It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for teachers: How is the Civil War taught in your school?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Hey teachers(or parents, or former students really).

I was wondering how the Civil War was taught in different schools and I would really appreciate insights from this community.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
2 sides fought 1 lost ..the end ..





posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Well, we mostly have to teach it according to the books that the school chooses. Of course, the students ask questions, and I make a point to say that the South has a very different view of the war than the North. Because of the political climate, this is one tricky subject. Quite honestly, if one does not teach the Northern version, one would probably face some serious problems. Basically, children are taught that Lincoln was a hero (I think he was a tyrant) that saved the Union, and that the war was fought over slavery. States' rights come up, but are usually not a focus. Reconstruction is taught as being necessary. In other words, history was written by the winners, and that is how it is taught. It isn't surprising, but it is a bit sad.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The North were the good guys.
The South were the bad guys fighting to keep blacks enslaved.
Lincoln was the perfect President presiding over the entire debacle.

I don't recall it ever getting much deeper than that when I was in school. It wasn't until I was older and started reading and researching on my own that I got some specifics.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterMcKill

Having been educated in the North (New York) I would be interested in learning more about this alternative view which you seem to think is the correct version of history.

Are you implying that
1. We should have continued to subjugate the rights of black people?
2. That the US should have been allowed to be split into 2 separate nations?
3. That the reconstruction period (which focused on maintaining the newly established rights of the freed slaves and repairing the economy) was not something that should have been attempted? (Note, it is largely considered a failure by historians. But hindsight is 20/20.)

I'm not interested in debating the specifics, because I quite simply don't know enough on the topics to be honest, but I'm merely asking if I'm properly interpreting your post.
edit on 10-2-2017 by MrSensible because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
As a new yorker yankee I was told it was a war that put brother against brother.
at the beginning of the war people would picnic at the battle sites until they realized how much Carnage resulted



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadHerring

We have to include the state standards, which must be covered in the curriculum. However, that is not all that we teach in regards to the Civil War. Unfortunately, I wish I had much more time to devote to the subject, but we discuss causes (leading up to the war), battles, developments, key figures, and the conclusion. Afterwards, we move on to Reconstruction era politics and the changing environment of the country.

Is there something specific that youd like to know in regards to what is or isn't taught???



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I was taught the North was the good guys.

The South were the bad guys.

I wasn't taught about the Copperheads

I wasn't taught about the false flag that started it.

I wasn't taught the war wasn't really over to free the slaves. This is abundantly clear considering what was done to brown people(native Americans).

I wasn't taught the war was really fought over two basically things.

The US is like the Bratva. No one gets to leave.

The US was not going to lose the souths resources.

In short the version I was taught was an oversimplified rose colored glasses version of it, and left the real history out of it.
edit on 10-2-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The war was fought because of the division between opponents and proponents of slavery. Lincoln was pretty moderate on the issue, believing in the rights of all men. However, he tried to comfort the south, and told them although he wanted to stop the spread of slavery, he would not be going after their ability to own slaves. Instead of being reasonable, the south decided to follow South Carolina's lead and foolishly secede from the Union. Then, they exacerbated problems by aggressively taking federal forts within the south. They started a war they had no business being in. They weren't equipped to fight the industrial might of the north.

Would the federal government eventually abolish slavery anyways? Yep. However, during the coming years they would have perhaps had time (if they were motivated) to alter and evolve their southern economy to persist without the comfort of cheap slave labor. That was their real problem, many southerners owned slaves, and most southerners relied on an agricultural economy that had been tooled to high profits off of slave labor. Adjustments would have been difficult, but economically possible if they were given time to do so.

They were stubborn, and foolish for instigating a fight that was not necessary. Im a southern boy, and a conservative in favor of states rights...but, what they did was stupid.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: lambs to lions

Lincoln was no moderate.

atlantablackstar.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: robbeh

In the UK its pretty much taught that while we abolished slavery a few decades before peacefully, America instead did what amerca does best in regards to politics and went full retard, plus states rights ect The north won, blacks kinda got freed but where still treated #and once the war was over you decided to finish of the natives and thats pretty much it.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
As someone who didn't become a teacher because of 'no child left behind, etc...', I can say that at first I was excited to be able to teach a subject that I love (History) and then found out that we simply had to teach how to pass the required tests and could not deviate or elaborate. So I honestly don't believe any of the children I taught as a student teacher learned anything more than how to pass the test. As for what the books we used said . . . a) the south started the war over slavery and were evil, b) Lincoln was the greatest president ever, c) reconstruction was nice and necessary. The truth is that . . . a) the war was complicated but if you break it down was fought over economics and states' rights (slavery didn't become an issue until 3 years into it when public opinion was waning), b) Grant freed the slaves not Lincoln, c) Emancipation Proclamation made to keep Britain from entering the war on the side of the south, d) carpet baggers kept the south from thriving for several decades.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
Well, we mostly have to teach it according to the books that the school chooses. Of course, the students ask questions, and I make a point to say that the South has a very different view of the war than the North. Because of the political climate, this is one tricky subject. Quite honestly, if one does not teach the Northern version, one would probably face some serious problems. Basically, children are taught that Lincoln was a hero (I think he was a tyrant) that saved the Union, and that the war was fought over slavery. States' rights come up, but are usually not a focus. Reconstruction is taught as being necessary. In other words, history was written by the winners, and that is how it is taught. It isn't surprising, but it is a bit sad.


Very well said. You're absolutely right. I remember the Civil War being about slavery and states rights which is accurate enough, however, my school also said Lincoln was a hero which is blatantly false. Lincoln was as racist as they come and clearly stated that blacks will never be able to intermingle with whites. It's a hoot to see so many ill informed whites and blacks celebrate him.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

This was 1860, he was moderate for the time. He believed in the superiority of his own race, but in the natural rights for all.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I find it funny that virtually no one takes the time to actually read the reasons actually spelled out by southern leaders. Never a mention at all about slaves.

I also find it funny that no one ever realizes that New England made the most money from slavery of any American area.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSensible
a reply to: MisterMcKill

Having been educated in the North (New York) I would be interested in learning more about this alternative view which you seem to think is the correct version of history.

Are you implying that
1. We should have continued to subjugate the rights of black people?
2. That the US should have been allowed to be split into 2 separate nations?
3. That the reconstruction period (which focused on maintaining the newly established rights of the freed slaves and repairing the economy) was not something that should have been attempted? (Note, it is largely considered a failure by historians. But hindsight is 20/20.)

I'm not interested in debating the specifics, because I quite simply don't know enough on the topics to be honest, but I'm merely asking if I'm properly interpreting your post.


I imply nothing. I mostly teach High School English, but I do cover History when I need to. I am not aware of any serious academic argument that suggests that the rights of black people should be subjugated, nor do I propose any such thing. I do believe that the U.S. should have been allowed to split into two separate nations. I also believe that Reconstruction was not what the Southern states signed up for when they joined the Union. I am not from the South, and I am not in any way sympathetic to slavery or racism. However, I understand that there are two sides to the story, and that both should be taught. If the North is correct in their justification, then surly everybody would agree that they acted correctly when presented with all of the facts, right? The South saw things differently, and their side of the argument should be taught. I am a teacher; my opinion has no place in the classroom. I mentioned what I thought of Lincoln, but that is something that I am saying to my peers on ATS, not something that I would say to my students in class. Opinions are for internet forums. Facts are for classrooms.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

A couple things here...

1. If the South was able to follow through with session and stayed as there own separate entity I.E. The Confederate States of America then North America would have been just like Europe of the early 19th Century when every country was pretty much fighting the French during the Peninsular War, by that I mean given time you would have seen separate States beginning to push for session from the two different countries. This also would have opened the door for European nations to start snatching up land in North America.

2. I mean everyone knows the Civil War was fought both to free the slaves and to preserve the Union. Every technologically advanced country at the time already outlawed the use of slavery.

Its not the that no one gets to leave as you so basically put it, the people at the time saw what happened with Europe the decades before and didn't want to see it happen here. Basically if the Southern states were able to win the War either on or off the battlefields then America wouldn't exist as it is today.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Well, I learnt about the Civil war in school. King Charles I's belligerent attitude to the English Parliament and his (failed) attempt in 1662 to arrest five Members of Parliament. When the King ordered the Speaker of the House of Commons to reveal the whereabouts of the parliamentarians the Speaker said (to misquote) "...may it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak..."

After Civil War that ensued, and the King was executed, Britain had a brief flirtation as a republic which was a bit of a disaster because it was a bit autocratic. Anyway, to cut a long story short the monarchy was restored. Parliament's pre-eminence was never challenged again. Even today the monarch is not allowed to enter the House of Commons.

I assume the OP was referring to the English Civil War, the only one that really counted for much. It was unclear.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: robbeh

In the UK its pretty much taught that while we abolished slavery a few decades before peacefully, America instead did what amerca does best in regards to politics and went full retard, plus states rights ect The north won, blacks kinda got freed but where still treated #and once the war was over you decided to finish of the natives and thats pretty much it.


I think that's the most succinct and compact version of the Civil War I've ever read. While it may be lacking in facts and dates, the general idea is...spot on.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join