I audited a history class just for fun because I love it so much. What an awesome instructor. We were studying the American colonies, reading American Colonies: The Settling of North America. The professor had been a freedom fighter in Nicaragua. He talked about the looming threat of the USA in Latin America. I loved him. I imagine half of other students didn’t care, but I was so happy.
This was in California. My American history teacher was a confederate defender. Marked it partial credit to say the Civil War was fought over slavery. Full credit for the answer “states rights.” Fully wrong when I said “states rights for its citizens to own people like property.” His ignorance was astounding even to my 17 year old self. When I recognized the joke I was dealing with, I treated the class like a joke.
Mr. Angle, I remember you and your bullshit.
I mean bros last name was Angle. He was destined for failure
Explain Kurt Angle then!
He bent the other direction.
Mr Angle sounds obtuse
did the news write it as “angel”? or is that a british thing
Probably a tiny town thing when that happens,wiith some dude that looked like Bond owning the grocery store. Hah like anyone that could play Bond just owning a store in a small town staffed with the Mountain, just having a laugh now. Next thing I’ll hear is the angel dude is Scotty…did look like a lovely town mind you. I could go for a Cornetto. Think it was pretty similar to what my dad used to buy me as a treat growing up in Canada many many moons ago now.
I guess his perspective on history was at a wrong “Angle” haha
He’s right though, the core issue was state vs federal sovereignty over internal matters which apart from slavery (yes, the biggest issue) also included tariffs and infrastructure investment (oh how times don’t change)
When you frame it that way you make it sound like slavery was not the most pressing factor on everyone’s mind.
If this was unintentional, go read either speeches from the time or the declarations of succession from the southern states.
Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.
- Alexander H. Stephens, VP
An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution … For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
- South Carolina’s declaration of succession
Slight correction: secession, not succession.
That is all. Good work.
I literally said slavery was the biggest issue, but good to see you read straight past that
This is lost cause propaganda. The confederacy split because of slavery first, every thing was a later justification. The first usage of the term “states rights” wasn’t until after the war was over.
Not that bringing this up in isolation to other facts isn’t propaganda, an encroachment onto the rights of the state of South Carolina was their stated reason for seccession.
Were the rights they were upset over racist? Absolutely. Were they contradictory? Well, it calls out the fugitive slave act explicitly, so in my opinion, another yes.
They were always racist pieces of shit. However! The states’ rights argument has been there since the near beginning. A right to support a horrific tragedy, but still, let’s be factual in our contempt. There really is no need to embellish when the evidence is already that damning.
He was not. The confederates said exactly why the started the war in their declarations and it was, in fact, slavery.
There was no formal declaration of war, what declarations are you referring to?
Different person, but I would assume that they meant each of the state’s declarations of secession. Which, yeah, didn’t really mince words.
These? https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
I agree they are clear and don’t mince words. They are centered on state vs federal government rights due to:
- slavery
- tarrifs
- manufacturing
- postage/shipping costs
- federal govt not upholding protection responsibility for Texas
- states reclaiming sovereignty when constitution is broken
Unless your state wanted the right not to have slavery, the Confederacy wouldn’t allow that
Union states with slavery reading this o_0
Edit: People who think the war was over slavery miss the lesson to learn that is still prevalent today. It was about control over congress, the southern states are still trying to force the system to give them wins every time.
All the conservative ones go to teach in the south.
Source: grew up being taught history in the south, including that the civil war wasn’t over slavery.
Yup. (Formerly) Southern professor. Some of them infect the college level with their bullshit.
Ahh, so they didn’t study history
OP already said they were conservative
With cuts to funding and training, few teachers in the south actually studied the subjects they teach. Or education for that matter.
My source is that I pulled it out of my ass based on shit I read online, though.
My AP chemistry teacher (in suburban Atlanta) had a doctorate… in divinity or some shit like that, not chemistry. Pretty sure she still got the extra salary they gave to teachers with Ph.D’s, though.
She wasn’t actually bad at the subject matter, though, but her “classroom manner” wasn’t the best. My most vivid memory of her was her yelling “whaddya, stupid?!” in a thick Boston (or NYC?) accent at a student who answered a question particularly egregiously wrong.
I recall a junior high school science teacher in suburban Houston telling us that if you sneeze three times and nobody blesses you, the devil takes your soul. I guess it could have been tongue-in-cheek; it’s been a long time. But, having never heard it before, it always struck me as a strange thing for a science teacher to say.
I’m in the south. My history teachers were actually track coaches, football coaches, gym teachers. One of my literature teachers was a wrestling coach.
In the south, teachers have second jobs as teachers.
can confirm. i graduated in the late aughts and was taught (by my ap us history teacher no less) that the civil war was absolutely not about slavery. He did the whole ‘it was about state’s rights!!’ thing.
The civil war was about who was supposed to govern the area. It was very slow burning, but the snapphanar was more like a militia than ordinary bandits. Now they probably would be classified as terrorists. Ive never heard anyone say it was about slavery, afaik there where no conflict between the south, the swedes nor the danes about slavery.
Or did you mean another civil war?
C’mon, don’t be obtuse. You know full well that they’re referring to The Third Servile War of the Roman Republic, 73-71 BCE, led by Spartacus.
Ooo that was my favorite
Congrats on managing to figure it out by the end 👍
the civil war wasn’t over
slavery.They were kind of right.
I grew up in Texas and was taught the American Civil War was over slavery, and my husband grew up in Iowa and was taught that war was over state’s rights. This was thirty years ago, but at least then the narrative split didn’t have any neat north/south distribution.
I grew up in the south and we were taught the civil war was fought over slavery.
My little part of Florida didn’t go full retard until after I left in 1994.
Honestly very much not my experience unfortunately. It’s amazing how many “dudes into hisstory” are swept in by most stories generals and dictators told people about themselves.
Like yeah was the Slaver general really a “good Christian man”, no he was an asshole, who nearly died shitting in the woods like the rest of the world.
So many people romantisize the Roman empire but in reality that was after it really went to shit for most people. ( Which is really hyped by “great man history” problem in which people latch onto specific names and figures instead of actually considering that in reality it was the choices of millions and the circumstances they found themselves in that mattered WAY more then what one dude said to his friends, senator/etc or not)
No the Americas wasn’t a “virgin” new land ripe for the takening. Totally undeveloped or unexplored. The forests weren’t just bustling full of game and food suspiciously safe for people to eat for no reason.
John Brown reaction to slavery is actually pretty fucking reasonable. Both because it should make you sick to your stomach to see it but also the assholes who did it shot and killed some of his familey.
Etc, etc.
So many people romantisize the Roman empire but in reality that was after it really went to shit for most people.
It’s the same for Sparta. 95% of its people were slaves and 5% were buff warrior dudes. People then idolize the 5% buff warrior dudes because of that movie “300”, and completely ignore that Sparta was a hellhole for most of the people that lived there.
Highly recommend David Graeber’s analysis on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years
Grossly oversimplifying here but ssentially massive empires like Rome were based on gold currencies, their prominence was during what Graeber calls the “Axial Age”. They coincided with massive suffering, but when they collapsed people went back to local debt-based systems of exchange. This was relatively much more humane. Then with the rise of colonialism we went back to gold, empires, and massive suffering again.
Reality has a liberal bias.
There are plenty of right-wing or outright Nazis who are history teachers, Björn Höcke is just one of them.
*Bernd
The Bread?! D:
Citation?
Difficulty: Cannot be your IMAGINATION
It’s a very high stakes gamble in ex-USSR tho. If there is not enough niche schools of thought based on all shit that happened and then flipped backwards in a timeframe of just 20th century, with all kinds of opinions about these, you also have completely made up theories and conspiracy ideas, and states supporting some over others based on short-term vibes and their ongoing fluctuation. Your random teacher may be initially any kind of a normie or a niche nerd, but the nature of the subject, it’s cooption by all previous and current regimes, it’s connection to politics and military, and a lot of news of historians going crazy up to federal level makes it statistically unlikely you’d have someone without strong and explicit opinions about everything from the dawn of time up until now.
The real answer is that the right side of the political spectrum has lost many of the major conflicts in recent history (civil war, ww2, segregation) - though this is absolutely not true globally. Theres no way to know for sure but we may perceive history very differently if those conflicts had different outcomes. Ultimately, history is written by the victors.
By winning these conflicts “liberals” have been able to shape reality according to their vision but the problem is they’re so used to winning now that they’re not (ideological) battle ready and some conservatives are just itching for some big wins and the oppurtunity to drag us all back into the stone age.
Damn liberals!
(that’s on behalf of our Lemmyleft folks. They refuse to listen to why that’s wrong.)
deleted by creator
