Can We Do Something About the Way this War is Taught??

[babela]

It used to be that people had limited access to information. Textbooks were the only material available in classrooms. Today students have information at their fingertips, schools are outfitted with the internet, kindergartners have access to laptops. Text books are being replaced with computers. More and more schools are teaching students to THINK instead of memorize and regurgitate. Students are encouraged to *find* the answers instead of being told the answers... Given the choice of doing a search on the internet or plowing through a bunch of text books which route do you think the average student will take?

I agree with you that it is important to have historically accurate information available for the students to find. By law (national standards of learning) all US students study the Civil War in grades 5 -12. Many school start teaching about the civil war in the 1st grade. This site is a logical primary source of information for students searching for information on the Civil War. You will notice many people in this site have asserted and defended their view that slavery was not the main cause of the war. Keep fueling discussions on our nation's true history, students will see it, and the way the war is taught will have been changed.

[Collinfan94]

Technically, it did start as a result of slavery. The soldiers in the confederate army may not have seen it that way, but the men responsible for secession did. The "freedom" they wanted, was to keep their slaves as property. Most of the confederate soldiers never even owned a slave, they enlisted to protect their homes from the union soldiers. Had secession not happend, there would have been no war. As for the flag issue, you are right, it was and is a symbol of brave soldiers who fought for what they believed in. Unfortunately, it is not "politically correct" and that is why there is such a fuss over it now.

[gettysburg man]

all of those historians and history books that say the war was fought over slavery are wrong. the primary reason was to keep the union whole. at first lincoln didnt do anything about slavery when the war started but then about in the middle of the war lincoln decided do something about slavery.

[JoelHenderson]

I think you're missing the motive for teaching, i.e. the government wants to validate its legal claims to rule the people-- and so the purpose of education is to show that the ruling (i.e. federal) government was good and right, and that the losing government was evil and wrong. So they say it was over slavery, since that's a cheap emotional argument for the "good" part; and if that's not enough, they ignore the "right" part by simply covering up the legal history of the United States, in addition to lethal doses of jingoism (starting with a loyalty-oath to the American Flag, packed with lies).

In short, no one questions the national sovereignty of the states, and so the sheeple flock right off to the slaughter.

[gallonhistoricalart]

It is amazing how the internet has given birth to people's points of view. It is unfortunate that sometimes things are not presented the best in school or textbooks. The power is in the publisher there.

But places like this can really help to enlighten people to different perspectives :)

[dal1257]

Technically, it did start as a result of slavery. The soldiers in the confederate army may not have seen it that way, but the men responsible for secession did. The "freedom" they wanted, was to keep their slaves as property. Most of the confederate soldiers never even owned a slave, they enlisted to protect their homes from the union soldiers. Had secession not happend, there would have been no war. As for the flag issue, you are right, it was and is a symbol of brave soldiers who fought for what they believed in. Unfortunately, it is not "politically correct" and that is why there is such a fuss over it now.

I am not so sure about that. I think its all in the packaging. Most of us were indeed taught that the 'freedom' they wanted was to keep their slaves as property. But let me ask you this: Was it that they would have had to give up their slaves, or was it that they were very bitter about what they viewed as an oppressive government telling them that they had to give up their slaves?

As you read the letters and diaries of the soldiers themselves, I think there is ample evidence to support the latter. Yes, there were the abolitionists of the North, but do you really believe that so many were willing to lay down their lives over this? Keep in mind that the way we see things is far removed from how our great great great grandparents saw things. And this perspective is something that our schools fall way short of. And there are numerous other factors that must come into play here as well.

So I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And our schools should reflect this. But the truth is often not politically correct.

[rebelyell486]

To continue on the last post;

Always remember to understand history better you must forget what you believe to be correct by our current social standings. Slavery then was just as normaly as a morning job is to us. Most southerners were to poor to own a slave or worked in the fields themselves. Slavery was brought about, mentioned late in '62, by Ol' Abe in '63. Won him some favor with the Europeans and left the South with their mouths open.

Also we seldom hear about the many a man in blue who threw down the rifles, saying they would not die for a *****. I have a very interesting book "The Soldiers Pen" which shows some of the thoughts of the soldiers as they write in diarys and letters. More of the northern writings seem to be racist in nature, if not out of ignorance, while the southern letters and writings seem to hardly mention slaves at all. They were more used to it as a way of life. Rather they agreed or not is up to them to decide and our understanding of what they left behind. To say that every southerner is a forked tongued, snake eyed, ******* is wrong. The same as saying every northern soldier was a liberating saint is also wrong. Everyone was wrong. That was the society of the day. Always when reading history, take in the thought and common knowledge of the day. Not your political and social views of today or you'll never make it through the fog.

Mike

[rebelyell486]

It wasn't that slavery was getting morale low in the Union. McClellan was liked and disliked throughout the army. Almost no action was being seen, and the rebels were making a mockery of the Army of the Potomac. Recall the story of the quaker guns! Now McClellan is dismissed and much of the army is unhappy, then comes the Emancipation Proclamation, which didn't exactly "spice up" to many of the troops.

What it did spice up was the politcal side of the war. The chivalrous southern aristocrat, who was able to pay his way out of the fight. The true pro-slavery southernerns way of life was now being threatened. However, one problem did arise.

Lincoln had met, by that time, with members of the Confederate Congress. They met to speek turms of peace, not surrender, and even opening up trade. Basically let us alone we let you alone and lets end hostilities. Now Lincoln would have none of this because, "A house divided cannot stand". His mistake lies here, and which he later admitted to.

After meeting with representatives from the Confedereate Congress, Lincoln has now acknowledged the fact that another self governing nation exsist withink Northern America. Upon doing so in foreign eyes, he has also aknowledged the Confederacy. He can now not declare the slaves free from bondage. The South was no longer his to govern, nor could he take the property of a people not within his own nation. Also, think of the fact that Lincoln never gave freedom to the slaves in the Northern states at this time, only those in the "Rebel" states. Also a political move on his part to keep border states secure within the Union. A easy move the history often overlooks, for again being politically incorrect. As much of what I have just said is.

Mike