Over the last number of months, there has been a pronounced trend in the U.S. to judge their historical leaders based on the moral standards of today. President Woodrow Wilson has been the object of much of this scrutiny. It’s clear that Wilson was hostile to the African-American community in America (although African-American is a term he would not recognize). There have been organized protests at Wilson’s alma mater university, and student petitions to remove Wilson’s name from any award, building or statue at the institution. So far, the university has refused. Now, another American president is also under fire. Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and, like Wilson, seemed to have an intense dislike of black Americans. In Jackson’s case, the protests have been somewhat more successful, as Jackson’s profile is being moved from the front of the U.S. twenty dollar bill, to the back cover of this same bill.
By today’s standards, both Wilson and Jackson would be bitterly condemned for their views, but I’m wondering whether we are expecting too much from our leaders. It’s one thing to expect a leader to abide by the ethical and legal code of the society he or she lived in, but it’s something totally different to expect them to conform to the codes of society in the future. After all, it’s been almost 200 hundred years since Jackson expressed his philosophy and over 100 years since Wilson’s position was public knowledge. Furthermore, if we intend to apply our current moral code to historical figures, then we also need to discuss George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander the Great, King David, and Julius Caesar. All five of these men had slaves in their employ, and it would seem only fair that they be judged in the same manner that activists want to judge Jackson and Wilson.
Nor should our list stop with the names I’ve listed above. Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, at least 100 separate popes, and most of the royal families of Europe can be accused of equally violating our current codes of behaviour and codes of thought. And, if we really want to take this to an extreme, we also need to discuss Jesus Christ. While Jesus did not own any slaves, as far as I know he never condemned the practice, and there is no reference in the Bible to Jesus lecturing his followers that such behaviour was a sin in the eyes of God. Therefore, should we strike Jesus from our historical records because he does not conform to our “holier than thou” attitudes? (I’m already regretting including this comment about Jesus – as I may have just given more ammunition to all those clowns in our society that are trying to tear down Christianity).
This situation reminds me of something that has routinely occurred in Russia over the last hundred years. Every time a new leader is selected in Russia, the bureaucracy gets busy tearing down the previous premier. Stalin attacked Lenin, Khrushchev belittled Stalin, Kosygin condemned Khrushchev, and so on and so forth. In fact, it became so routine that a Soviet author once noted: “Russia is the only country in the world with an unpredictable past.” Apparently, America is getting ready to join this very exclusive club.
Brian McLeod is a St. Albert resident.
