Last month the National Park Service removed an exhibit highlighting the lives of nine people enslaved by George Washington. The display, part of the President’s House site on Independence Mall, described the harsh realities of slavery and explored how Washington avoided abolition requirements by working the system. The exhibit panels were removed due to a March 2025 executive order, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” The details of the event and the ongoing court battle have been all over the news, and more information can be found here.
What sticks in my craw almost as much as the action itself is the language of the order. Specifically, I just can’t get over the use of the words “truth” and “sanity” in this context. What, exactly, is the executive branch saying? What “truth” are they restoring? Are they claiming that slavery didn’t exist, or that George Washington didn’t own slaves? Both are matters of historical record; neither assertion can be considered truthful. Perhaps they are implying that slavery wasn’t all that bad. While I’ve heard that tenuous argument made about slavery as practiced in the New Testament, it’s a difficult argument to make regarding the chattel slavery practiced here in the U.S. Historians agree that enslaved people were dehumanized and abused physically, emotionally, and psychologically for centuries within our borders and that their abominable treatment was sanctioned and protected by the government and, in many cases, Christian churches.
It’s more likely the executive branch is offended by the “interpretive” nature of the exhibit, titled, “The Dirty Business of Slavery.” If that’s the case, we must ask, what does removal of that interpretation imply? Removal of one interpretation is an imposition of a different interpretation by omission. If the executive order and subsequent action imply that slavery was NOT a dirty business, that is a form of denial far more insidious than outright rejection of facts.
When we teach our kids to tell the truth, we mean them to tell the whole story, not the part of the story that makes them look good or keeps them out of trouble. When people give legal testimony, they must affirm they will tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (we’ve all watched enough legal dramas to know that by heart). So, what form of “truth,” exactly, is meant to be restored by this executive order?
Perhaps the authors of the order borrow their approach to truth from Pontius Pilate, who asked, “What is truth?” right before he sentenced Jesus to execution.* And while I have no doubt that some of them view themselves in biblical proportions, I’m not sure they meant to emulate that particular biblical character.
I can think of a few reasons people have for avoiding or even denying the dark chapters of American history. Thirst for power, desire for dominance, need to control, shame, or even embarrassment might be some. But restoring truth? I don’t think so.
That brings us to the second word of the day, “sanity.” In the style of Pilate, we may ask, “What is sanity?” Tempting as it may be to label the entire enterprise as insane, I can’t quite see it that way. If sanity equals rationality or reasoning, then this order can be seen as one part of a well-reasoned plan meant to delude people with false narratives. Seen in this light, the executive order that resulted in the removal of the slavery exhibit on Independence Mall is very, very sane.
*John 18:38
