How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

[cigaretteman]

THIS FALL, Texas schools will teach students that Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in starting the Civil War. The Lone Star State’s new social studies textbooks, deliberately written to play down slavery’s role in Southern history, do not threaten only Texans — they pose a danger to schoolchildren all over the country.

The Texas board of education adopted a revised social studies curriculum in 2010 after a fierce battle. When it came to social studies standards, conservatives championing causes from a focus on the biblical underpinnings of our legal system to a whitewashed picture of race in the United States won out. The guidelines for teaching Civil War history were particularly concerning: They teach that “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — carefully ordered to stress the first two and shrug off the last — caused the conflict. Come August, the first textbooks catering to the changed curriculum will make their way to Texas classrooms.

It is alarming that 150 years after the Civil War’s end children are learning that slavery was, as one Texas board of education member put it in 2010, “a side issue.” No serious scholar agrees. Every additional issue at play in 1861 was secondary to slavery — not the other way around. By distorting history, Texas tells its students a dishonest and damaging story about the United States that prevents children from understanding the country today. Also troubling, Texas’s standards look likely to affect more than just Texans: The state is the second-largest in the nation, which means books designed for its students may find their way into schools elsewhere, too.

School districts and publishing companies could work around the misguided guidelines, but it would take some gumption. Though a 2011 law allows Texas schools to teach from textbooks that the board has not pre-approved, buying from the state’s shopping list is simpler. And big publishing companies are unlikely to deviate from the standards dictated by such a huge market. It would be nice if publishers sacrificed a bit of profit to preserve academic integrity and if schools purchased only books that meet higher standards of honesty. But the true onus to do better lies with the Texas policymakers who decide what students should be taught.

Texas is in good company when it comes to weak history standards. Many other state guidelines are vague or confusing, and allow for uneven teaching. Yet Texas is rare for the brazenly political way board members devised its curriculum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb13a215f593_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

 

[naturalmwa]

Moses as a historical figure? Holy hades! Will they teach George Washington really cut down the cherry tree too? No wonder so many think the confederate flag is OK with these sorts of educational standards. Texas makes a good case for common core.

 

[jscott78]

THIS FALL, Texas schools will teach students that Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in starting the Civil War. The Lone Star State’s new social studies textbooks, deliberately written to play down slavery’s role in Southern history, do not threaten only Texans — they pose a danger to schoolchildren all over the country.

The Texas board of education adopted a revised social studies curriculum in 2010 after a fierce battle. When it came to social studies standards, conservatives championing causes from a focus on the biblical underpinnings of our legal system to a whitewashed picture of race in the United States won out. The guidelines for teaching Civil War history were particularly concerning: They teach that “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — carefully ordered to stress the first two and shrug off the last — caused the conflict. Come August, the first textbooks catering to the changed curriculum will make their way to Texas classrooms.

It is alarming that 150 years after the Civil War’s end children are learning that slavery was, as one Texas board of education member put it in 2010, “a side issue.” No serious scholar agrees. Every additional issue at play in 1861 was secondary to slavery — not the other way around. By distorting history, Texas tells its students a dishonest and damaging story about the United States that prevents children from understanding the country today. Also troubling, Texas’s standards look likely to affect more than just Texans: The state is the second-largest in the nation, which means books designed for its students may find their way into schools elsewhere, too.

School districts and publishing companies could work around the misguided guidelines, but it would take some gumption. Though a 2011 law allows Texas schools to teach from textbooks that the board has not pre-approved, buying from the state’s shopping list is simpler. And big publishing companies are unlikely to deviate from the standards dictated by such a huge market. It would be nice if publishers sacrificed a bit of profit to preserve academic integrity and if schools purchased only books that meet higher standards of honesty. But the true onus to do better lies with the Texas policymakers who decide what students should be taught.

Texas is in good company when it comes to weak history standards. Many other state guidelines are vague or confusing, and allow for uneven teaching. Yet Texas is rare for the brazenly political way board members devised its curriculum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb13a215f593_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

It's not political when conservatives do it!! Media's fault! Media's fault!

 

[22*43*51]

They've had their own version of "The War Against Northern Aggression" from the beginning.

 

[22*43*51]

It's not political when conservatives do it!! Media's fault! Media's fault!

I thought you got banned Arby?

 

[KitingHigh]

Sounds like Texas is doing something right. Slavery while a factor in the secession was not the only or even the main one. And, yes I've seen the quotes from SC. I'm just not as simple as people who think the war was just about slavery, nor was I brainwashed into thinking 600,000 people died for a good reason. Good for Texas.

 

[Cougar63]

"My opinion differs than most, so I'm not brainwashed".

nice.

 

[jscott78]

Sounds like Texas is doing something right. Slavery while a factor in the secession was not the only or even the main one. And, yes I've seen the quotes from SC. I'm just not as simple as people who think the war was just about slavery, nor was I brainwashed into thinking 600,000 people died for a good reason. Good for Texas.

Hey let's deny the Holocaust ever happened in our textbooks too!!! Damn it feels good to be a wingnut.

Thankfully the teachers and students will see through this silly right wing prank.

 

[KitingHigh]

Hey let's deny the Holocaust ever happened in our textbooks too!!! Damn it feels good to be a wingnut.

Thankfully the teachers and students will see through this silly right wing prank.

I'm not the one whitewashing. 600,000 people died needlessly.

 

[maxwellsilverhammer]

I'm not the one whitewashing. 600,000 people died needlessly.

Yes you are correct. It is too bad the south was so stupid and bullheaded to start such a war. But then intelligent thinking has never been a southern strong point.

 

[TexMichFan]

I guess the Washington Post missed that the textbooks had been changed.

"The process to approve textbooks underscores how publishers that want to do business with Texas must make sure their books reflect the state's standards.

"The standards suggest that slavery was only the third most important contributing factor to the Civil War, which we all know is ridiculous," says Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning watchdog group. It contracted scholars at various universities to review the books.

The review found that at first, some publishers followed Texas' lead, downplaying slavery's role in the Civil War and emphasizing states' rights. But, after a long public review process and many complaints, they made changes.

"Publishers have improved their books and made clear that slavery was the driving force behind the separation between the North and the South and the Civil War, so we're pleased about that," Miller says.

Revisions have helped shaped these books. In fact, publishers were submitting changes even this morning, hours before the final vote."

 

[TJ8869]

Sounds like Texas is doing something right. Slavery while a factor in the secession was not the only or even the main one. And, yes I've seen the quotes from SC. I'm just not as simple as people who think the war was just about slavery, nor was I brainwashed into thinking 600,000 people died for a good reason. Good for Texas.

It wasn't the only reason, but it was #1 on the list.

Ask yourself this question and try to answer honestly - if there was no imminent threat to the continuation of slavery, would the southern states still have seceded?

 

[DanL53]

Sounds like Texas is doing something right. Slavery while a factor in the secession was not the only or even the main one. And, yes I've seen the quotes from SC. I'm just not as simple as people who think the war was just about slavery, nor was I brainwashed into thinking 600,000 people died for a good reason. Good for Texas.

How freaking odd!!! All the States that seceded were Slave States! I wonder why they left?

As to the ones that stayed Union, Kentucky was as borderline leaving as it was one of the States that gave the term "Brother vs. Brother it's meaning. Maryland, the hot spots of secession anyway, had to be watched like a Hawk. Delaware, not so much but than who cared, it was just Delaware!

Kiting, your only hope would be to use Lincoln himself as to the reason the War was not over slavery. Even Washington DC had salves until the Emancipation Proclamation! Several times Lincoln tried to assure the South that he wasn't going to "end slavery where it existed". But if you make that case you have to ignore that the South did secede, and did fire the first shots!

 

[DanL53]

I think I may have found my calling in retirement. To deliver honest books on the Civil War to citizens of that information suppressive regime in Texas!!!!

 

[maxwellsilverhammer]

I think I may have found my calling in retirement. To deliver honest books on the Civil War to citizens of that information suppressive regime in Texas!!!!

Good luck with that.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm not the one whitewashing. 600,000 people died needlessly.

I disagree. By glorifying the thinking of that time you make it more likely history will repeat itself. It's all well and good to be contrarian and obstinate as part of a colorful Internet personality, but perhaps you could find a way to do that without allying yourself with racists traitors.

 

[KitingHigh]

I disagree. By glorifying the thinking of that time you make it more likely history will repeat itself. It's all well and good to be contrarian and obstinate as part of a colorful Internet personality, but perhaps you could find a way to do that without allying yourself with racists traitors.

I'm quite proud of the traitor part, just like I am with America's founding fathers. I'm also related to a few of those fighting traitors, though no one in my family ever owned a slave. At least not going back to 1730.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm quite proud of the traitor part, just like I am with America's founding fathers. I'm also related to a few of those fighting traitors, though no one in my family ever owned a slave. At least not going back to 1730.

I know, most who fly that flag appear to feel that way. Yet another reason it shouldn't be officially endorsed.

 

[preshlock]

You could make an argument that slavery varied in importance for each state that joined the Confederacy. However, the Texas Declaration of Secession of 2/2/1861 doesn't support that. Excerpts-

"She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."

"When we (Texas) advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that [of] a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude."

"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions."

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that 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; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South."

I wanted to make a more abbreviated post but about three-quarters of the Texas declaration is specifically about slavery.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

 

[Titanhawk2]

THIS FALL, Texas schools will teach students that Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in starting the Civil War. The Lone Star State’s new social studies textbooks, deliberately written to play down slavery’s role in Southern history, do not threaten only Texans — they pose a danger to schoolchildren all over the country.

The Texas board of education adopted a revised social studies curriculum in 2010 after a fierce battle. When it came to social studies standards, conservatives championing causes from a focus on the biblical underpinnings of our legal system to a whitewashed picture of race in the United States won out. The guidelines for teaching Civil War history were particularly concerning: They teach that “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — carefully ordered to stress the first two and shrug off the last — caused the conflict. Come August, the first textbooks catering to the changed curriculum will make their way to Texas classrooms.

It is alarming that 150 years after the Civil War’s end children are learning that slavery was, as one Texas board of education member put it in 2010, “a side issue.” No serious scholar agrees. Every additional issue at play in 1861 was secondary to slavery — not the other way around. By distorting history, Texas tells its students a dishonest and damaging story about the United States that prevents children from understanding the country today. Also troubling, Texas’s standards look likely to affect more than just Texans: The state is the second-largest in the nation, which means books designed for its students may find their way into schools elsewhere, too.

School districts and publishing companies could work around the misguided guidelines, but it would take some gumption. Though a 2011 law allows Texas schools to teach from textbooks that the board has not pre-approved, buying from the state’s shopping list is simpler. And big publishing companies are unlikely to deviate from the standards dictated by such a huge market. It would be nice if publishers sacrificed a bit of profit to preserve academic integrity and if schools purchased only books that meet higher standards of honesty. But the true onus to do better lies with the Texas policymakers who decide what students should be taught.

Texas is in good company when it comes to weak history standards. Many other state guidelines are vague or confusing, and allow for uneven teaching. Yet Texas is rare for the brazenly political way board members devised its curriculum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eb13a215f593_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

If you read history, you will realize that sectionalism and states rights had been a huge conflict for the 30-40 years leading up to the CW (Andrew Jackson vs. South Carolina. Slavery was less of a "state" issue that was often swept away by "national" compromises and bad judicial rulings. Nobody went to war for or against slavery, but in the end became a national cause for both sides.

 

[HallofFame]

What's the matter liberals don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot? You still have the colleges to teach your bs propoganda.

 

[joelbc1]

The sad thing is that the Texas Board of Education "ok's" statewide curriculums and ALL schools use the same text books for their courses. Therefore, text book manufacturers print school books for nationwide distribution based on the adopted curriculum of the State of Texas.
In most of the states, local school districts affirm text books for their individual districts based on faculty recommendations. For instance, in Iowa you might have 30-50 different text books used to teach American history. In Texas, you have one common text book. A text book contract for the State of Texas is worth $MILLIONS, whereas a textbook contract with a small Iowa school district might be worth a few $100.....by common sense and a basic business model, guess which curriculum the text book company will write its book for and then distribute this text across the nation?
I know conscientious teachers slave over finding appropriate texts for their particular districts.

 

[nowalkin]

I'm quite proud of the traitor part, just like I am with America's founding fathers. I'm also related to a few of those fighting traitors, though no one in my family ever owned a slave. At least not going back to 1730.

I'm sure you proudly fly the American Flag right next to your moronic Confederate Battle flag don't you? Oh the irony of it all. Let's see, let me fly the flag of the UNITED States of America right next to the flag which represents a group of states that tried to break up the union. You have no idea what you're talking about and know nothing of the history of the Confederate Battle flag if you continue to use it as your profile pic. http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/

 

[DanL53]

It's pretty sad when "celebrating" history requires revising it. What interests me is how will the people of Texas react to seeing their children taught lies?

 

[naturalmwa]

It's pretty sad when "celebrating" history requires revising it. What interests me is how will the people of Texas react to seeing their children taught lies?

What ever happened to local control? Interesting how cons like top down, one size fits all when it fits their agenda.

 

[DanL53]

What ever happened to local control? Interesting how cons like top down, one size fits all when it fits their agenda.

No doubt this is a big one and how the people of Texas take it is up to them.

 

[nowalkin]

What's the matter liberals don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot? You still have the colleges to teach your bs propoganda.

I'd be interested in seeing you provide an example of text books currently in use at any major university that are spewing liberal "bs propoganda"? I always hear of the liberal propoganda, but I rarely see concrete examples from the cons?

 

[KitingHigh]

I'm sure you proudly fly the American Flag right next to your moronic Confederate Battle flag don't you? Oh the irony of it all. Let's see, let me fly the flag of the UNITED States of America right next to the flag which represents a group of states that tried to break up the union. You have no idea what you're talking about and know nothing of the history of the Confederate Battle flag if you continue to use it as your profile pic. http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/

Bless your heart.

 

[TexMichFan]

It's pretty sad when "celebrating" history requires revising it. What interests me is how will the people of Texas react to seeing their children taught lies?

Well since it was changed in the text book that was adopted you don't need to worry.

"The process to approve textbooks underscores how publishers that want to do business with Texas must make sure their books reflect the state's standards.

"The standards suggest that slavery was only the third most important contributing factor to the Civil War, which we all know is ridiculous," says Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning watchdog group. It contracted scholars at various universities to review the books.

The review found that at first, some publishers followed Texas' lead, downplaying slavery's role in the Civil War and emphasizing states' rights. But, after a long public review process and many complaints, they made changes.

"Publishers have improved their books and made clear that slavery was the driving force behind the separation between the North and the South and the Civil War, so we're pleased about that," Miller says.

 

[TexMichFan]

What ever happened to local control? Interesting how cons like top down, one size fits all when it fits their agenda.

and interesting how libs don't like top down when it does not fit their agenda.

 

[naturalmwa]

and interesting how libs don't like top down when it does not fit their agenda.

Nope, common core would fix this nicely.

 

[jscott78]

Well since it was changed in the text book that was adopted you don't need to worry.

"The process to approve textbooks underscores how publishers that want to do business with Texas must make sure their books reflect the state's standards.

"The standards suggest that slavery was only the third most important contributing factor to the Civil War, which we all know is ridiculous," says Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning watchdog group. It contracted scholars at various universities to review the books.

The review found that at first, some publishers followed Texas' lead, downplaying slavery's role in the Civil War and emphasizing states' rights. But, after a long public review process and many complaints, they made changes.

"Publishers have improved their books and made clear that slavery was the driving force behind the separation between the North and the South and the Civil War, so we're pleased about that," Miller says.

Glad to see the conservatives got their butt handed to them.

 

[dandh]

How freaking odd!!! All the States that seceded were Slave States! I wonder why they left?

As to the ones that stayed Union, Kentucky was as borderline leaving as it was one of the States that gave the term "Brother vs. Brother it's meaning. Maryland, the hot spots of secession anyway, had to be watched like a Hawk. Delaware, not so much but than who cared, it was just Delaware!

Kiting, your only hope would be to use Lincoln himself as to the reason the War was not over slavery. Even Washington DC had salves until the Emancipation Proclamation! Several times Lincoln tried to assure the South that he wasn't going to "end slavery where it existed". But if you make that case you have to ignore that the South did secede, and did fire the first shots!

Dan, this is really interesting. I have a distinct memory of having this argument with you on another board, many years ago. Except at that time, you were arguing that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, and I was arguing that it clearly was.

So, did I convert your thinking - did someone else at a later time - or am I remembering a completely different DanL? Or were you just joshing back then?

BTW- we have met in person, in North Liberty, along with TucsonHawk and Sherry and her husband and several others from that board at a picnic you organized, if you're the DanL I think you are.

So -same DanL, evolved opinion, or am I mistaking you for someone else?

 

[strummingram]

I'd want to read the textbook in question, myself, to have a better opinion on it's accuracy. I've learned more about the world since I left the public school system, than I ever learned in it.

The Civil War is one of the most complex aspects of our history. It's not a simple topic at all. The institution of Slavery was, in my opinion, what eventually made a war, or secession, or some type of official split in recognition, an inevitability. If the Founders would have abolished it, then I doubt there would have been a Confederacy. I have always thought that the states seceding and then forming another country was a little hypocritical. Secede and be your own country! I don't fault any of the states for leaving the federation that they all agreed to be able to leave if they chose, originally. It just makes Slavery more of a dominant reason FOR secession when you form another country around that institution's importance.

But, the hypocrisy of this nation was born at the onset. The whole place needs a Do-Over. It's funny how the two regions still have hostility. Since the institution of Slavery is gone now, can we secede and be left alone? I'll bet it wouldn't bother many Northerners now. Hey, most BIG 10 fans would love to see the SEC leave, so their teams could win more games!

As my mentor George Carlin said: "This country was founded by slaveholders who wanted to be free..." Thus our domestic and foreign policy of racism and double-standards was born. "You give us a color, we'll wipe it out."

George, take it away...

 

[DanL53]

Well since it was changed in the text book that was adopted you don't need to worry.

"The process to approve textbooks underscores how publishers that want to do business with Texas must make sure their books reflect the state's standards.

"The standards suggest that slavery was only the third most important contributing factor to the Civil War, which we all know is ridiculous," says Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning watchdog group. It contracted scholars at various universities to review the books.

The review found that at first, some publishers followed Texas' lead, downplaying slavery's role in the Civil War and emphasizing states' rights. But, after a long public review process and many complaints, they made changes.

"Publishers have improved their books and made clear that slavery was the driving force behind the separation between the North and the South and the Civil War, so we're pleased about that," Miller says.

Thanks, I either misread, or missed that part.

 

[jscott78]

But, the hypocrisy of this nation was born at the onset. The whole place needs a Do-Over.

View embedded media

A good part of Obama's undeniable brilliance is that he understands that we get to keep perfecting ourselves as a nation. We have to. See his eulogy last week. Lincoln esque, MLK ish.

 

[Arizona_Hawks]

I'm quite proud of the traitor part, just like I am with America's founding fathers. I'm also related to a few of those fighting traitors, though no one in my family ever owned a slave. At least not going back to 1730.

Why are you people even replying to this troll? He is just messing with you as no one is this dumb.

 

[strummingram]

A good part of Obama's undeniable brilliance is that he understands that we get to keep perfecting ourselves as a nation. We have to. See his eulogy last week. Lincoln esque, MLK ish.

Forgive me if I pass on some political suit's pandering. I'll leave that to you critical thinkers to enjoy. "Undeniable brilliance"... right, whatever you say.

 

[DanL53]

Dan, this is really interesting. I have a distinct memory of having this argument with you on another board, many years ago. Except at that time, you were arguing that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, and I was arguing that it clearly was.

So, did I convert your thinking - did someone else at a later time - or am I remembering a completely different DanL? Or were you just joshing back then?

BTW- we have met in person, in North Liberty, along with TucsonHawk and Sherry and her husband and several others from that board at a picnic you organized, if you're the DanL I think you are.

So -same DanL, evolved opinion, or am I mistaking you for someone else?

Evolved opinion. Conversations with you, folks like you, and continued reading/thinking straightened me out. I was "newer" to the subject and like many a new enthusiast I was still tweaking the information around seeing what could be/might be. I had this opinion that the social differences between the North and South, with or without slavery, were too great to continue as one undivided nation. It still sounds nice on the surface but in the larger scheme there were differences between regions that never amounted to secession.

That was a fun time back then. Sponsoring PTL teams, the picnic and later the tailgate.

 

[BioHawk]

Fortunately, the idea of the traditional textbook is on borrowed time anyway. What Texas is doing is just a travesty. It's really telling when the truth paints a really poor picture for what your political view is so you have to demand flat out lies to keep people from being upset about it.