Skip to main content
The Latest /
Christian Nationalism

How Christian Nationalists Misuse History In Support Of Their Right-Wing Agenda

Rick Green standing at a podium and holding a microphone.

As Right Wing Watch has noted multiple times in the past, one of the defining characteristics of Christian nationalists is their willingness to misrepresent history, as time after time they spread blatant falsehoods in defense of their right-wing ideology. And the reason Christian nationalists do this is because perpetuating these myths is useful for convincing Americans that their own right-wing political agenda is rooted in our history. 

This practice was on full display when self-proclaimed "Constitution Coach" Rick Green appeared on the "FlashPoint" program Monday night and used Davy Crockett—yes, that one—to argue that the federal government should play no role in helping the victims of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires

"We just do a better job in the church in dealing with all of these," Green insisted. "It's always personal help to the poor or those that have been damaged that does way better than government trying to do it; these nameless, faceless bureaucrats trying to solve the problems of the community." 

In defense of this argument, Green then cited a story about Crockett's time in Congress during which he was allegedly upbraided by a constituent for using federal funds to help victims of a fire. 

"Davy Crockett had a great example of this back when he was in Congress," Green said. "He called it, 'It's Not Yours To Give,' and it was in a fire situation in Georgetown, right outside of D.C., where they passed a bill to take care of these people that had lost their homes and businesses. And we got back home to Tennessee, he went to the constituent asking for his vote and he said, 'I can't vote for you because you gave money that wasn't yours to give to take care of that situation. I should have been able to give that money direct because the money would be handled better, I would manage, I would hold them responsible better.'"

Green claimed that the interaction "changed Davy Crockett's mind on the proper role of government" before asserting that "maybe we need to have more of a national conversation on this" today. 

"That's just a major conversation that needs to happen," Green declared. "Government does not do these things well. The private market, the church, the individual does it so much better. "

Video URL

First of all, why should the opinion of one person who served a few terms in Congress nearly two hundred years be guiding our policies today? 

Secondly, and all too predictably, doing even the most basic research quickly reveals that this incident never happened. 

As James R. Boylston, co-author of "David Crockett in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Poor Man's Friend," explained in 2009:

The short answer is that “Not Yours to Give” is a fabrication.

The tale originated as “Davy Crockett’s Electioneering Tour,” a January 1867 article in Harper’s Magazine written by James J. Bethune, a pseudonym used by Edward S. Ellis. Ellis included the story in an 1884 edition of his Crockett biography, which has subsequently been republished repeatedly on the web by groups hoping to benefit from the Crockett association.

The story, as it is most commonly told, begins with Congressman Crockett delivering an address to the U.S. House of Representatives in opposition to an appropriation for the widow of a "naval officer" who is unidentified in the retelling.

Crockett goes to some lengths to explain to his colleagues that they have collectively no
right to bestow public monies in the form of charity to any individual, even out of "respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living."

He goes on to state that such matters are more appropriately funded by charitable contributions from private individuals and offers to donate one week's pay to the widow's relief if every other member of Congress will do the same. The tale then reports that the motion for the charity failed to pass due to Crockett's erudition.

Congressman Crockett, usually a champion for the poor and disenfranchised, is later challenged about this rather uncharacteristic vote. In explanation, he recounts a story about a meeting with a constituent while on an earlier campaign, one Horatio Bunce, who refuses to support Crockett's reelection effort. Bunce dresses David down for previously voting in favor of a bill that appropriated $20,000 in relief for the victims of a Georgetown fire, and expounds on this misuse of government funds. He accuses Crockett and his cohorts of a frivolous miuse of tax dollars for private gain, and then goes on to teach the Congressman about how the federal tax system should operate under the Constitution.

Crockett, awe-stricken, sees the error of his ways. He fears that Bunce will cost him votes because "he was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance." David vows that the scales have fallen from his eyes and that Bunce has shown him the light. He promises that he will never again vote to award tax receipts for relief efforts. Bunce, in turn, accepts Crockett's change of heart as sincere and endorses his reelection bid.

This oft-repeated story is amusing, but problematic for a number of reasons.

The first part of the story gives a partially accurate account of Crockett's opposition to the relief effort. Mrs. Brown was the widow of a General Brown, a veteran of the War of 1812. The General contracted an illness during his service that ultimately led to his demise, but he went on to serve in the public sector until his death some years later. A lengthy debate took place in the House of Representatives on April 1, 1828, over whether or not to award public funds to Mrs. Brown, who was portrayed as an indigent mother in desperate need of assistance.

Gale's and Seaton's Register of Debates of the House of Representatives 20th Congress, First Session, records that though David cast a vote against the bill, he was not present for the discussion.

On April 2, however, he and Thomas Chilton (who would go on to help Crockett write his autobiography) spoke out "in opposition to the principle of the bill" and Crockett followed by "offering to subscribe his quota, in his private character, to make up the sum proposed."

Unlike the tale told in the Ellis version and on the web though, Crockett's opposition was countered by a spirited oration by Congressman Clark of New York. The motion for Mrs. Brown's relief was then carried by a vote of 97 to 74,with both Crockett and Chilton voting in the negative.

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood of the Ellis account is his rendering of Crockett's explanation of his vote and his encounter with Horatio Bunce. Bunce's opposition to Congressman Crockett is allegedly based on a vote Crockett made in favor of appropriations to the victims of a Georgetown fire. Crockett never made such a vote. The fire in question was not in Georgetown as stated, but in Alexandria, and the l9th Congress voted on the motion for relief for the victims on January 19, 1827. David Crockett served his first term in the 20th Congress, which convened on December 3, 1827 . In the spring of 1827, David was still on the campaign stump in Tennessee. He won the election in August of 1827.

For Green and his fellow Christian nationalists, the actual veracity, or lack therefore, of stories like Crockett's "It's Not Yours To Give" saga are largely irrelevant since the primary purpose in spreading these myths is creating a pseudo-historical justification for enacting right-wing policies today.