As I mentioned below, despite my personal disagreements with some of his politics, I was VERY impressed with Barack Obama’s inauguration speech and I did come away with an unexpected sense of hope. That said, I just read an insightful commentary (with a Civil War reference) in which a critic for The Weekly Standard took some participants in the ceremony to task for speaking in a revisionist tone. For example:

“Dianne Feinstein opened the ceremony by talking about how the ballot is more powerful than the bullet, how non-violence has made this day possible. It's a bizarre revision of American history that focuses on Martin Luther King rather than William Tecumseh Sherman or George Washington. It was the violence inflicted against British, Confederate, and German troops that made possible the inauguration of an African-American.”

In retrospect, I have to agree. Dr. Martin Luther King would never have been able to give his epic “I Have a Dream” speech if thousands of men had not already killed thousands of other men in the name of liberty. This includes ALL of America’s conflicts at home and abroad.

The unfortunate reality is that war has been just as beneficial to our existence as peace, hence the bullet is (historically) more powerful than the ballot, and that violence, however deplorable, has inevitably been responsible for establishing (and re-establishing) America time and time again.

So why do we have such a hard time accepting that nowadays? And why do we sometimes feel the need to misrepresent history in order to feel better about ourselves? We've killed millions of people over the years in order to stand where we do today. Ironically, our 44th president is a by-product of a legacy of violence. All presidents were.

I’m interested to see what other historians may think about this. Please feel free to email or comment.

Please note that this query is not meant to diminish Dr. King's peaceful contributions. It's more about our country's storied history of violence, how we have all prospered from it, and why we suppress it. Mrs. Feinstein's speech is a perfect example of candy-coating historical memory. This can be very dangerous when taken as truth. (President Obama properly acknowledged sacrifice and referenced Gettysburg, Normandy and Kah Sahn in his speech.)

ADDED: Brooks Simpson has a great post over at Civil Warriors on the many historical inaccuracies that plagued the last few days’ media coverage. READ HERE