Even though my fellow teachers have to teach the same curriculum, essential learnings, and key terms as myself, how we teach them is still very different at times. What we emphasize, downplay, and even sometimes outright ignore differ from one to another. Obviously, we have a responsibility to teach history without bias. But we are human beings and formulating perceptions is what we do on a daily basis. So our biases become a part of us and inform us. Cognitive Dissonance does not always take place and allow for the expansion of thought. I have noticed several topics of the Civil War that indeed are un-evenly taught out here in my school district. Here are some of them:
Was Lincoln the “Great Emancipator?” – Kevin recently posted a nice description of what he does at his school; I envy him as the only way I could do what he does would be in what we call an AP (Advanced Placement) class. I teach general history at this point in my career. Depending on one’s line of thought, Lincoln can be portrayed as a political animal who only did what he had to do when he had to do it. We know the quotes well – Lincoln says he would not free a slave if it meant saving the Union, ect. Words are to be respected by teachers and historians, I think, but also their context and the speaker’s intentions. This leads us to interpretation where bias can skew our perception. I tend to portray Lincoln as a progressive who clearly through out his life saw slavery as an evil, a sin. Lincoln was also a politician who as president was sworn to protect the constitution; first and foremost. We know all of the delicate issues with the border states, ect. I see Lincoln as a great “thinker” who was always thinking ahead and knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that slavery would have to end, and it just took him a while to be able to bring that agenda around. Yes, the 13th Amendment ultimately freed the slaves, but for me, Lincoln has to be a part of this discussion.
Blacks involvement in their own “Emancipation.” – Too easy to not cover this well enough. I had one student who after noting that in some regions in the South where slaves out-numbered the whites, asked me why didn’t they rise up? For some reason, I stumbled around and offered a less than desired explanation. His intent was to point out that Blacks seemed incapable of emancipating themselves in most cases. This was a discussion that does not always happen. It’s one thing to go over Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, but another to provide information showing how Blacks did indeed start to take the initiative and free themselves.- Sherman’s March to the Sea as “Total War.” – This is still alive and well in most schools. Not just the misconception about “total war,” but also that Sherman’s men committed atrocities on Southern citizens was wide spread. Obviously there was some of that, but not on the scale that some teach. Also, as we now know, it was not total war. Grimsley’s “hard war” is the obvious choice here.
- That the improved technology along with stagnant tactics was the main cause for the high casualties. – After reading Gerald J. Prokopowicz, “Our Hearts were Touched with Fire: Men who Fought the War,” in Aaron Sheehan-Dean’s “Struggle for a Vast Future,” who wrote that the social makeup of the armies was most likely the root cause of the high casualties. Also, Patty Griffith’s essay, “The Infantry Firefight,” in “Civil War Soldier: A Historical Reader,” who really does a nice job questioning the technology theory that rifled guns lead to high casualties. I do not emphasize technology as much, but instead the social makeup of the armies and the soldier’s reasons for fighting as the main factors.
These were just a few of the “major” topics of the war that seem to be taught differently from teacher to teacher.
Chris, — I always get that question of why slaves in certain parts of the Deep South did not rise up. It’s an obvious question. A couple of ways to approach it is to ask the student to think more broadly about different forms of protest. Perhaps sabotaging equipment, working at a slower pace, etc. is one way to proceed. The other point to make is to suggest that the relatively few violent insurrections reflectes the extent to which white Southerners went to control their slave populations. Isn’t it amazing that we get paid to talk about these issues?
Good points, I was indeed caught off guard when I should not have been. It is an obvious question that I somehow did not consider an answer that a 16 yr old would understand. I am going to be better prepared next time. I think it is an injustice to portray Southern Blacks as helpless.
One thing I think I do a decent job of is using primary sources from White soldiers from the North as they arrive in the deep South and see slavery first hand; their writings at times are really a good opening to some interesting discussion.
Also, the White soldiers amazement of the fighting quality of Blacks, especially at Fort Blakely – which is one of the few fights that involved a large contingent of Blacks that I know something about.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts!
I am sure you are aware of Chandra Manning’s new study of Civil War soldiers which includes a great deal of material on just this issue.
I believe I read once that Lincoln’s lifelong hatred of slavery stemmed from his trip as a young adult to New Orleans. He saw the slave auctions and the inhumane treatment accorded the slaves.
Of course, as you point out, Lincoln was above all a political animal. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t pursue Emancipation sooner, but he strongly believed that it had to occur at the proper time.
To judge Lincoln in the context of modern times is absolutely wrong. His critics must understand the political and volatile nature of his era before they can judge him.
Thank you.