The Left’s Abuse of American History

Wesley J. Smith aptly exposed the absurdity of Anthony Conwright’s essay in the New York Times denouncing the use of “Civil War” to describe, well, the Civil War. As Smith notes, the nomenclature, in addition to being objectively defensible, was invoked by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, and that ought to be the final word on the question. Certainly nothing prevents Conwright from using his preferred name for the war, the “Slaveholders’ Rebellion against the United States,” just as Southern diehards may use “War of Northern Aggression” as they wish. Neither will get far, for good reason.

One element that Smith notes deserves a bit of expansion, as it involves one of the pressing crises of our time in the use and abuse of history. Smith correctly states that “Conwright is furious about Trump’s January 6 pardons,” and this proximate motivation likely has quite a bit more to do with the essay, and the Times’ decision to publish it, than any concern for history as such.

About the Author

Joshua S. Treviño

Joshua S. Treviño works in public policy in Austin, Texas, and in Washington, D.C.

Featured Tags

Wesley J. Smith aptly exposed the absurdity of Anthony Conwright’s essay in the New York Times denouncing the use of “Civil War” to describe, well, the Civil War. As Smith notes, the nomenclature, in addition to being objectively defensible, was invoked by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, and that ought to be the final word on the question. Certainly nothing prevents Conwright from using his preferred name for the war, the “Slaveholders’ Rebellion against the United States,” just as Southern diehards may use “War of Northern Aggression” as they wish. Neither will get far, for good reason.

One element that Smith notes deserves a bit of expansion, as it involves one of the pressing crises of our time in the use and abuse of history. Smith correctly states that “Conwright is furious about Trump’s January 6 pardons,” and this proximate motivation likely has quite a bit more to do with the essay, and the Times’ decision to publish it, than any concern for history as such.