Why are history books so.... Non-historic. Why do you think the Civil War happened?

cp_scipiom

History in US has become too Politically Correct- and that is the problem.
I also know the facts about the War of Secession, and it is indeed as you describe it.
Another hushed up fact is that 160 000 blacks served in the Confederate Army, most of them as free men and volunteers, about half of them as normal, armed, frontline troops. To make things even funnier, they served in integrated units alongside white men- while the Norhtern armies were segregated.
About 6% of the men in "Pickett's Charge" at Gettysburg were black.

And yes, this information is pretty hard to find. Also any information about the Islamic conquest of Christian lands- which led to the Crusades. But plenty of "history" on how the evil crusaders attacked the peace loving muslims. Also next to nothing about the Mongol invasions of Christian and Muslim lands.

Why is it done so? you might ask the same about mass media coverage of the Iraq war.
Just too many busybodies with an agenda lying- that's my idea.

jessica a

You are correct about the cause. It was basically greed and money. Like most wars. Lincoln used "Free the Slaves" as a rally cry to stir up support for the Union Army. Until the imacipation proclamation the South had won almost all the major battles. History books are almost always written by the winners. My father taught military history and is a collector of history books. He has a couple published in south after the war that don't even mention the "civil war" they do however talk about the "war of Northern Aggression". Lincoln was always for freeing the slaves but stated that he didn't have the constitutional right to do so. Once the war started he had war powers.

BoardingJD

1. History is rewritten in order to sway values and perceptions of America. If the Civil War becomes the great war that stopped the mean southerners from owning slaves, than it was a GOOD war, and not an imposition on the rights of Southerners.

2. I'm fully in agreement with you. As are the majority of my fellow Richmonders. :) Unfortunatley, it seems to be only us rebels that are willing to point out that things are not always what they seem....

Sam

History books are politically correct (translation: politely incorrect). They teach us what they think we need to know, not what really happened. But I must take issue with your analogy that the yankees were the good guys. You were right in stating that the war was really about economics. They had a good trade going. The north supplied the south with industrial goods, machinery, etc., while the south provided foods, cotton and tobacco. It was a good trade. But then the north started taxing everything to extreme proportions in order to finance the Erie Canal, for one. The south decided they didn't need the north's goods or their taxes. They could get their industrial goods just as easily from England. When this turned into a political upheaval, the south decided to secede rather than cave in to the demands of the north, which were of no benefit to the south whatsoever. In fear of losing their cash cow (if you'll excuse the pun), the north declared war. Unfortunately for the north, the south had superior commanders (more West Point graduates) and was actually winning the war. It wasn't until late 1863 that slavery was made an issue. In fear of losing, the north gained the support of slaves and their supporters and ultimately won the war. Ironically, for all of Abraham Lincoln's fame for freeing the slaves, the white house continued to use slaves after the war. But our history books don't teach us that. Following the war, northern mercenaries flooded the south (carpetbaggers), claiming lands in the name of back taxes, which were demanded, collected, but never paid to the government, and still throwing people out of their homes, off their lands and leaving them destitute. I'm forced to ask, how can you call that the good guys?

Chic

Yes I agree the civil war was started b/c of economic reasons....the reason why they teach other wise is b/c it's more PC to teach it was to free the slaves. Also, it's to teach kids slaves are bad....even though every single race on the face of this earth has been enslaved at one time or another and treated poorly.....we white Americans are bad bad ppl. I say whatever too that.

Another thing that isn't taught in the history books is that Lincoln actually bought land in Guatemala and was planning on rounding all the emancipated slaves up and shipping them out of the country. You can find that in Washington...it's in public records...Lincoln's own handing writing to his cabinet. Hmmmm....wonder why that isn't taught in history books.

LOL...you wanna know something funny...ppl are automatically gonna think I'm racist....b/c I state fact. It's funny it truely is.

Crusader1189

You are largely correct about high school history texts. Usually, every section or Chapter of a book is written by several people. They are usually right out of college and have to work cheap and fast. This robs the books of anything interesting. Also, they tend to be left-leaning (social sciences are dominated by the left) so there is an element of political correctness and "white guilt" built into the texts.

In answer to your direct questions:

1. Leftists believe that education is to be used to change culture primarily and educate people secondarily. Thus texts and lessons are skewed to generate certain "correct" answers and reject common sense answers. Your Civil War example is a good one. The Crusades are another. History texts never mention the Crusades as a response to Muslim aggression. It is always a "European invasion".

2. The Civil War was largely about the North's domination of the South especially economically. The industrializing and more populous North raised tariffs on manufactured goods to protect their industries but lowered tariffs on agricultural products which flooded the market with cheap ag goods from Europe weakening the already shaky Southern economy. It is little known that between the surrender of Lee's army and the meeting at Appomattox, the South freed the slaves and encouraged them to join the Confederate Army. Seems they wanted their freedom more than they wanted slavery.

rich k

1. Inaccurate history and political science classes serve to indoctrinate the citizens into an attitude of cultural superiority. This makes maintaining the status quo much easier for the people who most benefit from it. If the country is without flaws, why change anything?
2. It has been my hobby for decades to research the history they don't teach you in school, I agree that that is worthless. You are wrong, though, about the why the war started. The South seceded over economic and political differences, the war started because the North wasn't willing to let them do it. It established as a matter of law the supremacy of the Federal over the State governments, and that once you joined the union you can't get back out. That's why the pledge goes: "one nation indivisible". Also, Lincoln did not free the slaves, only the ones in the Confederacy, in the one or two slave states that stayed with the Union slavery remained legal until the Constitutional changes. The action was in no way detrimental to the economy of the South during the war since until after the war it couldn't be enforced.

elaeblue

I was taught that it was a power struggle between the rich south(rich because of low labor costs) and the northern industrialists(ticked they had pay thier workers).

paradise islander

Almost every war was for economic reasons, when we tell the kids that, than they will not be ignorant enough to throw away their life for the next generation of greedy people. By the way, printing history books costs a lot of money and loosers don't have a lot of loot.

devilduck74

1)What is the point of inaccurate history books and lessons?

That is the norm for all history. Look at history it usually baised to one side or the other and over time is accepted as the "truth" of what happened. But not really the case.

2 Why do you think the civil war really happened, tell where you learned about it?

The War was not ever fought for slavery. Well, not until the emancipation proclamation...Then you can sort of say that. But, since the South had secceeded from the Union and paper only applied to Southern Slave states and not the holdings of southern cities in union hands or Slaves in the Union as a whole.
And to keep the european powers out of the war
But anyway:

The War was truely fought over states rights. The north telling the south how to live and such. The Federal gov't mandating what is right and wrong. Sound familar??????
By forcing the hand of the southern states they had no choice but to check the federal gov't by secceeding from the Union.

Also, as a tid-bit, several thousand free-black americans died for the southern cause through out the war. you dont here about them.

Find and read the book: The South was Right. along with: Civil War: Politics and Government

I have several more titles: feel free to email me

eastcoastrockerdude

read "the peoples history of the united states"

toff

You make some good points there but you are leaving a lot out also. Lincoln did not send troops to invade Virginia in a vacuum. He did it because Virginia and other southern states announced their intention to leave the union.

While secession was the immediate cause of the war, slavery played a major role. A large percentage of the volunteers who served in the northern army did so because of their belief that they could end slavery. This was especially true of volunteers from the northeastern states. It would be naive to believe that slavery did not play a major part.

Lincoln made no bones about the fact that he was issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in order to coerce southern states into returning, and to punish those southern states that did not. The proclamation only applied to southern states in rebellion to the Union when the proclamation became effective. He knew that it would stiffen resistence and probably not bring any rebellious states back but he felt that offer had to be there.

I went to school in Tennessee, these issues were all covered and covered well in highschol and college classes. It sounds like your schools (as opposed to all high schools and colleges) need new text books. This was a war where good guys were fighting good guys for good reasons (loyalty to state and neighbor, belief in country...) supporting not so good causes (right of secession, towards the en lavery, economic superiority of one region over another...).

I don't know what history books some of your answerers were given but Lincoln's plan to resettle freed slaves is no secret here. I studied in in my textbooks (in Tennessee in the '70's) and it has been well covered by Foote and others in their books. Dredd Acott opposed it as did Seward and Chase. He finally gave up on the idea.

Black Dragon

In the past one could say "History is written by the victors"

Now history is written by a PR team.

The Civil war was about freeing slaves, because by freeing those slaves the North was trying to put the South on equal footing ie having to pay its work force.

So like a lot of wars that we, the U.S. have been in the real reason is never given to the public for fear they will not go along with it.
I learned this by growing up in the south, where this information has never been a secret, and reading lots of old musty books.

Those who seek in truth for knowledge find it

eddood52

Today's history books are so diluted by liberal teachers writing them, trying to reinvent history by making up or twisting the truth about what really happened by trying to fit it into lessons to learn for today's problems and trying to blame everything on capitalism.
I believe the Civil War was really a battle for state's rights. Their right to govern how they saw fit themselves without being overburdened by federalistic oversight. They wanted their own currencies, taxes, tarriffs, etc. Slavery was a side issue and the North was pressured into "doing what was right". England had abolished slavery years earlier and it was seen as part of the industrial revolution, which the South was lagging behind in, and needed cheap manpower for farming and light manufacturing.

Have gun, will travel.

Political correctness and the rewriting of Hisotry to make whites bad all non-whites good.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: