Lies my Teacher Told Me

[GK4Herd]

There are several books in this series since the original, but I’m reading the updated original. I think this could spark some interesting discussion that will likely divide us. The book isn’t really anti teacher as it is an indictment on how textbooks present history. It’s more of an indictment of the textbook companies and a discussion on how they gloss over, leave out, or present events and people in a way that overly glorifies US history.

The book has sections on Heroification, Columbus, the history of Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans, Vietnam War, etc. among other topics. It doesn’t paint a rosy picture of our history, but it uses primary sources and direct documentation to dispel the myth of events and people.

For example, in the heroification chapter it talks about Hellen Keller. We all know the feel good story of a deaf and blind girl who had little hope for an active and productive life until a teacher, Ann Sullivan, entered her life and taught her to read and gave her an education that lifted her out of the darkness. But did you know she went on to become a devout communist/socialist?

We grew up, or at least I did, where textbooks presented history in a way that covered the warts. So I have a few questions that would be interesting topics…

1: Should textbooks be used in a way to promote patriotism and nationalism?

2. With all the talks of critical race theory, should that be an excuse to not teach the history of slavery, the civil rights movement, etc?

3: Should we teach the human side of our national icons? Lincoln came down on the right side of slavery, but he was quoted in primary sources as not completely disavowing slavery. Do our textbooks have an obligation to show this?

Anyway…I’m almost finished with the book and by the end it gives an overall impression that our US history was far from saintly. Yet everything in the book appears to be true. So how should we teach history in this country?

 

[HerdandHokies]

I’m a big amateur history fan and this stuff is hard. Having two young kids now has also given me a different perspective with regard to what they can really understand and incorporate at what age. Additionally, there’s just so much history and so many different perspectives that it is hilariously impossible to present them all.

At some point I think you have to cut out the hero worship and show that everyone is human. The stories are a lot more relevant and honestly interesting that way. It’s not about saying “well actually all the people you’ve ever learned about were terrible,” it’s about admitting that everyone is human. It wasn’t some perfect set of men who founded our country, but people like there are now. Some self interested, some really terrible, some pretty good, some idealistic, but just that, people. I mean, would The Patriot have been as good if the guy had been all rah rah at the beginning?

But it inevitably gets agendized. Somebody wants to make a point so they pick their heroes and tell you how amazing one person was and all the awful things other people did. And when you get to history that’s within living memory it gets much worse.

Should textbooks be used in a way to promote patriotism and nationalism?

That probably shouldn’t be an explicit goal. There’s some balance when teaching our history where you have to admit the bad things or you get generation after generation who doesn’t have any idea how the sausage is made and is OK with us going around destabilizing whole regions just to satisfy business interests. On the flip side, a lot of other places do a lot worse and if you’re going to take the time to call us out I think you’ve got to do it to them too, so students don’t get the impression that US is bad, everyone else is good. We’ve got a lot to be proud of but we should never say we can’t do better.

With all the talks of critical race theory, should that be an excuse to not teach the history of slavery, the civil rights movement, etc?

Oh hell no. It’s a massive part of our history that caused an entire civil war and the ramifications of it persist to this day. It has to be addressed honestly.

Should we teach the human side of our national icons? Lincoln came down on the right side of slavery, but he was quoted in primary sources as not completely disavowing slavery. Do our textbooks have an obligation to show this?

Like I said above I think that you do have to do this, but not in a demonizing way. In a “these were humans” way. It’s just so much more interesting that way anyway.

Anyhow, like the saying goes, those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do are doomed to have to watch everyone else repeat it since they won’t listen.

 

[herdfan429]

Literally no one is calling for the removal of slavery being taught in curriculum. It’s another strawman for libs to shout about from the roof tops.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Literally no one is calling for the removal of slavery being taught in curriculum. It’s another strawman for libs to shout about from the roof tops.

Fair, though so is CRT the other way around.

 

[i am herdman]

There are several books in this series since the original, but I’m reading the updated original. I think this could spark some interesting discussion that will likely divide us. The book isn’t really anti teacher as it is an indictment on how textbooks present history. It’s more of an indictment of the textbook companies and a discussion on how they gloss over, leave out, or present events and people in a way that overly glorifies US history.

The book has sections on Heroification, Columbus, the history of Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans, Vietnam War, etc. among other topics. It doesn’t paint a rosy picture of our history, but it uses primary sources and direct documentation to dispel the myth of events and people.

For example, in the heroification chapter it talks about Hellen Keller. We all know the feel good story of a deaf and blind girl who had little hope for an active and productive life until a teacher, Ann Sullivan, entered her life and taught her to read and gave her an education that lifted her out of the darkness. But did you know she went on to become a devout communist/socialist?

We grew up, or at least I did, where textbooks presented history in a way that covered the warts. So I have a few questions that would be interesting topics…

1: Should textbooks be used in a way to promote patriotism and nationalism?

2. With all the talks of critical race theory, should that be an excuse to not teach the history of slavery, the civil rights movement, etc?

3: Should we teach the human side of our national icons? Lincoln came down on the right side of slavery, but he was quoted in primary sources as not completely disavowing slavery. Do our textbooks have an obligation to show this?

Anyway…I’m almost finished with the book and by the end it gives an overall impression that our US history was far from saintly. Yet everything in the book appears to be true. So how should we teach history in this country?

Teach a fair assessment of an event like the Civil War and give it from both perspectives. Cause and effect of the war. Historical background of what lead up to the war. Difference in the times between then and now and how the states were not far off from being colonies. Talk about differences between North and South. Taxation, industrialization, agricultural based.

Go over it all, good bad, ugly. The slave trade, etc. Talk about it all.

 

[GK4Herd]

I’m a big amateur history fan and this stuff is hard. Having two young kids now has also given me a different perspective with regard to what they can really understand and incorporate at what age. Additionally, there’s just so much history and so many different perspectives that it is hilariously impossible to present them all.

At some point I think you have to cut out the hero worship and show that everyone is human. The stories are a lot more relevant and honestly interesting that way. It’s not about saying “well actually all the people you’ve ever learned about were terrible,” it’s about admitting that everyone is human. It wasn’t some perfect set of men who founded our country, but people like there are now. Some self interested, some really terrible, some pretty good, some idealistic, but just that, people. I mean, would The Patriot have been as good if the guy had been all rah rah at the beginning?

But it inevitably gets agendized. Somebody wants to make a point so they pick their heroes and tell you how amazing one person was and all the awful things other people did. And when you get to history that’s within living memory it gets much worse.



That probably shouldn’t be an explicit goal. There’s some balance when teaching our history where you have to admit the bad things or you get generation after generation who doesn’t have any idea how the sausage is made and is OK with us going around destabilizing whole regions just to satisfy business interests. On the flip side, a lot of other places do a lot worse and if you’re going to take the time to call us out I think you’ve got to do it to them too, so students don’t get the impression that US is bad, everyone else is good. We’ve got a lot to be proud of but we should never say we can’t do better.

Oh hell no. It’s a massive part of our history that caused an entire civil war and the ramifications of it persist to this day. It has to be addressed honestly.

Like I said above I think that you do have to do this, but not in a demonizing way. In a “these were humans” way. It’s just so much more interesting that way anyway.

Anyhow, like the saying goes, those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do are doomed to have to watch everyone else repeat it since they won’t listen.

Excellent response. I was out of teaching 21 years before I returned. I worked with some fantastic teachers and I believe that teachers have unfairly been attributed to a lot of the problems that are endemic of society. But I also believe that teaching is due an overhaul in its structure. I taught in an elementary setting so my experience would be different from that of a middle or high school teacher. In elementary school teachers are so spread thin teaching every subject that it’s difficult to become a specialist and be adequately prepared for each subject. My last five or six years I advocated for and my grade moved to departmentalization. I only had to teach reading, grammar, spelling, and social studies. The other 4th grade teacher taught the other subjects and the students spent a half day in both classes.

Social Studies didn’t get the focus that reading and math received. The problem in a system that spreads you thin is it doesn’t give teachers time to become proficient in a single subject and they naturally rely on the textbook to guide instructions. If the textbook is fundamentally unsound and doesn’t present an honest view or leaves out the warts it becomes extremely tedious. The kids are bored out of their skulls.

So early on I started reading books about pre-Columbian and post-Columbian America.I read books on Cortes and Pizarro and Columbus. This took years, but the attention that I got from the students when I told the tale of Cortes burning his ships in the harbor (to prevent his crew from defecting) marching across Mexico, forming alliances with the different city/states under the rule of Montezuma and conquering Tenochtitlan was riveting to the students. They learned about the ritual sacrifices of the natives and their territorial struggles as well as the atrocities of the Spaniards. But the kids loved it.

Columbus was another figure that had many sides to him. On one hand he changed the entire world when he opened up knowledge of the Americas in Europe. (Yes we learned about the Vikings too.) He started the single greatest migration and syncretism of ideas, cultures, agriculture, and people in the history of humanity. But he was also a product of his days. His deeds were brutal even for his days. Bartolome de las Casas, the priest that accompanied Columbus and kept a journal, left observations of the exploits that can be chilling. Columbus actually returned to Spain from his third voyage in chains due to the brutality toward the natives. Columbus was even guilty of trying to rewrite history as he went. He described the natives as docile and intelligent on the first voyage but later described them as savages and less than human when there was criticism back in Europe of his treatment of the natives.

I use to divide my class up and we did an exercise called: Columbus- Good or Bad? The “good” side argued the extraordinary and the unprecedented impact that Columbus had. The “bad” side argued the atrocities, spreading disease, and near extermination of the natives. The kids loved it.

But the system on an elementary level made it difficult to be prepared adequately. Like I said, my effectiveness as a teacher took years to develop when it came to teaching history. The school system doesn’t promote that opportunity the way it is set up presently.

But I can tell you first hand that students were bored to death with the presentation of history by textbooks. And historically textbooks leave out many if not most of the human elements and mistakes we made as a country. Today we have people conflating the teaching of those warts with critical race theory. CRT is an academic construct that says the system is inherently racist. Teaching about slavery and civil rights isn’t CRT. But CRT is being used in some instances to try to eliminate that teaching from the curriculum. It has morphed in a way that there are attempts to eliminate any negative reflection on Euro/white society. A recent school board meeting saw a member pondering the Holocaust being taught, whether or not an alternative view should be taught. Of the Holocaust. What alternate view is worthy of equal footing as the Holocaust?

Teach the kids the truth, good and bad. Let them grow up with a non Hollywood version of American History so we can…as you say…not be doomed to repeat it.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Specifically on Columbus, his importance was greatly exaggerated starting in the 1890s when Italians were getting lynched for being Italian. Harrison wanted to make Italians look good so he picked one who just happened to have a big date coming up and threw a party. Then Italian-Americans lobbied in the 1900s to make it an actual holiday.

I definitely agree on the “how” things get taught being important. I didn’t actually like history in school. Lots of memorization, what date things happened, who was President when, etc. It was boring. I had a couple great teachers who did a much better job, though, and actually focused on the stories and realistic looks at the people involved.

I know there’s definitely a place for learning capital H History, but I did hear something from someone very smart one time that made some sense. They said that History isn’t really that important, but understand history is. Understanding the cause and effect, how multiple things always feed into events/people/etc. His point was that it didn’t matter if you were studying the history of the US or the history of motorcycles, just that you were learning how history work, and that kids shouldn’t be forced to spend so much time learning US/world history and should be allowed to study the history of basically whatever they want.

The main issue I take with that is that we live in a nominal Representative Democracy so there is a good reason to at least try to make sure people have some sort of civic awareness. And that we don’t have enough teachers to give that level of personal tailoring to when it comes to education. But it may be a good idea to give a bit more flexibility on what we consider to be “history”.

 

[Kate Branson]

Doesn't matter.

School is just a regurgitation game. Just like food now, I gagged back whatever information it was they wanted me to play the game with and then moved on.

I miss school. I was a much better gagger back then. Got 90 some percents on most things. Doesn't look like I'm as good at getting out 90 percent of all these chips and cookies.

 

[Rock98Dog]

What liberals seem to desire from education is to lay bare and emphasize every imperfection of the United States, but never do they talk about making an accurate account of that history relative to the history of mankind in general.

My example - we should focus intently on the role of slavery in the US and the evilness of the process. The issue with that is they want to teach it in such a way that the context is that evil white men exploited blacks and built a nation on their labor. If they want to teach the history of slavery, that’s fine, but let’s teach it in context. Let’s teach how Muslims exported infinity more slaves out of Africa than any other group and how they murder millions. Let’s teach that Native Americans, like Egyptians and countless others, enslaved those of conquered groups.

The left presents slavery as a European, white male, practice in order to fan their desired outcome. It should be taught for what it was, an abhorrent, outdated practice that was prevalent across the world for thousands of years and was practiced by every race and religion. It can also be taught that the practice still exists in certain barbaric countries to this day.

And yes, many American heroes had warts, as does every hero in every culture. However, if you want to judge every person by their worst quality you might as well just eat a bullet because no one will be worthy of your time. You are studying how individuals ultimately helped to shape the country and their personal decisions should only be important if they were repugnant in the context of the time. If Lincoln freed the slaves, but also performed satanic sacrifices of infants, then go ahead and mention that. The fact that he would have given ground on slavery to preserve the Union was a product of circumstance at the time.

 

[HerdandHokies]

What liberals seem to desire from education is to lay bare and emphasize every imperfection of the United States, but never do they talk about making an accurate account of that history relative to the history of mankind in general.

Well, we do live in the US. That’s the country we want to see do better. I mean, I would love other, much worse places to do better too. To whatever extent we have any power in the US, we have much less in Saudi Arabia.

My example - we should focus intently on the role of slavery in the US and the evilness of the process. The issue with that is they want to teach it in such a way that the context is that evil white men exploited blacks and built a nation on their labor. If they want to teach the history of slavery, that’s fine, but let’s teach it in context. Let’s teach how Muslims exported infinity more slaves out of Africa than any other group and how they murder millions. Let’s teach that Native Americans, like Egyptians and countless others, enslaved those of conquered groups.

Some white men exploiting blacks and building a nation on their labor is a fact though. It’s just not the whole story. Other white men exploited whites and built the nation on their backs too. And other white men exploited Chinese. And children. And women. Truly, the owners of capital are the enemy of us all! But I don’t feel like that’s the angle you were going after

The left presents slavery as a European, white male, practice in order to fan their desired outcome. It should be taught for what it was, an abhorrent, outdated practice that was prevalent across the world for thousands of years and was practiced by every race and religion. It can also be taught that the practice still exists in certain barbaric countries to this day.

Yes on all counts. However you understand why there would be a focus on American slavery, since it has much closer to home ramifications for Americans, than other places? But it should be put in that context, I agree.

And yes, many American heroes had warts, as does every hero in every culture. However, if you want to judge every person by their worst quality you might as well just eat a bullet because no one will be worthy of your time. You are studying how individuals ultimately helped to shape the country and their personal decisions should only be important if they were repugnant in the context of the time. If Lincoln freed the slaves, but also performed satanic sacrifices of infants, then go ahead and mention that. The fact that he would have given ground on slavery to preserve the Union was a product of circumstance at the time.

The warts are the good part of history! Or at least the interesting and fun part. And they’re the humanizing part. The part that tells you, “this guy wasn’t perfect either, maybe somebody like me can actually do something.”

But again and I agree with you here it’s about context. And it definitely does get abused, and my snap reaction is much more often by the left, to try and use some bad things someone did as an anchor to discredit everything they did. And that’s wrong.

 

[Marshall Jeff]

Leftist propaganda

 

[GK4Herd]

What liberals seem to desire from education is to lay bare and emphasize every imperfection of the United States, but never do they talk about making an accurate account of that history relative to the history of mankind in general.

My example - we should focus intently on the role of slavery in the US and the evilness of the process. The issue with that is they want to teach it in such a way that the context is that evil white men exploited blacks and built a nation on their labor. If they want to teach the history of slavery, that’s fine, but let’s teach it in context. Let’s teach how Muslims exported infinity more slaves out of Africa than any other group and how they murder millions. Let’s teach that Native Americans, like Egyptians and countless others, enslaved those of conquered groups.

The left presents slavery as a European, white male, practice in order to fan their desired outcome. It should be taught for what it was, an abhorrent, outdated practice that was prevalent across the world for thousands of years and was practiced by every race and religion. It can also be taught that the practice still exists in certain barbaric countries to this day.

And yes, many American heroes had warts, as does every hero in every culture. However, if you want to judge every person by their worst quality you might as well just eat a bullet because no one will be worthy of your time. You are studying how individuals ultimately helped to shape the country and their personal decisions should only be important if they were repugnant in the context of the time. If Lincoln freed the slaves, but also performed satanic sacrifices of infants, then go ahead and mention that. The fact that he would have given ground on slavery to preserve the Union was a product of circumstance at the time.

I’m all for teaching the truth about slavery throughout history, no matter what religion, country, or nationality it reflects upon. Hell, I taught my 4th graders about how Montezuma created this vast empire of city states through warfare throughout Mesoamerica and set up an elaborate system of taxes which would also include blood taxes where cities would have to pay tributes through giving up people for sacrifice. I didn’t spare detail about those ritual sacrifices performed by the priest, using obsidian knives, and cutting out the hearts of the sacrifice. I told them about the skull racks and the flower wars where the object wasn't to kill the enemy in battle, but to capture the enemy for the purpose of sacrifice or slavery. I really didn’t sugar coat it.

But I also didn’t sugarcoat the atrocities of the Spanish and Europeans or the church. I taught them about the gold quota system in the mines that Columbus imposed on the enslaved natives where he/his charges would cut the hands off the natives if they didn’t meet the quota. Which was pretty hard to do because there simply wasn’t a ton of gold in the Caribbean. And when the natives died to disease, I told them about how African slaves were brought in to replace the labor. And guess what…I also taught them that in the slave trade that Africans participated in the capturing of their own for trade to the Europeans.

Teach it all. Muslims, Christians, Africans, Native Americans…the entire of humanity has been pretty ugly. None can claim innocence historically.

The only thing I really get amused at is how people, after over 100 years of sanitized, nationalized, and Euro/white centric teaching of history….where there was zero protest or outrage with this fairy tale version…is suddenly outraged that the other side is told. As soon as one person brings up the American warts they are all…but…but…liberals and the Muslims.

Just tell it all. Don’t sanitize it. And for God’s sake don’t get uptight when the truth reflects poorly on the pristine image we hold of our own version of history.

 

[Kate Branson]

Only problem with it is though there is no amount of payback that would ever be enough.

Ask anybody who bums you for anything or is mad at you about something, ask them what it would take to satisfy them. Guaranteed you won't be able to do it. It's unachievable. Giant futile waste of time.

 

[GK4Herd]

Only problem with it is though there is no amount of payback that would ever be enough.

Ask anybody who bums you for anything or is mad at you about something, ask them what it would take to satisfy them. Guaranteed you won't be able to do it. It's unachievable. Giant futile waste of time.

Are you talking about reparations?

 

[Rock98Dog]

The fact that we can discuss this in more depth is, in and of itself, proof that history isn’t whitewashed or hidden, isn’t it?

there’s a difference between hiding the truth and building a person’s knowledge in an age appropriate manner as their ability to process information and conceptualize grows. High school history can certainly highlight complex issues, but teaching 8 year olds they are a problem if they are white because, well, slavery, is problematic. Telling those same kids the US is an evil place because of the practices, which were worldwide at the time, is not right.

your teachers didn’t tell you lies, they laid a foundation. In elementary school you should learn things like how the country was founded, who “found it”, how we got our independence, who the key players were, and basics about our form of government and how it works. You cover major milestones only to the depth that they occurred, when they occurred and a very high level of why they occurred.

for elementary age kids “the Civil War was about slavery and slaves were people brought over from Africa against their will to work on plantations” is about all you need. You don’t have the time and they don’t have the capacity to get in depth about all the dynamics at play. Say slavery is bad and you’ll learn more about it in American History in 7th grade.

 

[KyMUfan]

Oh hell no. It’s a massive part of our history that caused an entire civil war and the ramifications of it to this day. It has to be addressed honestly.

Come now. It was a contributing factor but not THE cause. Indentured servitude of whites pre-dated slavery in the U.S., including the North. The indentured servitude of the Chinese during the 1850's was meant to be a "compromise". Slavery in the U.S. was on borrowed time during the 1860's for a variety of reasons. Remember, you said it has to be addressed honestly..

Some white men exploiting blacks and building a nation on their labor is a fact though. It’s just not the whole story. Other white men exploited whites and built the nation on their backs too. And other white men exploited Chinese. And children. And women. Truly, the owners of capital are the enemy of us all

Did you mean to exclude Native Americans in your list of who whites had exploited? I thought you were inclusionary...

BTW slavery was, and remains prevalent in Africa today. Weren't the slaves sold to the slave traders exploited by other blacks as well?

Africa | Walk Free

Modern slavery in Africa is driven by ongoing political instability, poverty, displacement of people due to conflict and climate change, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

www.globalslaveryindex.org

 

[KyMUfan]

Telling those same kids the US is an evil place because of the practices, which were worldwide at the time, is not right.

And still exist today in China, North Korea and the continent of Africa... But we can't mention that... Only what happened in the U.S. over 150 years ago...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/19/north-korea-has-2-6-million-modern-slaves-new-report-estimates/

Jul 19, 2018 — North Korea has the highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world, with 1 out of every 10 citizens considered victims,

 

[GK4Herd]

Two things stick out above…

High school history can certainly highlight complex issues, but teaching 8 year olds they are a problem if they are white because, well, slavery, is problematic. Telling those same kids the US is an evil place because of the practices, which were worldwide at the time, is not right.

Who does this? That is absolutely not going on in the overwhelming majority of our classrooms. You‘re building this caricature of a liberal school system that simply doesn’t exist. Please provide evidence that there is a pervasive teaching to our kids that they are the problem because they are white.


And…

Come now. It was a contributing factor but not THE cause. Indentured servitude of whites pre-dated slavery in the U.S., including the North. The indentured servitude of the Chinese during the 1850's was meant to be a "compromise". Slavery in the U.S. was on borrowed time during the 1860's for a variety of reasons. Remember, you said it has to be addressed honestly..

Are you really insinuating that slavery wasn’t the main cause of the civil war? The fact that anyone believes there were reasons greater than slavery tells us everything we need to know about how we were taught the civil war and subsequently indoctrinated by our political leanings. The Articles of Secession alone is the single greatest evidence because it was a written declaration of the reasons for seceding.

Here are a few examples from the Articles of Secession…


Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas: The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia: That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

Many argue for the expansion of slavery…

Georgia: We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it… or an equal participation in the whole of it. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

Texas: The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.


And the reason these states made slavery the reason for seceding is simple…the economic benefits of those who benefitted from it…

Mississippi: We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Georgia: But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere.






To say that slavery wasn’t “THE” main reason for the civil war is to deny the very words of the seceding states when they…you know…told us why they were seceding.

 

[GK4Herd]

And are you really throwing out indentured servitude as an equivalent to slavery? In your words, come now. I’m not rationalizing that indentured servitude was right. It took advantage of the poor who were looking for an opportunity for a better life, but to give it equal footing with slavery is just wrong.

In IS you had a contractual agreement that lasted for 4 to 7 years. This was an agreement between both parties for passage, lodging, and board. In slavery you came in chains.

In IS you had certain rights such as access to the courts. In slavery…well, you didn’t.

In IS when your contract was met you got at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. A slaves “contract” never ended.

In IS a few people rose to prominent positions within the colonies and all enjoyed a modest life as a free man. In slavery you were a slave for life.

There we’re 4 million slaves in the US at the start of the civil war. There were around $500,000 IS during that same period.


I’m not defending Indentured servitude, but there is simply no moral equivocation between the two and it certainly doesn’t offer evidence that whites and slaves were on the same footing when it came to historically poor treatment.

 

[i am herdman]

Gk would you talk about the tariffs imposed by northern states on cotton and rice produced by Southern states.

 

[GK4Herd]

Gk would you talk about the tariffs imposed by northern states on cotton and rice produced by Southern states.

No.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Look. The trend towards demonizing the Founders and blaming every problem in society on slavery and race is absurd. And, yes, there are certain pockets in the country where that teaching is being pushed by academia. That being said, the notion that slavery was NOT the primary driver behind secession and the Civil War is equally ridiculous. The Civil War was fought over slavery. That's indisputable. Were economics a factor? Sure, but it was because the South's economy was based on slave labor.

 

[GK4Herd]

I’m joking… of course there were other reasons in play, but the main reason for the civil war was slavery.

 

[GK4Herd]

Look. The trend towards demonizing the Founders and blaming every problem in society on slavery and race is absurd. And, yes, there are certain pockets in the country where that teaching is being pushed by academia. That being said, the notion that slavery was NOT the primary driver behind secession and the Civil War is equally ridiculous. The Civil War was fought over slavery. That's indisputable. Were economics a factor? Sure, but it was because the South's economy was based on slave labor.

Excellent response.

 

[i am herdman]

No.

Well I thought this was about telling the whole story and being open minded in education? hahhaa

 

[i am herdman]

I’m joking… of course there were other reasons in play, but the main reason for the civil war was slavery.

Slavery was dying and would have went out. If we were honest and looked back, did Lincoln and other do enough to avoid the war? Lincoln and the North were not on some noble cause to end slavery. It wasn't like they said, we are going to war to end slavery. That's not what happened.

Frankly, the war likely could have been avoided. And calling a civil war is completely mislabeled. IT was not. It was a secession.

Furthermore, blaming slavery for every problem now is just a scapegoat for other failures.

 

[GK4Herd]

Slavery was dying and would have went out. If we were honest and looked back, did Lincoln and other do enough to avoid the war? Lincoln and the North were not on some noble cause to end slavery. It wasn't like they said, we are going to war to end slavery. That's not what happened.

Frankly, the war likely could have been avoided. And calling a civil war is completely mislabeled. IT was not. It was a secession.

Furthermore, blaming slavery for every problem now is just a scapegoat for other failures.

If slavery was dying, why did the states name it as the reason for secession?

 

[KyMUfan]

Are you really insinuating that slavery wasn’t the main cause of the civil war?

How many Americans at the time actually owned slaves? And how many of these were land owners? We all know the rich start wars and the poor actually fight them. How many soldiers on both sides actually fought for, or against, slavery?

For many it was THE reason - for abolitionists in both the North AND the South and on the other side large landowners dependent upon slave labor.

However for many others it was not THE main reason. Heck, even President Lincoln had this to say about the cause of the War Between the States:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; 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.”

To say that slavery wasn’t “THE” main reason for the civil war is to deny the very words of the seceding states when they…you know…told us why they were seceding.

Big distinction here. Slavery might have been THE cause of secession but it wasn't necessarily THE cause of the War. Could the federal government FORCE states to remain in the Union or could these states secede? Instead of working through this in a legislative or civil manner a war was started by politicians on both sides.

 

[i am herdman]

If slavery was dying, why did the states name it as the reason for secession?

Because the northern states were essentially taxing them snd trying to bankrupt them st the same time. Do you think the average person in the south wanted to die over slavery?

It was fought over financial reasons. Technology would have replaced slavery anyway. It wouldn't have mattered if it was slavery or a tractor.

The north was using child labor at the same time

 

[KyMUfan]

It was fought over financial reasons. Technology would have replaced slavery anyway. It wouldn't have mattered if it was slavery or a tractor.

The north was using child labor at the same time

Exactly this. The North had no moral high ground in this war due to the use of "throwaway" immigrants and child labor and technology (mechanization including the cotton gin) was a driving factor in the future elimination of slavery as were political pressures brought about by abolitionists (spurred in many instances by their Christian faith). Remember the importation of slaves was banned in 1808, even in the South. It was just a matter of time had not short-sighted and reactionary politicians on both sides decided to start a deadly and bloody war.

 

[KyMUfan]

Look. The trend towards demonizing the Founders and blaming every problem in society on slavery and race is absurd. And, yes, there are certain pockets in the country where that teaching is being pushed by academia. That being said, the notion that slavery was NOT the primary driver behind secession and the Civil War is equally ridiculous. The Civil War was fought over slavery. That's indisputable. Were economics a factor? Sure, but it was because the South's economy was based on slave labor.

Three things:

Please explain Abraham Lincoln's statements that the War Between the States wasn't about slavery, and...

If it was about slavery why did the Emancipation Proclamation not occur at the beginning of the hostilities but rather almost halfway through the war? And..

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free slaves held in the "rebellious" states?

Again I think a lot of people are confusing the reasons for secession with the causes of the war. The South believed they had an inherent right to secede and the North didn't want that to occur, primarily for financial reasons. We were a tariff based nation at that time. The South viewed the North as not much different than the Crown in that respect.

There is a distinction.

 

[GK4Herd]

Because the northern states were essentially taxing them snd trying to bankrupt them st the same time. Do you think the average person in the south wanted to die over slavery?

It was fought over financial reasons. Technology would have replaced slavery anyway. It wouldn't have mattered if it was slavery or a tractor.

The north was using child labor at the same time

Herdman: No, no...there's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist --

GK4Herd: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Herdman: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social --


GK4Herd: Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.


Herdman: Yeah, but I will have a degree. And you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-through on our way to a skiing trip.


GK4Herd: Yeah, maybe. Yeah, but at least I won't be unoriginal. By the way if you have a problem with that, I mean, we could just step outside and we could figure it out.

 

[GK4Herd]

Okay…I stole that from Good Will Hunting. How you like those apples?

 

[i am herdman]

Okay…I stole that from Good Will Hunting. How you like those apples?

Yeahh, well that's just like your opinion, man.

 

[Chevy1]

Herdman: No, no...there's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist --

GK4Herd: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Herdman: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social --


GK4Herd: Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.


Herdman: Yeah, but I will have a degree. And you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-through on our way to a skiing trip.


GK4Herd: Yeah, maybe. Yeah, but at least I won't be unoriginal. By the way if you have a problem with that, I mean, we could just step outside and we could figure it out.

LOL! Recognized it immediately from good will hunting.... CLASSIC

 

[GK4Herd]

Yeahh, well that's just like your opinion, man.

The dude abides.

 

[Chevy1]

Yeahh, well that's just like your opinion, man.

You're out of your element Herdman

 

[KyMUfan]

And are you really throwing out indentured servitude as an equivalent to slavery?

Quite a stretch on your part simply because I chose to bring up the matter of indentured servitude when so many today gloss over it or even ignore it.

Kind of like many today ignoring current slavery in China, North Korea and Africa that I have posted about in several threads. A certain NBA basketball player comes to mind...

In IS you had a contractual agreement that lasted for 4 to 7 years.

Really? Often times contracts were extended as punishment and in the case of females, becoming pregnant.

There we’re 4 million slaves in the US at the start of the civil war. There were around $500,000 IS during that same period.

Which follows exactly what I said. Indentured servitude pre-dated slavery which pre-dated Chinese and other importation of cheap and "throwaway" labor.

In slavery you were a slave for life.

And oftentimes you were an indentured servant for life. Unlike you I'm not ignoring basic human behavior. If someone has a vested and long-term economic interest in something they tend to take better care of it, in this instance a slave. With a shorter-term relationship, in this instance an indentured servant, this is not often the case. Indentured servants, like later Chinese and Irish immigrants, were "throwaway" workers with very high mortality rates.

We have been talking about history, warts and all. That's just what I am posting here.

 

[Rock98Dog]

The Civil War WAS NOT about slavery. The succession by the southern states was about slavery. And yes, that’s a huge difference. The United States did not go to war with the south over slavery. They went to war to preserve the integrity of the country as a whole. The north was more advanced and developed, but would have had a hard time surviving without the agricultural economy established in the south.

saying the north fought primarily to free the slaves is just white guilt masking the fact the war was about economic factors for the north, not some moral imperative.

 

[i am herdman]

The Civil War WAS NOT about slavery. The succession by the southern states was about slavery. And yes, that’s a huge difference. The United States did not go to war with the south over slavery. They went to war to preserve the integrity of the country as a whole. The north was more advanced and developed, but would have had a hard time surviving without the agricultural economy established in the south.

saying the north fought primarily to free the slaves is just white guilt masking the fact the war was about economic factors for the north, not some moral imperative.

They are just taking the easy way out now. They don't want to look at the big historical context.