ISO of a book not to rewrite history but to do a better honest job

[momma aimee]

Yea, it really doesn't. And it perpetuates the falsehood that Southerners who took up arms against the United States of America were some sort of innocent victims.

 

Bill

 

Many were innocent -- many in the south had no slaves and did not have 'a dog in the fight' untill the war came calling in their yards and homes. Nothing false about that not EVERY German was evil, not every Muslum is a terroist and there were indeed innocent Southerns.

 

your quote above is the very 'to the victor goes the spoils' tone of history i want to avoid. The slave holders were at fault, yes, but not ever person that lived in the South was a hell bent rebell .... I am tired of the 'white christian man is evil'

[Spy Car]

Many were innocent -- many in the south had no slaves and did not have 'a dog in the fight' untill the war came calling in their yards and homes. Nothing false about that not EVERY German was evil, not every Muslum is a terroist and there were indeed innocent Southerns.

 

your quote above is the very 'to the victor goes the spoils' tone of history i want to avoid. The slave holders were at fault, yes, but not ever person that lived in the South was a hell bent rebell .... I am tired of the 'white christian man is evil'

 

Who said all Southerners were evil?

 

The fact that not everyone in the South owned slaves, or might have wished not to succeed in the first place, has nothing to do with "the cause" of the Civil War.

 

Innocent people get caught up in every war. This one was a tragedy. It would compound the tragedy to teach our children a false history about the cause of the Civil War and the assumptions upon which the institution of slavery rested. And unfortunately there are people out there deliberately trying to re-write history.

 

Bill

[MSNative]

I think most people agree that slavery was a cause of the Civil War, not THE ONLY cause. I teach my children all of the causes. You are right, Bill, that we do children a disservice when we do not teach them about history. I think that teaching them that it was only about slavery ignores facts.

 

President Lincoln himself wrote "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

Gen. Grant and his wife owned slaves.

Gen. Robert E. Lee wrote in 1856 "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. "

 

These facts make it difficult to reconcile the idea that the Civil War was only about slavery. So, those of us who argue that the Civil War had causes other than simply slavery are not rewriting history, we are trying to give a more complete view.

 

OP - it is so hard to find history books that aren't biased. We use many different ones and use a lot of source docs.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think most people agree that slavery was a cause of the Civil War, not THE ONLY cause. I teach my children all of the causes. You are right, Bill, that we do children a disservice when we do not teach them about history. I think that teaching them that it was only about slavery ignores facts.

 

President Lincoln himself wrote "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

 

What you are able to do politically and what you desire to do morally are not always the same thing. Lincoln was definitely anti-slavery, many of his writings show this, including the very letter that you quoted.

 

Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

 

Yours,

A. Lincoln.

 

 

You taking that quote out of context to try and prove that Lincoln was not anti-slavery is exactly the sort of revisionist history that the more "PC" books try to *correct*.

[Carol in Cal.]

What you are able to do politically and what you desire to do morally are not always the same thing. Lincoln was definitely anti-slavery, many of his writings show this, including the very letter that you quoted.

 

 

 

 

You taking that quote out of context to try and prove that Lincoln was not anti-slavery is exactly the sort of revisionist history that the more "PC" books try to *correct*.

 

Mrs. Mungo, as happens so often here these days, I am in awe of you. Carry on!

[MSNative]

What you are able to do politically and what you desire to do morally are not always the same thing. Lincoln was definitely anti-slavery, many of his writings show this, including the very letter that you quoted.

 

 

 

 

You taking that quote out of context to try and prove that Lincoln was not anti-slavery is exactly the sort of revisionist history that the more "PC" books try to *correct*.

 

I wasn't trying to take it out of context and say he was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. I merely meant to point out that his goal was to save the Union whether or not that included freeing all the slaves, some of the slave (as the Emancipation Proc. did) or none of the slaves. I thought that his quote showed that slavery was not the ONLY cause of the war (if it was the only cause then he would not be happy to save the union without ending slavery). I believe that a reading of the entire letter also shows that. How is that revisionist?

[Mrs Mungo]

I wasn't trying to take it out of context and say he was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. I merely meant to point out that his goal was to save the Union whether or not that included freeing all the slaves, some of the slave (as the Emancipation Proc. did) or none of the slaves. I thought that his quote showed that slavery was not the ONLY cause of the war (if it was the only cause then he would not be happy to save the union without ending slavery). I believe that a reading of the entire letter also shows that. How is that revisionist?

 

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to show that Lincoln wasn't really anti-slavery. Many people use that quote to that end.

 

I think it was in my very first post that I said for the SOUTH the "cause" was about slavery. The North fought in order to preserve the union. The reason the South seceded was due to slavery. The North wanted to preserve the union.

[Daisy]

FYI, I found pictures of confederate soldiers and union soldiers in kilts. Might be a fascinating addition to this thread. :D

[Spy Car]

I think it was in my very first post that I said for the SOUTH the "cause" was about slavery. The North fought in order to preserve the union. The reason the South seceded was due to slavery. The North wanted to preserve the union.

 

And I think you have that formulation exactly right.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

FYI, I found pictures of confederate soldiers and union soldiers in kilts. Might be a fascinating addition to this thread. :D

 

Must.not.google.this...

[kalanamak]

t

 

i admit i am new to all this. forgive me my blunders

 

You'll get used to us. This is not the first time through the philosophy of history, nor of the causes of the Civil War.

 

Of the book you mentioned, I read all the reviews and comments on the reviews of the book on Amazon, including the history professor. I was more intrigued by the idea of a history teacher not teaching a subject they were not familiar with, that to simply spoon out the textbook take on a part of history is more damaging than skipping it. Some reviewers griped the author was a sociologist, not a historian. Thanks, I'll get the book through interlibrary loan. The idea of not just accepting a curriculum, but knowing something about it before teaching it is intriguing to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

You'll get used to us. This is not the first time through the philosophy of history, nor of the causes of the Civil War.

 

Of the book you mentioned, I read all the reviews and comments on the reviews of the book on Amazon, including the history professor. I was more intrigued by the idea of a history teacher not teaching a subject they were not familiar with, that to simply spoon out the textbook take on a part of history is more damaging than skipping it. Some reviewers griped the author was a sociologist, not a historian. Thanks, I'll get the book through interlibrary loan. The idea of not just accepting a curriculum, but knowing something about it before teaching it is intriguing to me.

 

My gripe about the book is that I don't think it really accomplishes what the title claims. Yes, it's a book about historiography. It gripes about this and that textbook. It shows how things were presented in textbooks at different moments in history. But, I'm unsure it tells you how to teach what really happened.

 

FWIW, nearly *all* of my history teachers in public school were coaches who taught history to fill in their schedule. There were 2 exceptions. One was my 10th grade civics teacher, and I'm not 100% that counts as history.

 

The other was my honors world history teacher. He was a deacon (?? I'm not sure I have that right, something like that) in the Catholic church. His history class almost exclusively focused on the Catholic church. We spent about 3 weeks watching an entire mini-series on the Borgias.

[LibraryLover]

. We spent about 3 weeks watching an entire mini-series on the Borgias.

 

 

:lol: Was he intending to turn people away from Catholism?

[Mrs Mungo]

:lol: Was he intending to turn people away from Catholism?

 

I have no idea! In retrospect it was so weird!

 

Eta: And mind you, this was the eighties. The production level was sort of the same as Shelly Duvall's Fairytale Theater videos. It wasn't exciting like The Tudors or Rome.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[MSNative]

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to show that Lincoln wasn't really anti-slavery. Many people use that quote to that end.

 

I think it was in my very first post that I said for the SOUTH the "cause" was about slavery. The North fought in order to preserve the union. The reason the South seceded was due to slavery. The North wanted to preserve the union.

 

I should have been more clear when posting the quote originally.

 

OP - The National Parks Service has a great summary about the causes of the Civil War. I have used this with my kids as an overview and then had them research each of the issues addressed.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

[MischiefManaged]

I should have been more clear when posting the quote originally.

 

OP - The National Parks Service has a great summary about the causes of the Civil War. I have used this with my kids as an overview and then had them research each of the issues addressed.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

 

I think most of us understand that States Rights can cover just about everything, and that economic factors and representation disagreements were all part of the causes of the Civil War, but as far as the south was concerned, it ALL centered around slavery. States Rights= to own and retrieve slaves. The import issues= around an economy that depended on slavery. Representation/ national policies..... dependent on slavery/ slave states.

 

So ultimately, it was about slavery. That doesn't make the slavery issue a simple thing -- it was quite complex and permeated just about everything the south did or decided.

[KristinaBreece]

Many were innocent -- many in the south had no slaves and did not have 'a dog in the fight' untill the war came calling in their yards and homes. Nothing false about that not EVERY German was evil, not every Muslum is a terroist and there were indeed innocent Southerns.

 

Unfortunately, most wars are not fought by those who actually have a direct stake in the political motivations behind the reason for the war. Young men (and now women) go to war because they serve the good of the country, and the leadership of the country says: "Fight." There are, of course, soldiers who join in wars specifically because they support the causes that are motivating the war. My cousin is a Marine. I love him to death, but he is absolutely incapable of processing why he is where he is in the world at this point in time. He just knows that his superior heard from his superior, who heard from his superior, that this group of men needs to go to place X and do job Y. I imagine that many of the people he encounters every day are just like the young "rebel" in your Civil War anecdote. They didn't want to be in a war-- it just landed in front of them.

 

your quote above is the very 'to the victor goes the spoils' tone of history i want to avoid. The slave holders were at fault, yes, but not ever person that lived in the South was a hell bent rebell .... I am tired of the 'white christian man is evil'

 

I don't think anyone thinks (at least, I don't think that Bill & Mrs Mungo think) that every southerner was a "hell bent rebel." The fact remains that the southern states (as a whole-- which included every citizen therein, regardless of each person's individual beliefs) chose to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. The south threw down the gauntlet, so to speak. Lincoln chose to engage them, rather than to watch the country he split entirely on that fault line. I also don't think that anyone (here, at least) is saying that the "white Christian man is evil," but I do think that they don't want to see the parts of history that are not so flattering to our country glossed over to make some people feel better about their ancestors.

 

FYI, I found pictures of confederate soldiers and union soldiers in kilts. Might be a fascinating addition to this thread. :D

 

:lol: Woo-hoo!!!

[stripe]

FWIW, nearly *all* of my history teachers in public school were coaches who taught history to fill in their schedule.

Funny, my US government teacher (12th grade) was also my 9th grade gym teacher.

 

The other was my honors world history teacher. He was a deacon (?? I'm not sure I have that right, something like that) in the Catholic church. His history class almost exclusively focused on the Catholic church. We spent about 3 weeks watching an entire mini-series on the Borgias.

That's better than my 8th grade gym teacher. When I went in his office once to ask him a question, he started talking about "Carmen." Who ended up being the Playmate of the month. Yuck. Happily, he didn't have a side gig teaching history!

[leeannpal]

I think most of us understand that States Rights can cover just about everything, and that economic factors and representation disagreements were all part of the causes of the Civil War, but as far as the south was concerned, it ALL centered around slavery. States Rights= to own and retrieve slaves. The import issues= around an economy that depended on slavery. Representation/ national policies..... dependent on slavery/ slave states.

 

So ultimately, it was about slavery. That doesn't make the slavery issue a simple thing -- it was quite complex and permeated just about everything the south did or decided.

 

I agree partly with what you are saying. Slavery was the main issue, but don't forget, the North was also dependent on slavery for quite a while. I don't mean when it was legal to own slaves in the North. I'm talking about all the textile mills that were dependent on Southern cotton. At the beginning of the Civil War, my people in the North were not in favor of the war. Economically, factory owners were concerned about getting cotton. The issue of slavery was not clearly defined as a North vs. South issue until about halfway through the war.

[MischiefManaged]

I agree partly with what you are saying. Slavery was the main issue, but don't forget, the North was also dependent on slavery for quite a while. I don't mean when it was legal to own slaves in the North. I'm talking about all the textile mills that were dependent on Southern cotton. At the beginning of the Civil War, my people in the North were not in favor of the war. Economically, factory owners were concerned about getting cotton. The issue of slavery was not clearly defined as a North vs. South issue until about halfway through the war.

 

 

totally agree. :) and it still reinforces that the war was about slavery. ;)