My reaction to the “They Have Blood on Their Hands” article is mixed. While the author’s assertion that there are racist overtones to the Sons of the Confederacy secession celebrations seems well founded, subjugating the tea party movement under the same banner is overly simplifying a very complex phenomenon. It seems to promulgate the myth of the importance cultural constructions of race, class and gender to people’s actions and political commitments, while ignoring religious and political value systems which may be as, or even more important. The article about the 4th grade textbook seems to illuminate a dilemma historians have yet to deal with adequately. What is the role of truth in history (if truth is a part of history)? Post-modern influenced might reject the assertion that historians can find truth. Even if we can, however, how and why is historical truth important and is this because truth itself has some inherent moral significance or is it due to its pragmatic value in influencing decision making and furthering positive policy outcomes? The pragmatic role of historical truth seems to be most in tune with a democratic society. The third article brings up the important question of whether–and if so, how–public history should be policed. While academic historians have largely pragmatic reason’s for policing themselves, I don’t think this is as prevalent among public historians and institutions. I’m not sure what should or can be done about this. The last article was possibly my favorite due to my own historical interest. The tendency to canonize the founding fathers is far from a recent invention of the tea party. Methodist in the 1840s baptized republicanism and the founders by asserting that the Reformation was the source of American freedom. This was not completely a naive acceptance of America’s political system since the separation of church and state did allow for the phenomenal increase of both the Methodist and Baptist denominations.