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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:02 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.


I totally agree. Lincoln was a traitor who got what was coming to him. A nice big lead slug in his forehead. The man broke 11 laws to even have the civil war. his own diaries say he didnt like African american slaves either and wanted to deport them all. (wonder how our nation would look if he did that at times) It prolly would had sucked to be honest.

Then to top it all off Lincoln fixed it so no state could leave the US. All this is stuff you can find if you search for it but thats too hard to actually let a president be seen in a bad light these days.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

This... Lincoln was a piece of # traitor.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Former student. I was taught it was a States rights battle. But the south was backwards and racist. And the north were slave owners and often hid their racism better( especially post civil war- read Malcom x autobiography). Lincoln broke important laws such as freedom of press and writ of habius corpus. But the south not only needed to not have slaves but would have broken economically if they somehow won the war. And soldiers from the two sides often met at night to trade goods and play cards.

But the power of the federal government won and that's how our country operates now.

All arguments aside, I was told public schools don't teach American history before 1870's or so. Our founding fathers were a bit reckless and anti government for children to learn about



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
Former student. I was taught it was a States rights battle. But the south was backwards and racist. And the north were slave owners and often hid their racism better( especially post civil war- read Malcom x autobiography). Lincoln broke important laws such as freedom of press and writ of habius corpus. But the south not only needed to not have slaves but would have broken economically if they somehow won the war. And soldiers from the two sides often met at night to trade goods and play cards.

But the power of the federal government won and that's how our country operates now.

All arguments aside, I was told public schools don't teach American history before 1870's or so. Our founding fathers were a bit reckless and anti government for children to learn about


Actually...the cotton gin was making slavery obsolete. Also The south would had gained Britain as trading partners if they would had won the civil war. This wasnt about nothing but Lincoln and his need to please his banker masters. The south even wanted to uphold the Agreement of shared protection in the constitution until Lincoln rejected it and forced the souths hand.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
A few more should be do they know this country was built on slavery, that they slaughtered millions of Native Americans over land and resources, do they teach the truth or selective truths?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I grew up here in eastern NC and we were always taught that slavery wasn't the reason. Honestly, I don't remember covering the cause of the war for long, but I remember it had a lot to do with the southern states being treated unfairly, and not being properly represented at the Federal level, and of course the whole states-rights argument. Like I said, I don't remember learning much about the causes though. It seemed like we spent waaaaay more time covering the actual battles of the war and the aftermath of the war.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Basically, it comes down to facts are not usually taught in school (except for higher level college courses). History is written by the victors in a light which makes them look good.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Basically, it comes down to facts are not usually taught in school (except for higher level college courses). History is written by the victors in a light which makes them look good.


It did not make the US look good in Vietnam. This "history written by the victors" is only really true in "closed" societies with curbs on social freedoms, like China and Russia. In the West history is constantly being reviewed and scrutinised so is closer to the truth than away from it.

That said, in the US where there are still serious problems with race, I imagine the politically correct brigade has accosted the truth in the name of "sensitivity" and "good relations". The fact that black people remained separate and second-class for decades after the American Civil War demonstrates that they were not the actual reason for the War. They were just an opportunity excuse. Something to give the moralists something to be righteous about and feel superior to the Rednecks.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cantthinkofausername
A few more should be do they know this country was built on slavery, that they slaughtered millions of Native Americans over land and resources, do they teach the truth or selective truths?


No they didnt slaughter millions o f Indians. the indians killed each other off alot themselves. there werent millions of them either though(at least of the time of the US being a country itself)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Basically, it comes down to facts are not usually taught in school (except for higher level college courses). History is written by the victors in a light which makes them look good.


It did not make the US look good in Vietnam. This "history written by the victors" is only really true in "closed" societies with curbs on social freedoms, like China and Russia. In the West history is constantly being reviewed and scrutinised so is closer to the truth than away from it.

That said, in the US where there are still serious problems with race, I imagine the politically correct brigade has accosted the truth in the name of "sensitivity" and "good relations". The fact that black people remained separate and second-class for decades after the American Civil War demonstrates that they were not the actual reason for the War. They were just an opportunity excuse. Something to give the moralists something to be righteous about and feel superior to the Rednecks.


Um back in Lincolns time it WAS a closed society basically. Lincon also directed historians to toss shade on the south as well..its one reason he was shot. for his outright lying.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Basically, it comes down to facts are not usually taught in school (except for higher level college courses). History is written by the victors in a light which makes them look good.


It did not make the US look good in Vietnam. This "history written by the victors" is only really true in "closed" societies with curbs on social freedoms, like China and Russia. In the West history is constantly being reviewed and scrutinised so is closer to the truth than away from it.

That said, in the US where there are still serious problems with race, I imagine the politically correct brigade has accosted the truth in the name of "sensitivity" and "good relations". The fact that black people remained separate and second-class for decades after the American Civil War demonstrates that they were not the actual reason for the War. They were just an opportunity excuse. Something to give the moralists something to be righteous about and feel superior to the Rednecks.


You are committing a fallacy by assuming that Americans didn't write what they wanted about the Vietnam war/conflict (technically Vietnam won that conflict anyways). But the elite of American society then and now did not like the war and thus wrote Americans as the bad guys. When the truth is that there never really is bad guys in war, only the other side.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
You are committing a fallacy by assuming that Americans didn't write what they wanted about the Vietnam war/conflict (technically Vietnam won that conflict anyways).


No I am not. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, or assumption. Vietnam, the causes, conduct and consequences have been pored over by thousands of historians, archivists, commentators etc... On the other hand, in China people are still taught Mao was a nice guy and the truth is highly censored and smudged from history.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
If people have not taken the time, read the Jefferson Davis papers...

It is an interesting perspective on the man and how he saw what lead up to the civil war... I bet it will change most peoples view of him.

Jefferson Davis

The link goes to Rice University Rice.edu.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadHerring

Which Civil War are you referring to ?

The one in the 18th or 19th Centuary.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Nah, one of the current ones. There is always a civil war going on somewhere. I think though that he means the War of Northern Aggression.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Didn't expect so many responses. Thank you all.

A response to "lambs to lions":
I was just discussing with an English teacher about Civil War, was just wondering what people from other places may have learned. Really just looking for other opinions.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
North & South fought, slaves, blah blah, over & done with. I'm leaving the homeschool teaching of this one up to my war history buff of a husband, the CW period is hands-down the most boring part of American history to me.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
North & South fought, slaves, blah blah, over & done with. I'm leaving the homeschool teaching of this one up to my war history buff of a husband, the CW period is hands-down the most boring part of American history to me.


Really? I always thought reconstruction was the most boring part.

Anyways, my wife and I are starting a new endeavor for homeschooling history. After finding ALL the options for textbooks sorely lacking, I decided to teach history by visiting historical sights and studying historical markers. My 4th grader will likely learn more through this method than through any of the history books. (This year we are doing this state's history, and since we will be moving to another state very soon, we will start anew on that state).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join