Bush Re-Writing History?
I have great regard for Jim Pinkerton, the "Long" half of Fox's "The Long and the Short of It." But his most recent column, "Bush's new "history" demeans our past," gives me pause. In it, he claims that President Bush is attempting to revise history in order to "defend the current situation in Iraq." He quotes President Bush in a recent speech referring to the Aricles of Confederation (which governed the U.S. from 1781 to 1788 when the Constitution superceded them) as having "failed miserably."
Of the final years of the Revolutionary War, and the years following, Pinkerton states, "America in the 1780s was a place of vibrant debate — but peaceful debate." I would ask, "What about the 6-month Shay's Rebellion in 1786-1787?" Daniel Shays and 1500 "insurgents" marched on the Springfield Courthouse and had themselves a "sit-in" to prevent the further trial and imprisonment of debtors. The next target was the Federal Arsenal in Springfield, which more than 2000 armed farmers assaulted. Four "insurgents" died, twenty were wounded. In the end, fourteen leaders of Shay's Rebellion were sentenced to death for treason; twelve were pardoned, and two were hung.
Granted, the body counts between Shay's Rebellion and Iraq don't compare. But, I would hardly say it was a period of "peaceful debate."
Neither would George Washington: "No morn ever dawned more favourable than ours did — and no day was ever more clouded than the present!" Sorry, Jim Pinkerton, I'll take old George's word for it. After all, he was there.
