Thursday, September 23, 2004

Who will remember us?

My friend at Crime & Federalism, Federalist No. 84, has a post that really made me think. Why are some great lawyers remembered and others forgotten?

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2004/09/who_will_rememb.html

"The lawyers who are remembered will be those who fought for causes. Clarence Darrow and William Kunstler come immediately to mind. But a lot of lawyers fight for causes. Yet no one knows, and no one remembers, them.
I think that the only lawyers that we will talk about ten years from now are those who used their extraordinary skills for the service of the public. Being good enough (morally or tactically) isn't good enough. You must have both skill and compassion.
A hired gun will be forgotten as soon as he runs out of bullets. And a big heart doesn't necessarily lead to big wins."

Could this be true for other historical figures, namely, American Presidents?

  • George Washington is remembered for leading the military during the revolution, and for being first, but his presidency has largely been consigned to history.
  • Similarly, Thomas Jefferson is remembered for his contribution to the revolutionary war, namely, as the principle author of the Declaration of Independence. What part of his presidency pervades the American consciousness?
  • Abraham Lincoln was the seminal figure in the Civil War, perhaps the central event in American history.
  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt lead the nation during the Great Depression, and during the second World War.

Other presidents who rose to the occasion, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, are not as well remembered, and time will probably only decrease their notoriety. The last president to leave such an imprint on the public is Ronald Reagan, primarily because of his association with the Cold War and the fall of communism. Could it be that only the presidents who faced the greatest crises are the only ones that history will remember?


1 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

Yes. Presidents who serve our country during war will always be remembered better than those who serve during peace. This is not because war presidents are better. Rather, it is simply a function of the limited amount of time schools can and do devote to history. School book history is far more simplified than popular history or academic history. It focuses on a few simple events (Columbus, Mayflower, Am. Revolution, Civil War, WWII, etc). Figures who are attached to those events, then, become the only figures who are remembered, since most Americans never learn any history other than school book history.

This kind of dances around a broader point about history as well: history is a record of the memorable, not a retelling of all that has happened before (ex: My dinner on May 16, 1986 happened in the past, but it isn't history. No one would study it). Because memorable is not a strictly objective term, there is some variance as to what actually constitutes history (this, however, is not saying history is relative. What one pays attention to may be, but the facts, when focused on, are not). Thus, the degree to which history takes note of a President depends on his doing memorable acts or being associated with memorable events. A forgetable man in forgetable times could be a great president, but history will none-the-less ignore him. Those worried about history noticing them should simply try their darndest to be memorable. One might not be able to control whether one is president during memorable times, but one can still be very well-remembered in popular and academic history if one simply tries to be memorable.

September 23, 2004 at 11:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home