Connect with us

History

Virginia Church Removes Memorial to Founding Father George Washington

George Washington, the father of our country, is being erased from his own church in Virginia.

Published

on

George Washington, the father of our country, is being erased from his own church in Virginia.

We truly are becoming two separate countries within the same borders. One country that loves the United States and the other that is ashamed of everything about it.

This latest expression of hate from liberals comes from Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, the church that our first president and war hero attended at the end of his life.

Christ Church was also the church that Confederate General Robert E. Lee attended most of his life.

Trending: Black Lives Matter Threatens KY Businesses: Give Us Money Or We’ll Loot Your Store

But now the church is deleting both august members from its history. Whitewashed because they are not politically correct enough.

The two plaques honoring Washington and Lee were placed on the walls of the church in 1870 right after Lee’s death. At the time of his death, Lee was in charge of Washington-Lee college.

Church rector Rev. Noelle York-Simmons insisted that church leaders had debated the move for a long time.

Naturally, the left-wing loons who were attending the church claimed that they felt unsafe, or some such idiocy, because of a few small plaques.

“The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,” church leaders told the media. “Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques.”

“Because the sanctuary is a worship space, not a museum, there is no appropriate way to inform visitors about the history of the plaques or to provide additional context except for the in-person tours provided by our docents,” the anti-American churchmen bloviated.

It is all just another example of leftists attempting to eliminate American history so that they have full control over the minds of American citizens.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

History

Black Lives Matter Rioters Destroy Statue of Famed Anti-Slavery Hero Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass is the single most famous anti-slavery American ever. So, Black Lives Matter had to destroy his stature.

Published

on

Frederick Douglass is the single most famous anti-slavery American ever born. So, naturally the domestic terrorists of Black Lives Matter had to destroy his stature.

Douglass was born a slave in pre-Civil War America, but escaped his bondage, fleeing to the north to become the most important leader against slavery in U.S. history.

So, why did Black Lives Matter destroy a statue to him in New York?

Because they are brainless, mindless, terrorists who have no goal but to destroy America — even the things they pretend they are fighting for.

The statue once stood in Rochester New York’s Maplewood Park. Now it is gone.

Authorities confirmed the incident, and said that the statue was later found in a gorge some distance away from the park.

Douglass was a resident of Rochester during the Civil War era, hence the memorial in the park.

Of course, it makes no sense for this statue to be destroyed. Neither does it make sense to destroy statues to Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — or General Grant — the man who ended the Civil War and championed rights for blacks.

But Black Lives Matter is not about anything legitimate. They are just about destruction.

They have no true American principles. They are anti-American through and through.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

History

Thomas Jefferson’s Hometown Dumps Founder’s Birthday in Favor of Slavery Memorial Event

Charlottesville, Virginia, is dumping its annual celebration of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday and will replace it with an event about slavery.

Published

on

Founding father Thomas Jefferson’s hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia, is dumping its annual celebration of his birthday and will replace it with a navel gazing event about slavery, the city says.

The city has officially celebrated Jefferson’s birthday for more than 70 years, but in a spiteful move to whitewash American history, the city is turning its back on one of our greatest founders.

The move comes on the heels of an announcement that the city council dropped the birthday celebration from its annual calendar, the Washington Post reported.

Instead of celebrating Jefferson’s April 13 birthday, the city will now celebrate “Freedom Day” on March 3. That is the day that the Union Army emancipated the slaves in 1865, the paper reports.

The vote was three to one to eliminate Jefferson from his hometown.

“This marks a wholesale shift in our understanding of the community’s history,” said Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the University of Virginia who is working to eliminate the founders from American history. “To take Thomas Jefferson’s birthday off the calendar and add this is a big deal.”

No doubt.

Jefferson, of course, is the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, our third president and a member of the founding generation. He is also the founder of the University of Virginia, which is situated in Charlottesville.

Area attorney Charles L. Weber, Jr., a plaintiff on a suit that seeks to protect Charlottesville’s Confederate statues, told the Post that “expunging”” Jefferson “is not the right answer, just like taking the statues down is not the right answer.”

“I have a problem expunging Thomas Jefferson from our history,” Weber added.

It’s all part and parcel to the radical left’s desire to destroy American history, to remove it from view, and to prevent anyone from ever learning any lessons from the past.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

History

End ‘President’s Day’ NOW! Where Have you Gone George Washington?

This so-called “President’s Day” is an affront to every American and it’s time to put an end to it.

Published

on

This so-called “President’s Day” is an affront to every American and it’s time to put an end to it.

I don’t celebrate “President’s Day.” I celebrate the presidents individually, not the whole gaggle of them at once. But I most certainly don’t celebrate George Washington, the father of our country, as just any old president. These days, George Washington has been relegated to that “truth telling guy” to be seen on the dollar bill and on TV commercials at the end of February. Or he is that guy lumped in with Lincoln on “President’s Day.” And that is a shame, indeed, for, without George Washington, our presidency and nation might have become far different things.

What made Washington such a giant for our times as well as his? For one thing, he knew how to act in public.

Back in the 1700’s

In the year 1759 a man named William Robertson wrote a book called The History of Emperor Charles V. It was a book that some claim was the standard after which modern historical study and writing has come to be patterned. Mr. Robertson, who became Principle of the University of Edinburgh in later years, introduced a salient point into the era of the Scottish Enlightenment. That idea was that “Politeness” in society would result in becoming a civilized nation. And it was a politeness perpetuated and spread through capitalism that was the best avenue to achieving that civilized level.

He wrote “In proportion as commerce made its way into the different countries of Europe they successively … adopted those manners, which occupy and distinguish polished nations.” So, as the theory goes, by his very nature man craves material possession and property. To accumulate that property he must work for it with his best skills. To make use of these skills he must rely on neighbors to get supplies to employ such skills as well as to become the customers for his skills. This leads man to act in a solicitous manner of his neighbors so that they will be disposed to employ him and his abilities. This self-interested “politeness” employed by the individual inculcates the action in society at large which, in turn, enlarges that field of involved persons to counties and then the country in general, neighboring countries and, ultimately, the world and the governments they create.

Yet, even before the intelligencia of Scotland waxed eloquent on the reasons and why-fors of commerce, civilization, and conduct, religions had already realized that such concepts, if even on a personal level, simply made sense. As early as 1559 the French Jesuits has compiled a series of maxims to govern human interaction many based on the Bible’s teachings. These maxims became all the rage in the mid 1600’s when they were spread throughout Europe.

So, with the theory of politeness in its various vestiges firmly entrenched in commerce and foreign and interpersonal relations it became obvious that one needed codes of conduct agreed upon by all to govern the rules of the game. This code of conduct became to be known by the word “ethics” in business and politics. In personal conduct it became known as etiquette. It is etiquette that underlies political ethics. Without etiquette, ethics struggles to exist. Unfortunately, it is etiquette that seems to have died in modern society.

Today

A few months ago I was walking through an itinerant book store, an empty store front temporarily rented by entrepreneurs who have bought returned books or close out books at cut-rate prices to sell cheaply to the public. In the history section I saw there the usual Clinton apologist books, Bush Hatemonger’s screeds, and the Obama-lover books that no one wanted, the dry collegiate studies of the fall of the Roman Empire, and the coffee table compilation books that have recently fallen out of favor. Suddenly I spied a spare little book edited and commented upon by Richard Bookhiser called Rules of Civility, The 110 Precepts That Guided Our First President In War And Peace. This 90=page hardback book sported the price of only $4.00 so I picked it up.

I took it home and spent the few minutes it took to read the Rules that were said to have governed the life of George Washington and found myself wondering what the heck happened to civility in this country? What happened to the etiquette that, once upon a time, governed civil society?

Mr. Brookhiser points out in his forward that Washington was the best of both worlds in a revolutionary leader. He was able to lead a rebellion as well as govern the new country after the rebellion succeeded. It was once remarked by a European diplomat’s wife that Washington had, “perfect good breeding and a correct knowledge of even the etiquette of a court.” High praise, indeed, from a haughty European in the days when they were so sure the United States of America were doomed to ignominious failure.

Today many of the rules seem archaic as they laid out rules on how to eat in public, When to wear a hat and when not to, the correct posture and the like. But even in these seemingly pointless “rules” one gets the distinct impression that the training to be imparted by these precepts are meant to work from the personal to the interpersonal informing the whole man, not just the public man. A concept we seem to have totally lost in our day of “rights” and desires. We have come to an age where what we “want” supersedes good posture, delicate eating habits and proper dress. We tell ourselves we are more than what we wear or how good our table manners are and so we dispense with such “nonsense.” But is it nonsense? In our arrogance, do we give ourselves short shrift when we ignore such once common ideals of conduct? It might become obvious as we view how people treat each other in public, while we feel the palpable anger in the air as each person seems so sure that they are not getting the “respect” they deserve. But do they treat others with the same respect they are so sure they deserve in return? Often, they don’t.

As you read further into the rules, you’ll find a road map to polite social discourse and comportment that you will just know have been lost to society. Here are a few of them for the purpose of comparison to today’s standards:

22) Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy … Be NICE, even when you win.

25) Superfluous compliment and all affectation of ceremony are to be avoided, yet where due they are not neglected … Real ceremony is a matter of respect not an end in itself, as Mr. Brookhiser notes.

36) Artificers and persons of low degree ought not to use many ceremonies to lords or others of high degree, but respect and highly honor them, and those of high degree ought to treat them with affability and courtesy, without arrogancy …. At first sight this might tend to enrage today’s man yet when you truly look at it this rule commands everyone, both high and low, to treat people with good grace and respect something that seems sorely lacking today.

80) Be not tedious in discourse or in reading unless you find the company pleased therewith … How many blowhards do you find droning on about their theories and feelings today? ( Hey wait a minute, don’t look at ME!)

81) Be not curious to know the affairs of others, neither approach those that speak in private … Don’t be a nosy gossip. That would erase most of TV and the newspapers report, I would imagine.

84) When your superiors talk to anybody hearken not, neither speak nor laugh … of course that would presuppose we HAVE superiors these days. It seems everyone assumes that no one is their “better” these days.

89) Speak not of the absent for it is unjust.

109) Let your recreations be manful not sinful.

Naturally these are just a few examples but don’t they all ring with a sense of delicacy, justice and common decency? Can you see how social discourse would improve with wide acceptance of such precepts? I would urge each of you to find this book or others like it and read General Washington’s maxims. It can do nothing if not improve your life.

Let me close this with the last rule in the series. One that is definitely forgotten these days …

110) Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

Happy birthday, sir, but where have you gone George Washington, indeed?

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

History

D.C. Cancels Grade School Lesson About Slavery to Make Snowflakes Feel Better

The city schools in Washington D.C. recently put an end to a lesson on the history of slavery in the U.S. because it made some snowflake kids “feel bad.”

Published

on

The city schools in Washington D.C. recently put an end to a lesson on the history of slavery in the U.S. because it made some snowflake kids “feel bad.”

Fifth-grade teachers at D.C.’s Lafayette Elementary School came under fire for a recent lesson plan on historical slavery as it existed previous to, and during the Civil War, and its aftereffects during Reconstruction. One of the assignments asked kids to create “living pictures,” podcasts, or dramatic readings to show how they personally understood that history.

But once the kids started reacting to the assignment, the leftist hand-wringing began.

According to CNN, there was shock and horror over the assignment:

Some students of color were asked by their peers to play roles that are “inappropriate and harmful,” including “a person of color drinking from a segregated water fountain and an enslaved person,” the team wrote.

During classroom circles and small group discussions, [Principal Carrie] Broquard said, some students said they were uncomfortable with the roles their peers had asked them to play. Others, she said, had been unsure how to respond or stand up for their peers who were uncomfortable.

Well. bring over the fainting couch, Mabel.

After the snowflakes began whiling, the principal jumped into action and sent a strong letter.

In [Borquard’s] letter, she said students who were directly affected have been meeting with the school’s social emotional learning team and members of the administration to “process and talk through” the incident. The social emotional learning team and a racial equity committee at the school will work to ensure all assignments are “culturally sensitive and appropriate,” she wrote.

The staff will participate in a full day of training on equity and race in January, and the school plans to create a diversity and inclusion committee, the letter stated.

“As the leader of the Lafayette school community, I am distressed this happened and saddened our students were hurt,” Broquard wrote in the letter. “The voices of our students, their resilience and their compassion continue to inspire me to lead us all forward in a better way.”

Oh, the humanities.

The school district also adopted a speedy resolution to this “problem”:

District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) called the lesson inappropriate and said the school was responding to the situation.

“We acknowledge the approach to learning that took place around this lesson was inappropriate and harmful to students,” DCPS said in a statement to CNN.

“The school recognized its mistakes, addressed the matter with families, and is actively reinforcing values of racial equity across the entire school community. We support Lafayette Elementary as it nurtures young scholars to be models of social awareness and responsibility.”

Still, despite the absurdity of this whole situation, you can bet these “schools” were teaching fake history, anyway.

You can be that facts were never part of the program in the first place.

For instance, you can bet the kids were never told any of this:

1). Slavery has been practiced since man emerged from the muck and every race, color and creed has been enslaved at one point or another

2). Muslims were and are still today the biggest practitioners of slavery

3). Other black tribes in Africa captured rival black tribesmen and sold them into slavery

4). The first culture to begin putting an end to the then common practice was European culture (i.e. white people)

5). The founders almost lost their bid to start the country because of slavery but wisely added a way to get rid of it later instead of making it permanent like other cultures had in the past

6). Many rich black people in pre-Civil War history also owned slaves here in the U.S.

These fact would REALLY upset the snowflakes.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

History

Ted Cruz Schools Pete Buttigieg on False Claims About Founders and Slavery

Ted Cruz took Mayor Pete Buttigieg to school after the Democrat dished out some false information about America’s founding fathers and slavery.

Published

on

Senator Ted Cruz took Mayor Pete Buttigieg to school after the Democrat presidential candidate dished out some false information about America’s founding fathers and their history with slavery.

Not only did Buttigieg dole out lies about history, but he did it in front of a classroom of kids.

A video of Buttigieg speaking to middle school-aged kids resurfaced this month. The video seems to prove that the small-town Indiana mayor doesn’t know the first thing about history.

At one point in the video, Mayor Pete tells the kids, “The people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing.”

This is absolute hogwash.

Even slave-owning founders such as Madison and Jefferson wrote extensively identifying the evils of slavery. They just couldn’t figure out a politically acceptable way to end the “peculiar institution” as they created the country.  To say that the founding generation “didn’t know slavery was a bad thing” is just stupidly uninformed.

Once this older video of Mayor Pete’s failed historical knowledge resurfaced this week, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R, TX) gave the foolish Democrat a history lesson.

Cruz posted a series of tweets on the topic to help Buttigieg learn a bit about American history.

“Slavery is an evil of Colossal magnitude & I am utterly averse to the admission of slavery into the Missouri Territories. It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law,” Cruz quoted from John Adams, a Founding Father and the second president.

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature,” he quoted from Benjamin Franklin, who was a member of an abolitionist society. “Neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity.”

“Who talks most about freedom and equality? Is it not those who hold a bill of Rights in one hand and a whip for affrighted slaves in the other?” Cruz quoted from Alexander Hamilton, an abolitionist and the first secretary of the Treasury.

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished,” John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote. “The honor of the States as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. … To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

The founders knew that they could not get the country fairly started by trying to eliminate slavery at the outset and, through compromise, the founders wisely created a system that allowed for it to be eliminated later.

We know that they could not have successfully eliminated slavery at the outset, too. After all, only a generation later it took a full-blown war to end it. The founders rightly knew that making the end of slavery a deal breaker would, indeed, have broken the deal to even start the United States of America.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

THANKSGIVING: Dumping Communism Saved the Pilgrims, Not the Indians

Published

on

Our kids have been taught fake news about America’s first Thanksgiving. The Indians didn’t save the Pilgrims. Ending communism did.

It is simply untrue that the Pilgrims were able to celebrate their first Thanksgiving feast because the noble Indians saved them by showing them the ways of America. No, in reality, the Pilgrims were saved because they replaced their original communist system with a capitalist ideal.

William Bradford’s fellows came to the Americas to start a colony that would be a light unto all humanity, one based on a strict adherence to the Christian Bible. They wanted the opportunity to live as they desired, unique, and free from interference from the Church of England, the Crown, or British authorities.

But when they arrived near modern-day Massachusetts and founded Plymouth Plantation — which we often call the Plymouth Colony today — they came ill-prepared to live in the wildlands they encountered.

It is absolutely true that the members of the colony became friendly with the local Wampanoag Indians. It is also true that the natives helped the colonists learn a bit more about the bounteous land the Pilgrims came to call their own.

But the colony had a flaw inherent in its original plan, and it wasn’t just a fatal unfamiliarity with how to survive in the new world. It was a flaw that almost doomed the colonists.

The problem was, the original plan for how the outpost would operate was essentially a communist system. The original plan was for all labors to contribute to a central store. Just like a commune, everyone would work for the benefit of everyone else, and all would benefit equally from the colony’s labors.

That plan sounded like a perfectly sensible, Christian ideal, after all. Bradford and his fellows thought everyone would love everyone else equally, and in Christian charity, all would be cared for equally.

Unfortunately, that is not how human nature works. And the colonists soon learned this the hard way.

The common store idea was a miserable failure because some wanted to take without giving as much into it as others had. In other words, Bradford found that some people just didn’t want to work that hard if they knew they were going to benefit from the common stores just like everyone else. Worse, some became embittered that they had worked so hard while others did not.

So, Bradford dumped the original communist ideal and replaced it with a more capitalist one by assigning a plot of land to each family to work as their own, the labors of which would benefit themselves first and foremost.

Bradford chronicled the change this way:

The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing — as if they were wiser than God.

For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.

The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them.

Worse, some were embittered by the system and felt that working for the common store was “a kind of slavery”:

And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

But once Bradford assigned each family their own land, things began to turn around. “This had very good success,” wrote Bradford, “for it made all hands industrious.”

The change came just in time and turned the colony around. Plymouth Plantations went from a failing effort into a successful one.

This is not to utterly discount the help and guidance that the Indians gave the Pilgrims. They were also an essential part of the success of the Plymouth Plantations.

But the shop-worn story that the Pilgrims were stupid, starving, and dying until the noble Indians swept in and gave them a turkey and a pumpkin pie is a false narrative. The colonists did as much to save themselves by dumping a communist ideal as the Indians did to help them learn how to scratch out a life in the Massachusetts wilderness. As in most cases, real history is far more complicated than a facile trope.

So, let’s put an end to the fake history, shall we?

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend