Quantcast

Why do US public schools teach that the American Civil War was even mostly over the issue of slavery?

behavioralcognivitist 2009/12/13 03:31:30
As always, explain your answers.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Blackteam 2009/12/13 04:33:19
    Blackteam
    +2
    The Civil War was not fought in the beginning over slavery, it was started over states rights. The cotton growers of South Carolina wanted to charge the northern mills more for a ton of cotton. They refused to pay. The growers then said they would sell their cotton to France. Well, the mill owners went to congress to get them to ram legislation down the southern states throats saying they could ONLY sell their cotton to US mills and at the lower prices. South Carolina suceeded from the union and the other 12 states followed suite. Slavery had not even been mentioned at this time. Reason why.......the North also had slaves! The war that followed didn't go well for the North for two years......men were starting to resist going into the Army because there was no good reason to fight! The politicians in Washington came up with the idea to say the reason for the war was to "free the slaves" Thats when Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. BS you say!! well think, why did he wait two years before freeing the slaves......BECAUSE!!!! the north still had slaves at the time! Now the north had a reason to fight the war....'we freed our slaves but they haven't so......we'll fight to free them too!
    (kinda sounds like Iraq reasoning, fit the reason for the war after the fact!!!) down believe me, find a good book about the civil war and read.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm 2009/12/13 17:47:27
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    That's the politically correct thing to do. As a former teacher, I taught the whole story. I was often chastised by my liberal colleagues for doing it but I wanted to teach the true story not just scratch the surface to try and please everyone.
  • Denny 2009/12/13 05:26:45
    Denny
    Because the 1960's and 70's said it was.
  • freedom 2009/12/13 05:17:08
    freedom
    Because keeping it glossed over makes it easier for teachers to explain it to kids. If you want the real story, read: Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War ~ Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
  • Blackteam 2009/12/13 04:33:19
    Blackteam
    +2
    The Civil War was not fought in the beginning over slavery, it was started over states rights. The cotton growers of South Carolina wanted to charge the northern mills more for a ton of cotton. They refused to pay. The growers then said they would sell their cotton to France. Well, the mill owners went to congress to get them to ram legislation down the southern states throats saying they could ONLY sell their cotton to US mills and at the lower prices. South Carolina suceeded from the union and the other 12 states followed suite. Slavery had not even been mentioned at this time. Reason why.......the North also had slaves! The war that followed didn't go well for the North for two years......men were starting to resist going into the Army because there was no good reason to fight! The politicians in Washington came up with the idea to say the reason for the war was to "free the slaves" Thats when Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. BS you say!! well think, why did he wait two years before freeing the slaves......BECAUSE!!!! the north still had slaves at the time! Now the north had a reason to fight the war....'we freed our slaves but they haven't so......we'll fight to free them too!
    (kinda sounds like Iraq reasoning, fit the reason for the war after the fact!!!) down believe me, find a good book about the civil war and read.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/13 04:15:48
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +2
    Because slavery was at the heart of it. Economies of north and south were different, south needed slaves. Other reasons: - they all are related to slavery.
    1. Economic and social difference - South one crop economy, slaves to work cotton for cotton gins
    2. States rights vs. federal rights
    3. Fight between slave and non-slave state proponents
    4. growth of abolition movement
    5. Abraham Lincoln - states wanted to secede before he was elected. South didn't like that Abe was anit-slavery and favored Northern interests.. Seven states had already seceded before Lincoln was even president
  • Skeeter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/13 17:45:13
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    +1
    Those 7 States seceeded AFTER Lincoln was elected while he held the non-existent Office of the President Elect. States' Rights was at the heart of it.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Skeeter... 2009/12/13 18:27:35
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Semantics. He had not taken office yet.
    "When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America"
    .http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/...
  • Skeeter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/13 18:41:26
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    +1
    I know SC history. I live here.

    Necessity. They knew more of the same excessive federal involvement in state issues was coming so why wait.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Skeeter... 2009/12/13 18:46:09
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    The South teaches southern history more than the North. I knew at one point, Texas history was taught every year in public schools.
  • Skeeter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/13 18:47:56
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    +1
    SC history is taught as a year long course in either the 7th or 8th grade in South Carolina. It's also an elective in the high schools.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Skeeter... 2009/12/13 18:51:47
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    I know the South is very proud of its history. I think history of the United States is very interesting. (I taught American History at a public high school.)
  • Skeeter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/13 19:00:53
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    +1
    That's why those of us in the South get upset when it is revised to be politically correct. Am I proud that the South had slavery, NO WAY. Where I have the problem is when those who don't know true Southern history try to rewrite it and make it appear as if all Southerners owned slaves when only a very small percentage did and say that the Civil War was all about slavery when it wasn't. My family, on my mother's side, have been here since colonial times around 1730's. None ever owned a slave or came close to owning a slave. For the most part, they didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. However, because I am a white, conservative with a Souther heritage, somehow it is believed that I condone slavery having existed. I've heard that one before.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Skeeter... 2009/12/13 20:23:55
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    I don't suspect anyone from the South condones slavery now. To dismiss slavery as having very little to do with it isn't looking at the whole picture. Yes it was economic, yes it was state rights vs federal rights but these arguments came out of slavery. Economic because the Southerns had only one crop-cotton, the North had a variety. The South didn't want anyone from the North coming down and take away their only source of income--slaves picking cotton. They didn't want the federal government to tell them they shouldn't have slaves (the big fear about Lincoln) and the North had a huge abolitionist movement and that, too, was a threat to the South. Don't worry, I also recognized that some slaves fought with the South against the North.
  • Skeeter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/12/14 01:08:24
    Skeeter -Hmm, Hmm, Hmm
    Slavery was only a small portion of it. What the history books teach, even in the South as the school districts here are controlled by liberals as well, is that it was all about slavery. Anyone not looking at the other things related to it, isn't looking at the whole picture. I don't deny slavery had a role but other things just as important under the concept of States' rights played as much of a role.

    What the history books also teach about Lincoln is that he freed the slaves with the Emanicapation Proclamation. I'll ask you, how many slaves were freed as a result of it? What they don't teach is that Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery. Are you aware that there were slave owning States that did not secede from the Union and had slaves even after the Southern States freed theirs? Maybe you can name one of them. What the history books also teach is that most of the slave owners beat their slaves. That is far from true. I don't deny that some did but not to the level that history teaches.
  • shellydraven 2009/12/13 04:15:00
    shellydraven
    +2
    I think if you only take a generic history class they don't really have time to cover everything but really it was a big part, however if you take a Civil War Class Specifically they tell you pretty much everything, it's a very interesting class and if MY little school had one I think every probably has the resources for one and SHOULD have one, it's important not to relive.
  • mach 2009/12/13 04:09:38
    mach
    +1
    Abolition of slavery was a life changing proposal for slave states, like taking a plow from a farmer. It was all about slavery, period!
  • MindReader 2009/12/13 04:00:12 (edited)
    MindReader
    +2
    Liberal Yankees draw up the curriculum. They won. Or, so I recall.

    They didn't much like Chancellorsville. liberal yankees draw curriculum won recall
  • shellyd... MindReader 2009/12/13 04:08:42
    shellydraven
    +1
    Lol, I think I did an AMAZING report on that in High School. I can't remember what I said but I made an accusation that made my teacher seem VERY uncomfortable.
  • SwissM 2009/12/13 03:50:19
    SwissM
    +1
    Because it was the predominate issue in the battle for states rights. Without the issue of slavery, there would not be enough consensus for secession. Therefore, it was mostly about slavery!
  • flaca BN-0 2009/12/13 03:41:23
    flaca BN-0
    +1
    because slaves allowed the south to maintain economic success, it was more a threat to economics than a moral issue.
  • shellyd... flaca BN-0 2009/12/13 04:10:37
    shellydraven
    +2
    Yes but the very statement that it was more of a threat than a moral issue is itself a moral issue because morally, morals should be a bigger concern than money, shouldn't they?
  • flaca BN-0 shellyd... 2009/12/13 21:43:02
    flaca BN-0
    good question. i can only refer to Mazlow's hierarchy. People don't contemplate morals and self-actualization until they have the needs at the bottom satisfied first, i.e. shelter and food. When you are afraid that your livelihood may be at stake, it's difficult to think about how to perfect the non-immediate things. Survival ultimately trumps everything, except with exceptional people who are willing courageously to put themselves at risk for the good of mankind. We call those people saints and heroes!
  • Yutt 2009/12/13 03:39:29
    Yutt
    +1
    Well when I was taught about the Civil war in school I was just int the 4th grade so they don't really go itno much detail. Then I learned more about it in the 11th grade when I had US history. I think depending on the schools and the teachers curriculum everyone gets something a little different from others. Which is retarded we should all be taught everything the same. In my classes I learned somethings my friends didn't because of our teachers. Some teachers do't see importance in certain things and don't teach about them.
  • Bronx at Night 2009/12/13 03:38:53 (edited)
    Bronx at Night
    +1
    Exactly...

    WAR DECLARED... 1861

    EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION... 1863

    YUP.... it was only about slavery.

    . war 1861 emancipation proclamation 1863 yup slavery

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 19:50:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals