I’m talking about Nathan Bedford Forrest over at Pith this morning. And I’m thinking about this post I read yesterday or the day before but can’t now find about bearing false witness. In the post was this discussion about how the perniciousness of bearing false witness lies not only in the lie and the harm it can do immediately to the person you’re lying about, but the long-term damage it does to a whole community, in part, because the bearer often acts so long like what he or she has said is true that he or she comes to believe it.
So, it’s like a double-whammy. You have all of the problems of lying and the evil perpetrated against the person being lied about, but you also have the rot it does to the community to have within it members who have had to commit to a false reality, to a version of events that they know is not true.
In some ways, I’ll say that this is the thing I find most baffling about the Civil War discussions down here. The historical documents are widely available. People’s own accounts of why they did things are or why they thought things were happening to them are easy to find.
And yet, at some point, people became committed to this idea that the war wasn’t about what everyone said it was about, but about something else. Not slavery, but states’ rights. And it seems like they became committed to believing it, not because it was true, but in fact because they could not come to terms with what it would mean that they had been lied to, that someone consciously made the decision to say “we will move from the truth and commit to this lie until everyone believes it.”
But that is a pretty hard thing to come to terms with.