While Christmas celebrations may offer a temporary reprieve from the intense political divisions in America, Christmas traditions themselves have long been politically charged. Accounts of enslaved people’s Christmas experiences continue to have political ramifications, impacting the MAGA movement and Donald Trump’s presidency.
The “Lost Cause” mythology, propagated by white Southerners after the Civil War, glorified Confederate generals and soldiers while minimizing their treasonous efforts to preserve and expand slavery by destroying the Union.
Often overlooked is the “Lost Cause’s” role in justifying and glorifying Black slavery. Pre-Civil War Christmas customs in the South were frequently used in this propaganda. Nostalgic depictions of Christmases on Southern plantations obscure the brutality of slavery, enabling politicians to exploit neo-Confederate rhetoric and policies to gain support from white Southern voters.
Following the Civil War, and particularly after Reconstruction’s temporary empowerment of Black men, white Southerners regained political dominance by the late 1870s. To solidify their power, they produced numerous publications—memoirs, history books, novels, poems, speeches—promoting the false narrative that slavery was generally pleasant and beneficial.
This propaganda, largely ignoring African American perspectives, depicted Southern white “masters” and “mistresses” bestowing lavish parties, gifts, and freedom of movement on their enslaved workers during Christmas, without punishment or hardship. These accounts portrayed enslaved people as experiencing a blissful Christmas holiday, deeply grateful for their enslavers’ generosity.
In reality, enslaved people were frequently sold and whipped, even during Christmas. However, these distorted accounts presented Southern slavery as generally humane. For example, memoirs by former enslavers claimed that masters and slaves engaged in playful Christmas morning games, exchanging gifts. Slaves allegedly wished their owners well and received eggnog.
A popular myth claims the length of enslaved people’s Christmas holiday depended on a Yule log’s burn time. The story goes that slaves chose hardwoods, prolonging the festivities for potentially weeks.
Supposedly, enslavers either overlooked or didn’t realize this trickery. The implication is that enslavers, who considered Black people their property, were fundamentally kind.
In truth, there is minimal verifiable evidence—perhaps only three questionable secondhand accounts—supporting this Yule Log custom’s prevalence before the Civil War.
It’s improbable that enslaved people gained extra holiday time due to stubborn Yule logs. Yet, this charming tale has become ingrained in American folklore, appearing on websites, in plantation tours, books, and various publications, including a 1979 Christmas issue of *[Publication Name]*.
This illustrates the insidious pervasiveness of the Lost Cause. It explains why Donald Trump championed this myth during the 2017 Charlottesville violence and why, earlier this year, he advocated for the reinstatement of a Confederate general’s name to a military base. The myth minimizes the Confederacy’s brutality.
The exact impact of this myth on Trump’s electoral success is immeasurable. However, this ideology’s influence on Southern states undoubtedly contributes to the region’s political alignment.
Undeniably, Donald Trump’s presidency relied on Southern support, and myths about Christmas on Southern plantations are embedded in the culture of the former Confederacy. These myths perpetuate a dangerous misrepresentation of slavery’s history. They’ve been part of our political and cultural landscape since the late 19th century, and Christmas provides an opportunity to critically examine these enduring, consequential legends.
Robert E. May is Professor of History Emeritus at Purdue University. He is the author of the just released Debunking the Yule Log Myth: The Disturbing History of a Plantation Legend (Roman & Littlefield Press).
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. . Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.