Schools across U.S. do a terrible job of teaching about slavery.
Research by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2017 found U.S. schools are failing to teach the hard history of slavery. Only 8 percent of high school seniors surveyed in the SPLC's report "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery" could identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War. "It's the equivalent of kids not being able to do division," said Hasan Jeffries, a history professor at Ohio State University who serves as chairman of the Teaching Hard History Advisory Board and host of the podcast "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery." "There is no other subject we could teach as bad as we do American history and still be employed."
Schools sanitize it or shy away from it
NDIANAPOLIS –Twenty-three little bodies – all clad in navy uniforms – are wriggling in their seats at Avondale Meadows Academy. There are superhero cutouts dangling from the ceiling, a "Wakanda Forever" poster on the wall, and Snickers, the class guinea pig, just had a slice of apple. It's a typical Wednesday morning at the Indianapolis charter school, and Shorron Scott is asking her class about their feelings.
Sad. Bad. Mad. Angry. Afraid.
"Of whom?" Scott asks one of her students.
"Of the slave master," he says.
Avondale Meadows' third grade is learning about slavery in the United States, and it's not always easy.
Across the hall, in Katie Millikan's class, her two dozen students are looking at pictures of a slave collar and the scarred back of a slave.
Nine-year-old London Moore said sometimes her classmates cry. When that happens, the class takes a break from the heavy material with a vocabulary video.
"It helps," London said.
The material can get heavy for 7- and 8-year-olds. Teachers work to keep the material age-appropriate, but they don't sugarcoat the truth, either.
"We learned they treat them like, um, they dehumanize them and don't treat them like how they are," said Thaddeus Obirieze, another student in Millikan's class. "If they get splinters or anything, their owners won't care. Their owners would probably sometimes put splinters in their food. If it gets on their tongue and stuff, they wouldn't care."
Thaddeus, 8, said he doesn't get sad, but he tries not to think about it too much.
"It's so unfair," he said.
That's part of what makes slavery so difficult to teach – and so important to get right.
And many schools aren't there. In February alone:
Students at Madison's Trust Elementary School in Ashburn, Virginia, pretended to be slaves on the Underground Railroad as part of a physical education class. A third-grader, the only African-American in his class, was designated a slave during the activity. The school apologized.
On a field trip, South Carolina elementary students were told to pick cotton and sing a slave song, according to a TV station. Students from Ebenezer Avenue Elementary were visiting the Carroll School, which was built in 1929 for African-Americans and now gives programs about the Great Depression. The school district said the tunes were not intended to sound like slave songs.
Research by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2017 found U.S. schools are failing to teach the hard history of slavery. Only 8 percent of high school seniors surveyed in the SPLC's report "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery" could identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War.
"It's the equivalent of kids not being able to do division," said Hasan Jeffries, a history professor at Ohio State University who serves as chairman of the Teaching Hard History Advisory Board and host of the podcast "Teaching Hard History: American Slavery." "There is no other subject we could teach as bad as we do American history and still be employed."
The research found, too, that this isn't a regional problem. It isn't a Southern problem. It's a national problem, Jeffries said.
"I get students in my history classes and I talk about slavery and the Civil War, and their jaws drop," he said. "I shouldn't be blowing their minds with that. That's Early American History 101."
What must schools teach?
For starters, states fail to set high expectations with their curriculum standards, the law center's research found. Jeffries' team reviewed 15 sets of state standards and found most lacked details about slavery or its essential role to the American economy.
In Indiana, explicit mentions of slavery in academic standards are few and far between – just a handful of times between fourth grade and high school.
What's more, most popular textbooks fail to provide comprehensive coverage of slavery and enslaved people, the research found.
For example, when the center reviewed 12 history textbooks, it found:
An Alabama history text lists "states' rights" as the first cause of the Civil War in a list of several factors.
An AP edition of an American history text from publishing giant McGraw-Hill presents the relationship between slavery and racism as "undecided," the review found. The textbook described the routine sexual assault of slaves as "frequent sexual liaisons" or "unwanted sexual advances" that were only "sometimes" rape.
Most textbooks also failed to cover the profit motive inherent in slavery.
The Indiana Department of Education provides extra resources online, but it's unclear how widely they're used.
For example, a video about Mary Bateman Clark, a slave who sued to end indentured servitude in Indiana, was uploaded to Vimeo three years ago and linked on the state resources website.
It has been played just 44 times.
A 'watered down' retelling
At Indianapolis Public Schools, teachers still use textbooks. But because the books try to appeal to the widest audience possible, they're often designed with the standards and politics of the biggest states in mind. Things can get "watered down," said Eric Heagy, curriculum and instruction specialist for social studies and world languages.
So Nick Sargent had his seventh-graders at Northwest Middle School reading excerpts from the writing of Olaudah Equiano, an African man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery as a child in Nigeria. He endured the Middle Passage on a slave ship to the Americas and later bought his own freedom.
"I'm really big on not sugarcoating history for them," Sargent said. "There are a lot of examples of people trying to whitewash history and not make it sound so bad, but that doesn't do it any justice."
For many of his students, reading Equiano's story is the first time they hear about the "shipping" aspect of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
"Every other slave history thing I've learned is mainly on land," said Estefany Ponce, 13. "This is the first time finding out someone's on a boat, having to go through all these things."
Deep levels of discomfort
Perhaps a larger problem than the resources for teaching slavery are the ways in which it's taught, said Keith Barton, a professor of curriculum and instruction at Indiana University.
Schools tend to teach students that slavery is a moral failing of individuals, Barton said – a past problem that was solved by the Civil War, rather than an institution with influences that African-Americans continue to feel today.
In some cases, the teacher might lack a full understanding of slavery, Barton said. In others, the miseducation might happen because the truth is so difficult to broach – and can be controversial.
As an unnamed teacher said in the survey: "It's difficult, as a white teacher to majority non-white students, to explain that white people benefited significantly at the very real expense of black people."
This discomfort is playing out, too, in a teaching force that is still predominantly white. The most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics suggests that while demographics of America's students are shifting rapidly – most schoolchildren are non-white now – the same cannot be said of their teachers. More than 80 percent of teachers are white.
"There's this sense of: 'What if we're doing it wrong? What if it gets misinterpreted?' " Jeffries said.
The segregation effect
Like many of the country's large cities, Indianapolis and its surrounding suburbs have intensely segregated school systems. When the city and county merged municipal services in 1970, school districts were excluded.
By the time court-ordered busing started a decade later, a massive decline in Indianapolis Public Schools enrollment was well underway. Enrollment in the district plummeted from more than 100,000 students at the start of the 1970s to fewer than 30,000 in 2010.
Today, nearly three-quarters of Indianapolis' public schools students are black or Hispanic, and most are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.
The wealthy suburbs in the donut counties surrounding the city, though, are the inverse. Within the past year, several districts have had racist incidents.
At Hamilton Southeastern Schools, a photo was posted in September of a student in blackface.
Last November, a racist shooting threat was found in a bathroom at neighboring Noblesville High School.
Students at another suburban high school, Zionsville, were seen on a social media post this winter using a Nazi salute.
It's likely that the way schools teach slavery is contributing to incidents of racism , Jeffries said.
The vast majority of teachers want to do better, the research found. They need stronger education programs and administrative support and better resources.
An easy way to start that: Talk about African-American history more often, rather than relegating it to Black History Month in February.
Contributing: Emma Kate Fittes, The Indianapolis Star
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
Liked the article, didnt like the part where they talk about the need to tell 7 and 8 year olds about slavery. I don't agree that there is such a need.
As a country though we have to put an end once and for all to the nonsense that the Civil War was fought over something other than the disposition of slavery. The southern states seceded because Lincoln won the 1860 election. Lincoln and the Republican Party were known to be against slavery , and the south feared something was going to be done about it.
They did a good job of teaching at least 25% of the population about slavery - they can't seem to get over it!!!
LOL. Why should people "get over" U.S. history?
... because it isn't over...
No kidding it isn't over. Try driving through an inner city anywhere and it's like going in a time machine.
Making light of racism is a typical fascist technique.
I'm being serious. I actually think the violence and poverty level is unacceptable. If anything is "fascist" it's turning a blind eye and making no effort to improve things.
Oh. I misunderstood your previous post. I apologize.
No problem.
You want reparations?
I don't know the propositions well enough to have an opinion.
Difficult topic. I'm not sure what a "good way to teach about slavery" might be.
At least there are some teachers who are trying...
ALL of US history needs to be taught in US schools!
That's not possible.
LOL! Give me the right teachers!
Just teach it. Don't sugar coat it. This is what happened, these are the things that went on, these are the effects even after it was ended. THIS IS WHY WE HAD A CIVIL FUCKING WAR.
The problem is that that would take years, full time.
Sugar coating is exactly what it is. I was taught that the Civil War was about states' rights. The slavery issue was glossed over.
This was in PA in 1979.
The only thing I remember from school was taking fieldtrips to battlefield sites.
Just talking about how many people died and how tragic it was.
The slave states wanted to maintain the state right to own human beings as property. That is their "states right" they were interested in. They also wanted the northern states to be forced to return runaway slaves.
We were taught about the Slave Trade and Slavery while we were taught about the Civil War. We spent at least a couple hours most years talking about it from 6-12 grade plus we spent a whole week watching "Roots" in high school. I think that was enough, I don't know what they're teaching now.
Teaching kids about slavery is important but the SPLC is not fit to lecture anybody about it. They have become a shameless extortion racket with no credibility anymore.
Teach people to read and they can teach themselves about anything.
They do a helluva lot better job teaching about slavery than they do teaching about math.
American schools do a terrible job. Full stop. Our educational system still operates like it's 1965.
It is because Americans are uncomfortable with our history, it doesn't jive with the image we have created of our country. America is great, and I think has ultimately been a positive force in world history, but we have a very ugly side too. Our people and our government have done a lot of nasty shit, and we do ourselves a disservice by ignoring it.
I remember when I was in Germany on an exchange program back in 2002, I was there right near the end of the school year, right as they were getting into WW2 in their history classes. Let's just say the students, the parents, in fact very few Germans were willing to openly discuss the war. Not because they were trying to deny their nation's history, but because they were so ashamed of what had been done in their name. They know their history.
We could use a little of that in the US.
Maybe we should have a few monuments from various times in our past scattered about the country to spawn conversations between kids and parents. Not all teach should be done in the classroom.
A 1930s Civil War monument is nonsensical... unless it carries a modern plaque telling the story of the Daughters, Jim Crow, lynching, ...
What about a plaque stating it's in memorial of all those who died during the war? Oh wait, that was on a monument in NC and the ignorant clowns tore it down anyway.
How about a plaque saying it's in honor of Santa Claus?
Bingo !
Do you have any idea how many books, articles and papers have been written about the American Civil War? It is one of the most written about periods in all of history. What would make you think no one acknowledges those who died in that war?
If you don't read books or articles about the Civil War, or watch videos about it, fine, thats your business. But then dont offer comments that have no basis.
Not for those who had ancestors who died in that war
Seriously?
Lots and lots of monuments for dead great-uncles?
Seriously?
Oh, come on now, we both know Democrats will never go for the whole truth being put on public display about how they fought for slavery and how they instituted Jim Crow laws.
Not a chance, despite the flowery rhetoric.
Apparently you aren't paying attention. That's not my issue. That's something you have to work on.
If you are talking about the statue in Durham, NC, your statement is false.
You should do some research.
Actually, I did. Here's the inscription on the Durham NC monument:
It clearly is NOT about 'all those who died during the war' as you FALSELY claimed.
Now find the inscriptions from the Silent Sam monument.
It doesn't say 'in memorial of all those who died during the war' either. If it did, YOU wold have posted it.
Why continue with the pretense that your prior comment was based on facts?
So you couldn't find it. I'd bet money you just googled "confederate war memorial" and posted the 1st thing that come up. Not really surprising though.
Again, research:
Jeremy, why did you post this link?
I'll take the liberty of explaining it for you.
The monument you call "Silent Sam" does not honor everyone who fought in the war on either side. The people it is honoring is specifically described on the statue
We are talking about the University of North Carolina here. Please produce a list of those sons of the University of North Carolina that fought for the North in the Civil War.
In addition, the monument was funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy, aka the home of the "Lost Cause" mythology that attempted to aggrandize the confederacy.
Third, a man named Julian Carr spoke at the dedication of this monument in 1913. Who was Julian Carr?
In his dedication speech for "Silent Sam", Carr said the following
I don't think "Silent Sam" does a thing for the argument that these statues are not offensive.
By the way, I found out all of this by reading one of your links.
Actually, I did. That's how I know that your claim about it's inscription is BULLSHIT.
You loose. Send a donation to the Red Cross.
I'm not surprised that you bet on an assumption based on your ideology.
You should do some before you make BULLSHIT comments. Here is the inscription from YOUR link:
It's sad and telling that you looked up a link in an attempt to prove your point yet FAILED to recognize that it refutes your claim. Not really surprising though.
Exactly. You and I actually READ the information in the link and MORE. If only the conservatives would take the same advantage of the knowledge that they post. Of course, they're not interested in the knowledge, just the ideology.
Absolutely not true. The statue you are referring to ("Silent Sam") does NOT state that it is in memorial of all those who fought in the Civil War.
This was like shooting birds in a cage.
Well what do you expect. We have the easily offended demanding that every reference to slavery be removed from public view and classroom because they don't want to acknowledge that this country screwed up. It's our country's history. Own it.
This thread is a great example of the lack of understanding of the some of the root causes of our civil war.
The causes were economic and political as well. But it feels good I guess for some to call it only moral. But it was not only a moral issue.
Its doubtful that our current public school system has the honesty to teach it properly even if they tried. Perhaps it’s best that they don’t try since they would likely try to mold the real truth to their current liberal narrative.
This thread is good proof of that ......
The root cause of the Civil War was the fact that the north was turning anti-slavery to the point it was both infuriating and frightening the economic and social and cultural leaders in the southern states. Slave states knew that if they were to survive into the future they would have to create some slave states in the expanding US west. Otherwise they would fall behind in the number of US Senate and House seats and the anti-slavery states and politicians would eventually be able to legislate laws that would force slavery to an end. By 1860 Lincoln was known to be anti-slavery, as was the Republican Party. When Lincoln won the election, the South made it's move. The disposition of slavery in the Lincoln era is what caused secession and thus the war.
This is the overwhelming consensus of serious historians. Those who say otherwise are in danger of appearing to be slave state sympathizers.
And why was that? First and foremost the North was becoming more Industrial and less Agrarian than the South. Therefore was less and less reliant on slavery for labor. So from an economic standpoint for the South, the potential loss of slavery would have devastated their labor force or the time but not the Norths. So slavery, while morally abhorrent, was a necessity for them much more so than the north.
One would assume that most historians who are "serious" about being accurate would take a non-emotional approach and report the total cause and effect of slavery and not just part of it. I suspect that to be the case for most "serious" historians who are interested in an unbiased, non partisan approach to history.
...Instead of establishing justice it ( the federal government) denies justice to fifteen of the States by refusing to admit any more slave States into the Union, and by the enactment of laws to prevent the rendition of fugitive slaves. It endangers instead of insuring domestic tranquillity by the possession of the channels through which to circulate insurrectionary documents and disseminate insurrectionary sentiments among a hitherto contented servile population. It neglects instead of providing for the common defense by permitting within the limits of some of the States the organization of plans for the armed invasion of others, and by refusing to surrender the criminals when fugitives from justice. It disregards and impairs instead of promoting the general welfare by compassing the destruction of an inestimable amount of property (slaves) with all its direful consequences. It will rob us of instead of securing to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty by the extinction of a great domestic and social institution (slavery) , by the overthrow of self-government and the establishment of an equality of races in our midst. Its success overthrows the fundamental principles of the Revolution by denying the freedom of property. This freedom of property (slavery) is the corner stone of social happiness. As has been said:
The rights of life, liberty, and property are so intimately blended together that neither can be lost in a state of society without all; or, at least, neither can be impaired without wounding the others.
To maintain the value of property (slaves) and realize its fullest advantages there must be guaranteed permanence, security, and protection. "Republicanism" proposes to place the right to property in slaves under the ban of a consolidated, centralized General Government, and threatens to employ all its powers and resources to the consummation of the single purpose of destroying this single species of property. When this shall be done, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must be involved in common ruin
David Clopton, Secession Commissioner to Delaware - January 8, 1861.
The Nullification Act of 1828 by Andrew Jackson, started it all. South Carolina would suffer the most under the new tariff and convened Conventions in 1828 & 1832 to declare their intent to ignore the tariffs to the point of secession if need be.
Jackson responded and Congress passed The Force Act of 1832 which authorized Federal troops to enter any state that resisted the tariffs.
The problems of tariffs did not improve with time. Slavery issues exacerbated the political climate.
By 1851 locals were openly convening secessionist meetings at the "Milton Maxy House" on Craven Street Beaufort SC
which eventually became known as the "Secession House".
The election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency at the end of 1860 directly precipitated secession.
It is amazing that people try to seriously argue that something besides slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. The southern states themselves made it perfectly clear that northern interference with the slave states right to own slaves was the reason they left the Union. This is seen not only in the individual states declarations of secession but also in the work of the Secession Commissioners who were prominent men sent by the original seceding states to go to the border states and try and convince them to join the confederacy. The constant theme of the secession commissioners was that slavery must be protected.
Oh, for God's sake, John! You're using facts again! Have you no shame?
Slavery was the motive for secession. Yeah... OK... that's clear.
But, John! Nobody gives a shit about facts.
Let's talk about loyal slaves...
I'm sure that is coming.
Perhaps because it is true. The Civil War was the culmination of many complaints and hardships ( some very real, others imagined ) both economic & political,
Secession was a pet project in SC and a threat to the union for 30 years before the outbreak of the war in, where else but, South Carolina, Charleston, Fort Sumter.
Its nice when "facts" are "facts" ..... the kind which tell the complete story, the rest of the story and therefore are ...... completely genuine and factual .......
I realize some like their "facts" personally shaped and molded specifically to support their narrative du jour.
Carry on .....
Nice, 'facts' from a blog.......
You probably need to do more research.
The constant theme was 'state's right's' and SC ( and others) believed that State's Right's should supersede the overreach of the Federal government.
The only reason Lincoln's election became important was that he won the election without a single elector college vote from a Southern state, the first time that had happened.
Indeed, SC did not participate in the Federal election and Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in 10 southern states.
Lincoln only won 40% of the vote but carried the Electoral heavy states like PA and OH. Sound familiar?
I just chose something from one of the first sites that came up. I could tell by reading it that it was factual so I posted it.
First, let me say that I rely here on the excellent book Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War, by Charles Dew. It's a short but hard-hitting review of what these individuals did and who they were, and I recommend it highly to anyone curious about historical research on the Civil War. Block quotes are from his work, although much of it is in turn direct quotes of what the commissioners said and wrote.
Now, about those secession comissioners: as the states of the Deep South prepared to secede in late 1860 and early 1861 - and before the first shots were fired, at Fort Sumter - five Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) appointed 'secession commissioners' to advocate secession in other slave states. In Mississippi and Alabama the commissioners were selected by the governor, and were sent to EVERY other slave state in the Union. In the other three states, the state legislatures chose the commissioners; South Carolina and Georgia sent commissioners to nine and ten slave states, respectively (Louisiana only appointed one, to Texas).
All in all, over 50 men set out to encourage secession by other states. As the above should make clear, in everything they said and did they were acting in an official capacity as official representatives of their state governments. According to Dew,
In other words, these men were firmly in the mainstream of Southern politics and thought in 1860 and 61. As such, the arguments they chose to encourage other states to secede, and to explain why secession was so important to the south, should be extremely useful in understanding the mind-set of the secessionist movement. Be warned: as members of the white Southern elite, talking directly to other members of the white Southern elite, they did not use euphemisms or code words or double-talk.
The Mississippi and Alabama commissioners made up the first wave. While some states, such as South Carolina, clearly had overwhelming secessionst sentiment, in others (such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia) it was not nearly as clear how the legislature or people might vote on secession, if it came to that. What words, what arguments, were used, to convince them to see the secessionist light?
William Harris, a sitting member of Mississippi's Supreme Court, was that state's commissioner to Georgia. Here's part of what he said to the Georgia legislature:
Shortly afterwards, Alexander Handy, also a judge of Mississippi's highest court, had this to say to a Baltimore audience (the then-governor of Maryland, a pro-Union man, had refused to call the legislature into special session).
Not to be outdone, a pair of Alabama comissioners addressed the North Carolina legislature at almost the same time.
Following its vote for secession, South Carolina's appointed commissioners fanned out across the South as well. The commissioner to Florida was one Leonidas Spratt, a lawyer and newspaper publisher, who had actually launched a campaign to reopen the African slave trade. Here's what he had to say to the Florida secession convention:
The South Carolina commissioner to Texas was one John McQueen, also a lawyer and a former U.S. Congressman. In keeping with recurrent theme of invoking the horror of racial equality, he informed the Texas convention that 'Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children.'
Alabama's commissioner to Kentucy, Stephen Hale, a state legislator, focused his attention on Governor Magoffin because the Kentucky leislature was not in session. Hale's letter to Magoffin contained these sentiments:
Virginia was a prize ardently pursued by secessionists. As the most populous slave-holding state, its manpower and resources would be vital to a Southern Confederacy if it had to fight the Union (keep in mind that no shots had been fired at this point). Secession commissioners from across the Deep South converged on Richmond in February 1861 to adress the state convention on secession. One of them was John Preston of South Carolina, a former state legislator and famed orator. Here's what he had to say to persuade Viriginia to come over to the Confederate cause.
Aha! State's rights!
Are you from South Carolina? This is weird.
The states right that the slave states were interested in was the right to own human beings.
LOL.
You do realize that much of this supports my contention that South Carolina was indeed, immersed in talks of secession and holding regular meetings since 1851.
They were prepared.
Yes they sent commissioners to spread their fears of becoming marginalized by the north, where there was more money, more people and more electoral college votes.
The 4 way campaign of 1860 hurt Breckenridge by splitting the southern votes between himself, Bell and Douglas leaving the southerners to feel that secession was the only way they could have any hand in their own governance.
You are talking about the process of deciding to secede, you are not talking about the reason. The south feared , probably rightfully, that Lincoln and a republican administration would tighten the screws on slavery.
Your point of view on this is at best misleading.
And yours is the oversimplification of one of the most complex periods of our history.
The animus was long standing.
and for different reasons, is still standing.
It is a disservice to suggest that the south seceded for "states rights" .
Talk about simplification !
In a nutshell, the south seceded because they believed that the north was not going to allow slavery to thrive and expand in the future , including the near future, and the election of a president from the Republican Party in 1860 brought it to a head.
Here are a few of the relevant planks from the 1860 Republican Party platform.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Hardly. It clearly was a big part of the reason.
As SP has tried to get across to you the states rights debate had been going for some time before the Civil War. Heck, the debate still rages today for some. Many of the Southern states felt the federal government was taking away their rights and powers. Slavery just happened to be one of them.
Of course. History consists of vast movements.
That said... the proximate cause was slavery. Every "Declaration of Secession" said so. The Veep's famous "Cornerstone Speech" said so. There can be no doubt.
The other states were under no obligation to follow SC. They chose to. Quickly.
Yeppers, the rest of the Democratic South sure jumped aboard quickly, didn't they?
Not surprising, is it?
And then, after being handed a loss, they instituted Jim Crow laws to ease the pain of their defeat.
Cornerstone Speech :
Imagine my dismay when 3 days into the new school year, my straight A daughter got her first SC history question wrong when she correctly answered that George Washington was the father of our country and it's first POTUS
The course ( in Middle School ) was SC history, the correct answer, according to the Beaufort County SD was Jefferson Davis.
That was in the mid 90's.
And do not forget that Andrew Jackson was a slaver, who had as few as 9 and as many as 151 when his plantations were at their peaks.
His motivations and disagreements with SC and other states had nothing to do with slavery.
Yet every one of the secession declarations boils down to slavery.
Slavery just happened to be THE one that the vast majority of every one of the secession documents concentrate on. In particular, the SC declaration doesn't cite ANY other reason.
By the time they had reached the boiling point, all of the states involved, even Texas which only had slavery as a result of the people fleeing South Carolina that settled there,
had, as JR has so conveniently provided, been coached by the so called secession commissioners, so that they appeared to be of one mind and a cohesive unit.
You just cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
The Civil War was the result of decades of real & imagined insults to a class of white people who would duel at the drop of a glove, for their
imaginary gentility and honors.
You can't insert grievances that they didn't see fit to document. Years ago I read a book, which is still buried on one of my shelves, of the minutes of the SC secession convention. They spoke very little about anything other than slavery.
As was the Revolutionary war yet they did a damn good job of articulating their grievances.
Secession talks started in 1828 as a result of Andrew Jackson's Tariffs which were crushing to SC. Again in 1832 and Jackson replied by threatening military force.
SC caved to a deal in 1833 but were never happy about it and the state never recovered financially.
By 1851, secret meetings began in Beaufort SC and many of those who attended were presumably the Secession Commissioners but since they were conspiring to commit treason, there are no written records... until November of 1860 when the state government itself passed a resolution not recognizing Lincoln as the dully elected POTUS>
SC had not participated in the national election, which is also telling.
Wow!
That slavery was one of the main reasons is not in question. Never said it wasn't but it was not the ONLY reason and its disingenuous to intimate that it was.
That said, the REASONS that slavery was an issue were just as much or more economic than cultural. In the mid 1800's cotton was Americas leading export and production (picking) of cotton was inextricably attached to slave labor. I know it's cool in some schools to gloss over that reality and just talk about how abhorrent a practice slavery was. It certainly was but that's not even close to the .... rest of the story.
SC blew it by firing on Fort Sumter.
Had they not done that, Lincoln would have been hard pressed to come up with any reason to declare war on any state.
Lincoln was also in favor of leaving slavery in the states where it existed,( even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed 75% of the slaves )
but the small civil war ongoing in Bleeding Kansas since 1854, convinced him that expanding slavery into the territories and new states was not going to be allowed.
As it was, Jeff Davis declared war on the USA first. The USA never declared war on the South.
Since they didn't participate, they had no right to whine about the results.
I wonder whether SC and other Southern states pursued judicial remedies for some of their grievances during all those years of whining.
I remember from that book I mentioned that the Commissioners had an agreement about the Charleston Forts with Buchannan and the first chance they got, they reneged on it. SC took 2 Forts, the Federal Courthouse, Post office and Armory by force of arms and THEN demanded that Federal troops be removed from SC before negotiating. Buchannan basically told them that he had no intention of abandoning Federal property.
Some historians now say that Brown's raid on the U.S. Armory at Harpers Ferry should be considered the beginning of the Civil War - I assume by that, they mean the point at which it became inevitable.
I didn't 'intimate' anything. I'm merely stating what is clearly documented in the declarations. We can research the plethora of possible motivations but we should recognize that what came out of every state's conventions were treatises on their grievance about slavery.
I don't think that Lincoln was the one that declared war.
Buchannan wrote to the Commissioners after they took 2 of the 3 Forts in Charleston and informed them that the Congress would address their insurrection [declare war] and warned them that he intended to defend Ft. Sumter and other Federal buildings [property].
Buchanan, was useless as a POTUS, more so at the end of his Presidency ...
I didn't say you did.
Congrats and i'm clearly stating many folks depth understanding of the core causes of the Civil War is vacuous at best. I suspect due largely to partisan biases but perhaps also due to a lousy education.
Yep, its really too bad many many folks appear to just stop at the word "slavery" when it comes to understanding the Civil War.
Slavery was certainly a root cause but it was SOOOO much more complicated than just that.
Wow, that's a pretty harsh view. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Lol ... if you say so.
Here ya go !
"Schools across U.S. do a terrible job of ...... teaching" !
Some schools sure didn't do a good job with some . . . . . of their students !