This piece is in large part about legends.
When I started writing it, Charlie was still with us. And then, he was, tragically, taken from us in an act of senseless cold-blooded murder and terrorism.
This piece is not about him, but I wanted to say some words about the late, great Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk was an American hero and legend. He will remain those things for time immemorial. And all of us collectively, regardless of if we have a large platform, have a platform that has a sphere of influence akin to the size of a grain of sand, or have a platform at all, must push forward and carry on Charlie’s legacy. We must collectively continue to fight on the side of Good in the never-ending spiritual war against Evil, in which Charlie was such a prominent warrior. And we must also rally around and pray for Charlie’s beautiful wife, Erika, his two precious, innocent children, the rest of Charlie’s family, his loved ones, and his friends.
God bless you, Charlie Kirk. I mourn that you are no longer with us, but I rejoice knowing you are now in the presence of the Lord.
For those of you who are not old enough to remember or not from the South—actually, I should be more specific and say Tennessee—you’d probably have no idea who I was talking about were I to say the name Buford Pusser. Now, I’m not from Tennessee, although I am from the South (Kentucky), and I was nowhere even remotely close to being born yet, but I have heard of Mr. Pusser.
I first found out about his existence through the individual who starred in a movie about his life, which I still haven’t seen, which is unfortunate given my being quite a substantial movie buff. The individual who starred in that movie, titled Walking Tall, was Joe Don Baker, who you may know from the Pierce Brosnan era James Bond movies. He’s the CIA agent who says, “Hey, Jimbo!” and screams of being a good ‘ol boy, which Baker was, given he hailed from Texas. Shout out to Groesbeck. But what Baker depicts in the movie is the movie business’ account of Pusser’s legend. Pusser actually lived it and earned that legendary status in doing so.
Now, how Buford Pusser came to be a legend is through his being the sheriff of his home county in Tennessee, McNairy County. To keep a long story short, let’s just say there were a lot of criminal shenanigans in McNairy County when Pusser took over as sheriff. Well, Pusser was the guy who came in and cleaned it up. And I mean, he cleaned it up. He basically waged a war on crime by himself and actually got results.
And when you do something like Pusser did, it’s probably going to turn you into a legend. No wonder the movie business jumped all over making this into a movie; they know the public eats up stories about the lawman who stands strong and resilient in the name of justice and order in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. That story always sells. But it was selling especially well at the time the movie came out.
The movie came out in 1973, but it was depicting events that actually happened in the 1960s, a decade where there were high levels of societal turbulence and criminal behavior. So, despite how much the legacy press and academia glorify the 1960s as this wonderful decade, people in the early 1970s loved movies—like Walking Tall, like Dirty Harry, like Death Wish—where strong men of action brought order to the chaos. But the movie only immortalized Pusser’s story culturally, as art often does.
Pusser already had some level of national prominence by the time the movie came out. And, yes, that was certainly due to his actions as sheriff but also due to the fact that he lost his wife in an ambush that was meant for him. Or, at least, for the past fifty-eight years, that was the official story.
Here we are today, and, according to an article from ABC News, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations is now suggesting that it is highly likely that Pusser—who died in a car accident in 1974—was actually responsible for his wife’s death. It wasn’t the result of an ambush, as he claimed at the time.
And while reading through the article, the thing that stuck out the most to me, aside from general intrigue regarding the new revelations, was something said by the District Attorney. The District Attorney, in a statement, said, “This case is not about tearing down a legend, it is about giving dignity and closure to Pauline and her family and ensuring that the truth is not buried with time.” This case is not about tearing down a legend. That’s a very interesting thing to say. And it got me thinking.
I must confess, part of the reason that a piece of the DA’s statement stuck out is because of the attacks on so many of our nation’s legends, or heroes, if you like, over the past decade to decade and a half. And that got me thinking about why those attacks are important and, more broadly, why legends are important.
We need legends in society. This is so because we have ideals in our nation. But ideals, while powerful, aren’t as capable of holding a nation together or telling a nation what it stands for as pointing to individuals from the past who embodied those ideals. And this is so because we can’t relate to ideals on a personal level. They aren’t people. But these people from the past are people.
Now, on a more negative note, if you tear down these individuals, you’re already well on your way to tearing down the nation. I’m not the only person who understands that this is the case. Unfortunately, the people from within our nation who hate it and what it stands for also understand this, either consciously or unconsciously, which is why they attack these legendary figures.
But while thinking about why we need legends in society, it also got me thinking about whether the people whom we have imbued with legendary status are worth the honor. And that requires specifically thinking about how we judge these people from the past.
In judging a legendary figure from the past, there are numerous factors at which to look, but I want to focus on two prominent ones that are musts for an exercise such as this one.
Morality is a necessity when judging one’s actions regardless if they lived in the past or in the present. This is so because morality is the word we use to refer to how we gauge right and wrong. Now, in modern America, the understanding of what constitutes morality is more incoherent, confused, and disagreed upon than it ever has been before. But traditionally in America, and the West more broadly, our understanding of where morality comes from, where right and wrong come from, has resulted from one source: Christianity. Hence why the West has colloquially been referred to historically as Christendom.
Now, this is not to say that you have to be a Christian or that you must agree with or abide by Christian morality in your own life. But it doesn’t change the fact that Christianity is the historical foundation for morality in our civilization. And because that is so, it presents a problem for those who want to judge those from the past, specifically the people attacking our nation’s legends. What’s the source of your moral objections to certain actions or individuals from the past? By what moral standard are you basing your attacks and criticisms?
If morality is subjective, then it’s just your opinion. And what gives your opinion moral superiority over someone who disagrees with you? But I don’t want to give too much focus and time to the, frankly, foolish idea that is subjective morality. “Yeah, morality is just opinion, man.” Oh, that’s wonderful. I’m sure that’s not going to cause massive levels of cognitive dissonance and wildly different, not to mention incompatible, understandings of right and wrong. So let’s focus on objective morality a bit more instead.
You’ll sometimes hear humanists say that they can provide a basis for objective morality. Well, if you are a humanist, or something along those lines, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you’re likely just picking parts of the Christian moral legacy that you like. But even if you’re someone along these lines who has actually thought your worldview through, you likely have run into problems where your worldview, in attempting to be devoid of the objective moral authority of the Christian tradition, fails to provide an objective basis for answering extremely consequential questions in a satisfactory manner without things becoming, well, let’s just say, dicey. Questions such as, does an individual human life have objective moral value? If so, based upon what? From my understanding, and I’m genuinely trying to be sincere here and not straw-man these types of worldviews, any sort of worldview of this flavor is ultimately going to result in the answer to those questions being human beings having the ultimate authority to decide the right and wrong answers. What could go wrong there, right? Oh, wait, just open up a history book.
And yes, of course people have done horribly atrocious things in the name of Christianity. That is absolutely true. But actual Christianity, which is Jesus, stands against those things. And Christianity, because it is Jesus, therefore provides an objective, transcendent moral authority to unequivocally deem those actions wrong, regardless of the era or society in which they took place. What is the transcendent source of objective right and wrong in these other worldviews, the objective source that can overrule human authority because it is transcendent? And that ability to overrule human moral authority is absolutely necessary because we will undoubtedly screw things up. We just will. We can’t help ourselves. And we need that objective, transcendent guide to tell us why we screwed up and how we can put things back on the correct moral path.
So people from the West who judge those from the past on moral grounds are almost certainly doing so while being influenced—probably more than they realize—by the morality of Christianity. That’s been established. So what consequence does this have when actually judging those from the past?
Well, Christianity’s moral framework does not change. That’s been established, too. It remains the same for all places and all times. But all places and all times do not stay the same. They change. Obviously, they change. And the degrees of those changes vary. Certain times and places, and the practices and customs of those times and places, are going to be more moral than others. Therefore, this is where nuance comes into play when judging those from the past.
Let’s take a couple of common behaviors, one from our past and one from our present, to demonstrate. Let’s talk about slavery and abortion.
Slavery is wrong. It has always been wrong. It is currently wrong. It will always be wrong. The same is true for abortion. But understandings of these practices and customs of the day influence how they are viewed and practiced in society.
Slavery was not frowned upon in the same way it is today during the time of the founding of our nation. Unfortunately, our nation participated in the practice that literally all societies everywhere in the world carried out. That was evil. Where the nuance comes in is in how people viewed slavery.
Yes, there were people, even during the founding, who knew that slavery was wrong. Many of the Founders did, even some of the ones who owned slaves! The three prominent ones that will jump to people’s minds here are Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Let’s look at Jefferson, given he is the chief author of the document that states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” which definitely undermines the idea of slavery.
Jefferson, despite owning slaves, knew it was wrong. Case in point, “Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.” This quote is from Jefferson’s estate, Monticello, summarizing his views on slavery.
Jefferson also attempted to get multiple pieces of anti-slavery legislation passed. For example, in 1778, he proposed legislation in Virginia that would’ve prevented the importation of enslaved Africans. And in 1784, “he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.”
He also wrote a section in the original draft of the Declaration that railroaded King George III for going to Africa, forcibly taking these natives from their homeland—by buying them from other Africans, we can’t forget that part—transporting them to a totally foreign place for the purposes of forced labor, and then politically leveraging them against the colonists when war broke out, promising them freedom if they fought for the British after having shot down colonial attempts to end the legal practice of slavery in certain colonies.
This doesn’t mean Jefferson was perfect. Again, he owned slaves. He didn’t believe in forced abolition but rather gradual emancipation with willingness on the part of the owners. Although, if we had gone the route of forced abolition, we wouldn’t have had a country. He also believed black people to be inferior to white people. You’re going to be hard-pressed to find someone from the time who didn’t. That was virtually universal at the time. But Jefferson understood that slavery was wrong. He wanted it to end. He made attempts to push things in the right direction. We can look at some of his behaviors and beliefs as morally incorrect while also placing Jefferson in his proper context given his time and place.
We can do the same for someone like John C. Calhoun. Calhoun also owned slaves and believed black people to be inferior. The primary difference from Jefferson, however, is that Calhoun was a fan of slavery.
Case in point, just look at this section from his Slavery as a “Positive Good” speech as quoted with commentary from The Calhoun Institute:
“Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions …. But let me not be understood as admitting even by implication that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil—far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition.
Never before in history, he continued, has the black race “attained a condition so civilised and so improved, not only physically but morally and intellectually….in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions, as reviled as they have been, to its present comparative civilised condition.” The rapid increase of numbers, nearly equal to the white population, Calhoun, said “is conclusive proof” of the advancement and of the relative comfort of this class of Southern labourers.
Nor had the white race degenerated. “…I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our nature. I ask whether we have not contributed our full share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustaining this political fabric; and whether we have not constantly inclined most strongly to the side of liberty, and been the first to see and first to resist the encroachments of power. In one thing only are we inferior—the arts of gain;….
I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin” are brought together, “the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honour and interests of those I represent are involved."
Calhoun believed slavery was a moral good. Jefferson didn’t. On this front, the slavery front and its impact on both men’s historical legacies, Jefferson warrants more grace from future generations looking back in historical judgement because he was more in line with correct morality. I’m not saying that Calhoun was an outright monster. I’m ignorant on Jefferson, but I at least have a decent level of knowledge; with Calhoun, I’m in the woods. I can tell you his views on slavery, that he was vice president, that he was involved in the Nullification Crisis, and his opposition to what he called the “Tariff of Abominations.” But I can’t explain in great and knowledgeable detail the specifics of, say, his involvement in the Nullification Crisis. I have no doubt that he was correct on some things, even morally. And that’s the case because he was a human. He’s not a comic book villain. Humans are morally complex, not in the sense that morality changes, but in that we live our lives in a never-ending rotation of residing in moral peaks and valleys, hopefully trying to reside in the former more often than the latter. That applies to Calhoun, Jefferson, and all people, past, present, and future.
So looking back in historical judgement, even with the correct moral framework, can become dicey if one doesn’t remember that it also applies to oneself. Forgetting this can breed arrogance and moral superiority, which isn’t warranted. Don’t forget that there are going to be people in the future who look back and judge our time just like we look back and do to those of the past.
And this is where an issue like abortion comes into play. As time goes on, and prenatal/pregnancy healthcare and technology continue to improve, abortion looks worse and worse.
Now, abortion is an issue that fits into the peaks and valleys analogy I mentioned earlier. Abortion was either a non-issue to the point of not even being legislated—because everyone knew it was wrong—or illegal when there was actually legislation on the books for the majority of the country’s history. That was the norm in this country really all the way up until the 1960s.
I’m not one to oft quote Planned Parenthood, but they have a timeline that actually acknowledges this—it’s one of those times where the Left and Right are saying the same thing, but one side thinks it’s a positive and the other thinks it’s a negative. Their timeline eventually gets to talking about the Trial of the San Francisco Nine in 1966, the establishment of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws in 1969, actual abortion law reform in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the New York Abortion law in 1970, and finally, and most consequentially nationally, Roe v. Wade in 1973. The result of all of this was that abortion was now a morally acceptable practice in America, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court and the U.S. federal government at large. So what had been the case in America up until then had been flipped on its head. And that remained the case, in a legal sense, all the way until the Dobbs decision in 2022.
But we got to the Dobbs decision in large part due to the work of the pro-life community and pro-life activists, who had the moral clarity—the entire time—to acknowledge abortion for what it is: the murder of an innocent, unborn human life. And, like I referenced earlier, it has become easier to prove this moral clarity correct as technology and healthcare have improved. Case in point, we have 3D ultrasounds that very clearly demonstrate when that wand is placed on the woman’s tummy that what is living in and developing inside the woman’s womb is indeed an unborn little human. Heck, you can see the baby’s facial expressions change and move!
But regardless of healthcare innovation and technological innovation, there are still millions of people who refuse to accept moral clarity on this issue—as many did during the times of Jefferson and Calhoun with regard to slavery—for an array of reasons ranging from ignorance all the way to positions that can be described as nothing other than just evil. Like I said, their position looks worse and worse as time goes on—maybe I’m wrong on that, but I don’t think I am. And I know the “what will future generations think?” line is certainly a silly argument to make when actually trying to convince someone why abortion is immoral and wrong, but that’s not the purpose of this section of the piece. It’s to discuss why morality is a necessity when judging those from the past. And given that abortion is immoral and that healthcare and technology are making this clearer and clearer when people are forced to confront it, I can’t help but wonder how people in the future will look at the pro-abortion crowd.
This one’s a bit more self-explanatory, so this section will be significantly shorter. Essentially, this section boils down to one question.
Did what they do matter?
Now, this can’t be the only barometer of legendary status because, to bring up the angry mustache man, what he did absolutely mattered, but it certainly wasn’t moral. It was evil, which is why morality must be a consideration and a more important one. But nonetheless, historical significance must be taken into consideration when looking at someone from the past and trying to determine whether that person warrants legendary status.
But what determines significance? Obviously, like I said earlier, did what they do matter? But more specifically, for how long? How wide-reaching was the impact? I’m sure there are more nuanced factors regarding significance, but these are the two that immediately popped to mind.
Take George Washington, for example. Obviously, he is an unquestionable legend for our nation. Why? Well, because of his character—his moral character—and his achievements. He was the head of the army during the American War for Independence, which we managed to win despite insurmountable odds—thank you, von Steuben, France, and Spain for the major help. He was the first president of the country. Oh, and the country didn’t fall apart under his administration. Actually, he is a large part of why the country was able to survive its infancy, because of his leadership. He then decided to voluntarily give up power, and it was peacefully transferred to the second president, John Adams. And the country has survived to us now being on our 47th president over 200 years later. Take all of this into consideration and you get the “Father of the Country.”
But what about someone who isn’t an unquestionable national legend? What about someone like Buford Pusser? Well, the fact that he very likely killed his wife is something that would tarnish his legendary status based on the “Morality” section of this piece. But just roll with me for the sake of a hypothetical.
Well, what impact did he have on the nation? He didn’t really have an impact on the nation. Sure, he had national prominence for a minute there. But that was his proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. His impact was more confined to the state of Tennessee, specifically the southwestern part of the state, where he was sheriff. So would he be worthy of legendary status for southwest Tennessee and Tennessee more broadly? Sure. But on a national stage? No, probably not.
Now, the “probably not” is what is important here. It means that someone could make a legitimate case that Pusser is a national legend because of his work as a sheriff in cleaning up his area and restoring law and order. And it’d be a feasible argument. Other lawmen are national legends. Look at Wyatt Earp.
But unlike Earp, who is an unquestionable legend, and not just because of his achievements as a lawman but also due to his character and life symbolizing a period of American history, the Wild West, Pusser’s claim for legendary status is subjective. And I’d argue if you’ve gone all the way down to the level of subjectivity, you’ve already answered the question as to whether or not that person is one of your nation’s legends. The answer is no. Legends should be people who objectively mattered or represented something in a manner that impacted the whole nation, both during their lives and long after.
And on that note, I’ll close by leaving you with a question to ponder. Who from today’s America will become national legends?
Sources:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/famed-sheriff-inspired-walking-tall-movie-implicated-wifes/story?id=125126955
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/
https://calhouninstitute.com/john-c-calhoun-and-slavery-as-a-positive-good-what-he-said/
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america/historical-abortion-law-timeline-1850-today
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript