WP: Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[JMS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907974.html?hpid=talkbox1

Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

A textbook distributed to Virginia fourth-graders says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War -- a claim rejected by most historians but often made by groups seeking to play down slavery's role as a cause of the conflict.

The passage appears in "Our Virginia: Past and Present," which was distributed in the state's public elementary schools for the first time last month. The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history. Virginia education officials, after being told by The Washington Post of the issues related to the textbook, said that the vetting of the book was flawed and that they will contact school districts across the state to caution them against teaching the passage.

Just because a book is approved doesn't mean the Department of Education endorses every sentence," said spokesman Charles Pyle. He also called the book's assertion about black Confederate soldiers "outside mainstream Civil War scholarship."

Masoff defended her work. "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write," she said. "I am a fairly respected writer."

The issues first came to light after College of William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff opened her daughter's copy of "Our Virginia" and saw the reference to black Confederate soldiers.

"It's disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship," Sheriff said. "It concerns me not just as a professional historian but as a parent."

Virginia, which is preparing to mark the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, has long struggled to appropriately commemorate its Confederate past. The debate was reinvigorated this spring, when Gov. Robert F. Mc­Don­nell ® introduced "Confederate History Month" in Virginia without mentioning slavery's role in the Civil War. He later apologized.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of male descendants of Confederate soldiers based in Columbia, Tenn., has long maintained that substantial numbers of black soldiers fought for the South The group's historian-in-chief, Charles Kelly Barrow, has written the book "Black Confederates."

The Sons of Confederate Veterans also disputes the widely accepted conclusion that the struggle over slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. Instead, the group says, the war was fought "to preserve their homes and livelihood," according to John Sawyer, chief of staff of the Sons of Confederate Veterans' Army of Northern Virginia. He said the group was pleased that a state textbook accepted some of its views.

The state's curriculum requires textbook publishers and educators to explore the role African Americans played in the Confederacy, including their work on plantations and on the sidelines of battle. Those standards have evolved in recent years to make lessons on the Civil War more inclusive in a state that is growing increasingly diverse.

When Masoff began work on the textbook, she said she consulted

[Thiebear]

Thats great she stands by what she wrote: The question was WHO else does...

and what sources did she use.

[JMS]

Thats great she stands by what she wrote: The question was WHO else does...

and what sources did she use.

I think it's pretty clear that slavery was the main reason why the civil war occured. It just wasn't the main reason why many confederate soldiers fought.

[thebluefood]

I think it's pretty clear that slavery was the main reason why the civil war occured. It just wasn't the main reason why many confederate soldiers fought.

This.

State allegiance was a big deal during the first 100 years of the United States. From what I've gathered, that was the biggest reason why most people fought in the war, especially in the south.

And I'm sure there were blacks fighting in the Confederate ranks, but not as many as on the Federal side.

[Destino]

I went to school in fairfax county and I was taught:

1 - Blacks fought for the south in large numbers

2 - Slavery was a very small issue in the civil war and it is inaccurately sited as a central cause of the war.

then I went to college and took history courses and realized that my southern state's history classes should be renamed "what we wished happened, by Virginia"

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Thats great she stands by what she wrote: The question was WHO else does...

and what sources did she use.

Sons of the Confederate Veterans

[elkabong82]

Well the war initially was about state rights. However, the issue was brought up because of the slavery institution. The "way of life" argument really is just a device to try and turn the South into a victim.

I find it hard to believe that the South had as many Black Confederate soldiers as is being claimed when the South always had fears of uprisings, viewed slaves as property akin to animals, and when even the North was hesitant to use balck soldiers. The notion that so many slaves fought willingly for the South seems both illogical (because the assumption would be that if slaves fought for the South it's because they were forced to like they were every other task) and a vain attempt to give the perception that slavery wasn't as bad by asserting slaves willingly fought for the South in the thousands, tying in the "protecting homes and way of life" defense.

[Henry]

I think it's pretty clear that slavery was the main reason why the civil war occured. It just wasn't the main reason why many confederate soldiers fought.

Well put.

[SkinInsite]

Maybe she also worked for the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform.

[Larry]

Well the war initially was about state rights.

I keep hearing this claim. The facts don't seem to fit it.

("You keep using that word. . . . ")

At the time, the US had no position on slavery. Each state was free to regulate it as they saw fit.

The Confederate states left that Union, so that they could found a country where the federal Constitution mandated slavery on all states.

Hard to claim that they did that because of their deeply held moral convictions on the sanctity of states rights.

[Larry]

I think it's pretty clear that slavery was the main reason why the civil war occured. It just wasn't the main reason why many confederate soldiers fought.

Oh, I agree.

For example, I think it's pretty well established that Lee didn't fight for the Confederacy. He fought for Virginia.

[JMS]

This.

State allegiance was a big deal during the first 100 years of the United States. From what I've gathered, that was the biggest reason why most people fought in the war, especially in the south.

And I'm sure there were blacks fighting in the Confederate ranks, but not as many as on the Federal side.

I just finished reading Col John Mosby's autobiography. Mosby was a famous civil war partisan fighter who was credited with being General Jeb Stewart's chief scout and numouse sucessful operations behind Union Lines. Mosby a lawyer by trade practicing in central virginia was an outspoken critic of slavery prior to the war. He even went so far to publically declare allegiance with the north in the event of war. But Mosby fought with the south. He compared the march to sucession with mass hypnosis geared around states rights and state nationalism.

[Predicto]

I went to school in fairfax county and I was taught:

1 - Blacks fought for the south in large numbers

2 - Slavery was a very small issue in the civil war and it is inaccurately sited as a central cause of the war.

then I went to college and took history courses and realized that my southern state's history classes should be renamed "what we wished happened, by Virginia"

Dang. I went to school in Fairfax County 18 years before you did and the same thing was taught. I would have hoped they would have gotten past that nonsense by now, at least in Fairfax County.

[Larry]

then I went to college and took history courses and realized that my southern state's history classes should be renamed "what we wished happened, by Virginia"

Recall Jimmy Carter once commenting that his favorite movie was Gone With the Wind, but that "I suspect that I may have seen a different version."

"My favorite scene was when Lee burned Boston."

[JMS]

Well the war initially was about state rights. However, the issue was brought up because of the slavery institution. The "way of life" argument really is just a device to try and turn the South into a victim.

I disagree with that. Slavery was the sole right the south was concerned about. Slavery was the dirving issue. But the leaders in the south knew they couldn't sell the war to their citizens as a war for slavery. So they picked an offense which was geared to get broader support and sold that to their populations.

It's also not my understanding that Blacks fought with the south. My understanding was that many well groomed southern slave owners took slaves with them as body survents into the service. The south did not train blacks to fight and hand them guns until very late in the war.. The civil war ended April 9, 1865. The confederate Army passed a law authorizing black soldiers in March 23, 1865.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/csenlist.htm

The reality was it was not uncommon for wounded black union troops to be sumarily executed by some southern commanders until lincoln threatenned to start executing southern prisoners.

The Confederates declared that all black men fighting for the Union were rebel slaves, regardless of whether they were actually former slaves or had been born free, and frequently executed them. One example of this is the execution of many black soldiers after they had surrendered during the battle of Fort Pillow. With sorrow, Lincoln responded that he would have to execute southern prisoners of war, if the south executed any Union prisoners. For the most part Lincoln’s threat paid off, but captured Civil War black soldiers were treated more harshly by the Confederates than were white Union soldiers.

http://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-black-soldiers.html

I find it hard to believe that the South had as many Black Confederate soldiers as is being claimed when the South always had fears of uprisings, viewed slaves as property akin to animals, and when even the North was hesitant to use balck soldiers. The notion that so many slaves fought willingly for the South seems both illogical (because the assumption would be that if slaves fought for the South it's because they were forced to like they were every other task) and a vain attempt to give the perception that slavery wasn't as bad by asserting slaves willingly fought for the South in the thousands, tying in the "protecting homes and way of life" defense.

I agree.

[JMS]

Dang. I went to school in Fairfax County 18 years before you did and the same thing was taught. I would have hoped they would have gotten past that nonsense by now, at least in Fairfax County.

I went to college in Alabama, I was shocked to read in their public school history books that Montgomery was the capital of the South, not Richmond. Also that the Klan was formed to protect southerners from carpet baggers.

[elkabong82]

I keep hearing this claim. The facts don't seem to fit it.

("You keep using that word. . . . ")

At the time, the US had no position on slavery. Each state was free to regulate it as they saw fit.

The Confederate states left that Union, so that they could found a country where the federal Constitution mandated slavery on all states.

Hard to claim that they did that because of their deeply held moral convictions on the sanctity of states rights.

You may have misunderstood me. While the US had no open position on slavery, and the war didn't "officially" become about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation (also meant as a clever device to keep the Brits from helping the South anymore since they had outlawed slavery), the reason the Southern states seceded were due to fears that Lincoln and the Abolitionists would end slavery through federal action (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states), which is why they invoked states rights. They felt slavery should be dealt with at the state level.

You are correct that it was really about the slavery institution, which is what I said caused the states rights argument. The South feared their rights to regulate themselves, economically, on a state level would be impeded on a federal level by Lincoln. They felt their states had a right to institute slavery, and they seceded because they felt the election of Lincoln meant he would focus the federal government on ending slavery.

This is why there were some anti-slavery people who fought for the South, as JMS posted. They weren't fighting for slavery, they were fighting for their state's right to decide for itself. Before the Civil War the country was a group of individual states, it wasn't until after the war that the country became a collective group of states.

I guess you could say slavery brought about the states rights arguments, and in essence the war was about both. Slavery was the spark, but the issue became one over state vs. federal regulation. For example, one could be against slavery but fight for the South because they believed it was up to the state to decide for itself and change things itself, not the federal government.

So long story short, the war was about state rights, but the specific rights were about slavery.

[techboy]

Before this takes off into yet another series of lectures (history discussions are never discussions, I have found, but instead a group of enthusiasts taking turns giving lectures), I just thought I'd add this:

My wife is a teacher in an elementary school in Fairfax County, and she works with the 4th grade team there, and they all hate this textbook. It's apparently got lots of pretty pictures, but little useful information, and the teachers all have to continually make use of outside resources to properly teach the material.

Personally, I'm offended that the county would buy a textbook written by a person that is not a trained historian.

Carry on...

[JMS]

You may have misunderstood me. While the US had no open position on slavery, and the war didn't "officially" become about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation (also meant as a clever device to keep the Brits from helping the South anymore since they had outlawed slavery),

I don't think that's true. In "Team of Rivals" Dorris Kerns Goodwin notes that nobody in Lincolns cabinent supported the Emancipation Proclaimation. They all thought it went to far. Lincoln did it because wanted to solidify his own base. The republican party was at it's core an abolishionist party. Lincoln reasoned that since they were well into the war, and the war was going to be fought to it's conclusion. There was no downside to freeing he slaves in the south.. Note Lincoln did not free the slaves in the slave states which did not sucede frm the union. Like Maryland nor in US territories like Alaska. That was done after the war was won.

[elkabong82]

I disagree with that. Slavery was the sole right the south was concerned about. Slavery was the dirving issue. But the leaders in the south knew they couldn't sell the war to their citizens as a war for slavery. So they picked an offense which was geared to get broader support and sold that to their populations.

.

I agree with you. What I'm saying is that the slavery invoked the state's rights arguments. In essence the war was about the Southern state's rights to slavery, which means both slavery and state's rights are the issue. Does the fed. have the right to invoke it's will on other states? That was a pertinent question then and had been argued on both sides since the revolution.

Neither side could sell the war as being directly about slavery, which is why the war didn't become directly/openly about slavery until the Emancipation Porclamation.

I'll try to sum it up: the Civil War was about state's rights, which was brought about by slavery. By the transitive property, the Civil War was about slavery. State rights was the issue, but the right was regarding slavery, so the war was about both, one through the other.

I'm thinking CA's Prop 19 to legalize pot is an issue about state rights vs. fed, brought about by pot. So the issue is about pot, but also about state rights.

I hope this post clarified my position to you.

[elkabong82]

I don't think that's true. In "Team of Rivals" Dorris Kerns Goodwin notes that nobody in Lincolns cabinent supported the Emancipation Proclaimation. They all thought it went to far. Lincoln did it because wanted to solidify his own base. The republican party was at it's core an abolishionist party. Lincoln reasoned that since they were well into the war, and the war was going to be fought to it's conclusion. There was no downside to freeing he slaves in the south.. Note Lincoln did not free the slaves in the slave states which did not sucede frm the union. Like Maryland nor in US territories like Alaska. That was done after the war was won.

Had there been no downside to freeing slaves in the South, I imagine it would have been done sooner in the War. Lincoln received backlash over the EP because people viewed it as only helping slaves that the Union had no control over.

What they didn't realize was that the strategy was two-fold. One, it effectively ended aid to the South from England because it made the war openly about slavery, showing the cause for the state rights argument, and England had outlawed slavery and thus received a lot of pressure to back off from its public. Two, as the Union advanced through the South more and more slaves were freed, many of whom joined the Union in part to free others and in part for revenge. That bolstering of the Union army helped win the war.

[elkabong82]

Before this takes off into yet another series of lectures (history discussions are never discussions, I have found, but instead a group of enthusiasts taking turns giving lectures),

Personally, I'm offended that the county would buy a textbook written by a person that is not a trained historian.

Carry on...

Excellent point, I completely agree that a history textbook not written by a trained historian is absurd and offensive.

As far as the lecture part, history is all about context and tying in various events to show cause and derive conclusions, hence such discussion turn into lectures as each person establishes the context for their argument. As a history major though, I personally love it. You have to if you're in the field.

[boobiemiles]

You may have misunderstood me. While the US had no open position on slavery, and the war didn't "officially" become about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation (also meant as a clever device to keep the Brits from helping the South anymore since they had outlawed slavery), the reason the Southern states seceded were due to fears that Lincoln and the Abolitionists would end slavery through federal action (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states), which is why they invoked states rights. They felt slavery should be dealt with at the state level.

You are correct that it was really about the slavery institution, which is what I said caused the states rights argument. The South feared their rights to regulate themselves, economically, on a state level would be impeded on a federal level by Lincoln. They felt their states had a right to institute slavery, and they seceded because they felt the election of Lincoln meant he would focus the federal government on ending slavery.

This is why there were some anti-slavery people who fought for the South, as JMS posted. They weren't fighting for slavery, they were fighting for their state's right to decide for itself. Before the Civil War the country was a group of individual states, it wasn't until after the war that the country became a collective group of states.

I guess you could say slavery brought about the states rights arguments, and in essence the war was about both. Slavery was the spark, but the issue became one over state vs. federal regulation. For example, one could be against slavery but fight for the South because they believed it was up to the state to decide for itself and change things itself, not the federal government.

So long story short, the war was about state rights, but the specific rights were about slavery.

I agree with this statement. The same issue was raised after Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill. Very good. I just watched a documentary on Hubert Humpry, and the issue was teh same; Fedreal vs. State regulation. It seems the racial issue has been at the heart of state rights, so it seems that everybody in that state becomes a bigot or racist, but it's not so. While some wanted such institutions as slavery, most fought for the rights to impose regulations independent of the Federal Government. However I feel the North wanted to impose federal regulations because without the South the Industrial Revolution would not have been as successful. Bottom line is the Civil Rights was not a war of morality, but unity.

[NavyDave]

I'm thinking CA's Prop 19 to legalize pot is an issue about state rights vs. fed, brought about by pot. So the issue is about pot, but also about state rights.

So this is about the state's right to enslave minorities by having them hooked on a drug as well as getting the young and the ignorant to vote for the irresponsible politicians hoping to stay in power?

What else would you call the proposal to place a pot processing plant in Oakland but an opportunity to legally enslave that population via a controlled drug. "Lets keep them half baked and stuck on the plantation known as the Democratic party."

[elkabong82]

well said boobiemiles.

the only thing I disagree on is the bigot/racist part. While those people in support of slavery may not have felt they were bigots or racists because it was accepted in their region, they were still bigots because they were supporting slavery, especially because the institution applied only to blacks. The state's rights argument itself is valid, but the issue invoking state's rights was invalid. It's a sort of paradox, which is one of the reasons these discussions are still held today IMO. Though state rights are important, in this case the rights were for slavery, which meant it was a case where those states were clearly wrong (eventho they felt they weren't) but the institution was so engrained that federal action was needed for correction, same thing happened during the Civil Rights movement.

I am a proponent of state rights, but I am also a proponent of a federal framework that keeps states in check but only imposes itself when absolutely necessary, which I believe of course it was absolutely necessary in the case of the Civil War. In other words, while the fight for state rights is an important one, the rights in question have to be good, and in this case the specific right was immoral, which legitimized federal intervention. Some try to use the staes rights argument to obscure slavery as the cause of the war, which is wrong IMO. State rights I believe were the larger issue, but they were only brought about because of slavery IMO.