying to "simplify" my thesis into something readily digestible by anyone, regardless of their sensibilities on the subject. Here's my first real attempt at making it public-please read the following (though it is longer than the original article) bearing that in mind:

The United States is built on equal parts myth and truth. The "myth" is that we were founded by the spontaneous and unanimous movement to embrace "liberty", led by virtually flawless paragons of moral philosophy. The "truth" is that we were founded for reasons deeply rooted in the economic, cultural, and historical context of a bygone age... led by men whose motivations were as varied as the factors that shaped that particular moment in time. King George III was, in the historical sense of the word, no "tyrant"... but a monarch largely limited by parliament due to events in England over a century prior. The English Civil War itself played no small part in forging the resentment, frustration, and rebellious fervor that ultimately ignited our Revolution-much as that war played no small part in influencing the course of events leading up to our Civil War.

Religion, an intractable element of both 18th and 19th Century culture... was soundly split between those seeking a "state religion" as an expression of the authority given to government; and those embracing the concept that faith was a matter for the individual, and wholly segregated from the power of the state. Contained within this conflict was the ethos of what differentiated American "liberty" from how it was understood elsewhere in the European population. The French, for instance... viewed religion through the lens of the Catholic Church; an institution they deemed largely responsible for advocating and empowering the abuses of their King. Much later in history, the Russians too would cling to this concept as justification for removing religion officially from any public notion of patriotism.

In America, faith and freedom were welded together in a process that can only be honestly interpreted as both a genuine, populist philosophy... and a remarkable piece of "marketing" on the part of the Founding Fathers. It was genuine in the sense that for the most part, the Colonies were indeed populated by devout people (as was arguably true across Western Civilization). The presence of the Puritans on the North American continent over a century and a half earlier created an atmosphere where most Colonial Americans already considered their Protestant faith to be one of individual will vs. government mandate. As such, breaking with a regime which retained the notion that the monarch was God's anointed ruler, was perhaps less a crisis of "faith" and "principle" than it was of weighing the earthly consequences of rebellion. It was clever "marketing" in the sense that this pre-existing mentality was easily channeled into gaining support for a rebellion based mostly on economics.

In very much the same sense, the Civil War was built upon the notion that as pertains to questions of morality and faith...government should play little or no part. Regarding slavery... though it's uncomfortable to admit, there were doubtless many who embraced the notion that the "inferiority" of the African race was "supported" by scriptural dogmas. I believe this came from two important misconceptions "common" to Protestant Christianity at the time: The first being that beyond questioning anything found "in" scripture... it was also true that anything NOT found "in" scripture was similarly suspect. The second, dealt with the great influence local, independent clergy had upon their congregations... allowing renegade ideologies to exist, with little or no oversight from the larger (and perhaps wiser) synods. Confronting both the origins and proper place of the African among his "white" brothers... no doubt many found "reassurance" of a highly profitable practice's morality in one or several misapplied scriptures. This then means that Lincoln's election carried connotations far beyond merely dismantling the Southern economy... including the notion that his Presidency marked nothing less than a governmental "assault" on religious freedom.

We face a similar problem today.

It is likely that few Christians still adhere to the misconceptions of the past regarding race. Numerous contemporary abolitionist ministers had already laid the groundwork for this change in opinion, which has, over the last century and a half...largely become the accepted interpretation of those in faith communities. The fact that some of the strongest communities of faith in America are indeed African-American... only lends validity to the fact that while true prejudice and racism may still exist in this nation... it is predominantly divorced from faith.

Not so with other major social issues.

For all the "ambiguities" found in Christian doctrine... it is arguable that there is none pertaining to homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, and the roles and responsibilities of humanity towards God. For more than a century now... many of these beliefs have been challenged. From the teaching of theories in classrooms, to the laws governing marriage, to the threat of legal action against those refusing to adopt, accept, or endorse actions their faith labels as "sin"... many view the government as an active agent in the dismantling of religious freedom.

Where is this resistance most concentrated? Why, the South of course.

In my opinion, as both a Southerner, and a Christian... THIS, and NOT racism, is the primary catalyst for continued romanticized views of the Confederacy, the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and the "mythos" of the American Revolution. In any conflict, it is perhaps a powerful tonic to view oneself as the "underdog", the "aggrieved", and the persecuted. What more heady symbolism of the "traditional" resisting the encroachment of "modern heresy" than the ill-fated charge of Pickett's division at Gettysburg... or the image of Washington praying at Valley Forge?

I say all of this because a great part of me sympathizes. I've often pondered which "side" I would've ultimately joined in the 1860s... the Union because I detest cruelty and exploitation of my fellow man... or the Confederacy because I believe part of the price of liberty is limited government? Frankly, I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice, because I would've been betraying something sacred to me either way I went.

I hope and pray that choice will not be thrust upon us once again.

I'll close with two experiences I had some years ago. The first was while visiting a Civil War re-enactment. Amidst the sea of blue and grey, was a lone African-American man... clad in the uniform of the CSA, and waving the infamous banner of Lee's men. He was relating stories (I won't comment on the validity) of Africans; some free-some slave, who served the CSA; claiming this was due to the fact that once the Union invaded the South... it was their homes, livelihoods, and families who were placed at risk too. No one accosted him, insulted him, or challenged him... but NUMEROUS old white men in grey and blue uniforms stopped to shake his hand, embrace him, and with tears in their eyes... thank him. It's easy to dismiss this as something sordid... but perhaps more appropriate to see the undercurrent of momentous change.

The second occurred while sitting in a transit area in the Middle East, waiting to head home from the War. Soldiers from all over were waiting, and one with a guitar was strumming country tunes. Another soldier (I believe a Caucasian) finally asked him to cut it out... which prompted the white solider to start playing "Dixie". Tensions were high and I began to prepare myself to intervene as an officer to stop a fight. Then, a large African-American NCO walked up with another guitar, and joined him in playing "Dixie". When they finished, they both started singing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"... and everyone eventually joined in... with few dry eyes among us.

We are divided, but perhaps not for the reasons we're told. It's gotten way out of hand... but perhaps we still have the means to pull back from the brink. I could be wrong, but to my mind, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians... we all have at least as much that connects, as separates us. The true conflict then may indeed be in the heart, mind, and soul... and not in the color of our skin.

Like your thesis idea; best of luck with it.
The KKK should not be considered an endorsement by anyone.
"..emotionally wrenching transition from an African-American president to one endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan." The democrats thought they had a lock on the election in 2016 because of their actions against Trump and were unable to cope with the result.

Thanks for the post.