Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Textbooks teaching the incorrect "States Rights" argument for the Civil War

Posted by on Nov. 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM
  • 51 Replies

All of which explains both how that dubious assertion that thousands of slaves fought in defense of the Confederacy came to be included in that Virginia textbook back in 2010, and how the error came to light. As it turns out, the textbook’s author took her information from the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ website; the error was discovered when a history professor at the College of William and Mary happened to come across it while browsing through a copy of one of her fourth grade daughter’s schoolbooks. Had that not happened, who knows how long the book would have been in use? To this day, it’s possible to stir up a hornet’s nest among ordinary Southerners by asserting that slavery was a primary cause of the Civil War; at the least, it will earn a native Southerner the accusation of having signed over his brain to those Ivy League intellectual snobs who despise all things Southern. The conviction that the South went to war primarily to defend the concept of states’ rights “is in [Southerners’] families, in their churches, in their schools, in their political structure,” Pitcaithley said. “They’ve been taught that over generations. It so embedded that—as you have found—if you suggest otherwise they look at you like you’ve put your pants on your head.”

From “The New Mind of the South” by Tracy Thompson. Copyright 2013 by Tracy Thompson. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster Inc.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

by on Nov. 30, 2013 at 7:33 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:14 PM
5 moms liked this

Sounds like they were teaching the correct information and the people who rely on racism didn't like it.

jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM
2 moms liked this

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 

quickbooksworm
by Silver Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM
2 moms liked this
It was also about taxes. Is slavery right? Absolutely not. But it isnt the primary reason for the Civil War, there was a lot more to it.
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:33 PM
6 moms liked this

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 


babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM

If the South hadn't needed slavery to survive, do you think any of that would have been as much an issue as it was?  

Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 



kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM
2 moms liked this

I think it might have been a while longer, but it still would have come about.  The North was imposing ridiculous tariffs on the South, keeping the South from ever being able to export their goods to anyone other than the North, who was paying pennies on the dollar for goods.  Frankly, if the North had butted out in the first place, the South would have prospered more and wouldn't have needed slave labor as much, and slavery probably would have decreased dramatically.  The entire battle was over economical reasons.  Slavery just happened to be a part of the economical issues in the South, due in large part to their being unable to get a foot up, thanks to the North.


Quoting jessilin0113:

If the South hadn't needed slavery to survive, do you think any of that would have been as much an issue as it was?  

Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 




babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

greenie63
by Silver Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM
2 moms liked this
The misinterpreted view of the Civil War in this reply. I studied extendively with a man who is known for his expertise on American History specifically the Civil War. He would find this reply highly inaccurate. There's no denying it, slavery was the root cause for the Civil War. Read the documents by the Vice President of the Cinfederate Ststes. He clearly states they are going to war to protect slavery.

Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 


stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:47 PM
1 mom liked this

Here is the Mississsppi Declaration of Secession:

ETA: To Clarify, it is the beginning of the Declaration.  It is longer than that.  Taken from here: http://www.battleofolustee.org/related/ms.htm

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 



kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I have studied this extensively myself.  Some of the documents mention slavery.  However, like I said, the government wasn't making slavery illegal, so it would make no sense whatsoever to leave the Union over it.  This was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Nothing more.

Quoting greenie63:

The misinterpreted view of the Civil War in this reply. I studied extendively with a man who is known for his expertise on American History specifically the Civil War. He would find this reply highly inaccurate. There's no denying it, slavery was the root cause for the Civil War. Read the documents by the Vice President of the Cinfederate Ststes. He clearly states they are going to war to protect slavery.

Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 



babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

greenie63
by Silver Member on Nov. 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/tp/secessionevents.htm.

Quoting kailu1835:

I have studied this extensively myself.  Some of the documents mention slavery.  However, like I said, the government wasn't making slavery illegal, so it would make no sense whatsoever to leave the Union over it.  This was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Nothing more.

Quoting greenie63:

The misinterpreted view of the Civil War in this reply. I studied extendively with a man who is known for his expertise on American History specifically the Civil War. He would find this reply highly inaccurate. There's no denying it, slavery was the root cause for the Civil War. Read the documents by the Vice President of the Cinfederate Ststes. He clearly states they are going to war to protect slavery.



Quoting kailu1835:

It was about the states rights to govern themselves.  The government wasn't making slavery illegal, contrary to what a bunch of you think.  They were going to make it so that NEW states would not be allowed to own slaves.  It didn't affect the already existing states one iota. 

Actually, if we are being literal, the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with the federal government exerting their power over the states.  The war didn't start until the North decided the South had no right to suceed and attacked the South. That is why the South more accurately calls it the War of Southern Aggression.  The North attacked the South, not the other way around, something that most people seem to conveniently forget.

Quoting jessilin0113:

The South's economy relied on slavery.  It was about the right to own slaves. 



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN