Why Schools Fail To Teach Slavery's 'Hard History'

The shame of supporting the institution of slavery is one this nation will never live down. It has been a blot on our reputation from the start. However, teaching the history, including all the terrible actions taken to secure that institution should absolutely be taught, in full detail. Perhaps then we can more fully understand the impact of slavery in today's society. For those who cry" It's been over 150 years, get over it" I would suggest reading any in-depth article on intergenerational trauma. That condition exist, and is very relevant even today. Here is a link to one report, generated for our indigenous citizens, true, but could apply to our slavery decedents as well.
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/get-download/?dtd=8897

If we as a society cannot understand our past, we certainly cannot improve our future on this issue.

Not surprised, coming from NPR. Let's take the "banner" question:

"Which was the reason the South seceded from the Union?

a. To preserve states' rights

b. To preserve slavery

c. To protest taxes on imported goods

d. To avoid rapid industrialization

e. Not sure"

I'm not a PhD in history, but I fancy myself somewhat "educated" regarding American history. In my opinion, these multiple choice answers bear some further scrutiny. Obviously, the only answer the test (and NPR apparently) deems correct is "B". Certainly, this was the case, and is a "correct" answer (even former Confederate Colonel John Mosby confirmed this in his famous letter of 1907).

However, Mosby himself more eloquently explains the complexity, division and difficulty in understanding why secession proceeded than I ever could:

"...Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance – Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates & cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of Slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding. . . . I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery – a soldier fights for his country – right or wrong – he is not responsible for the political merits of the cause he fights in. The South was my country."

Mosby didn't want to "sugarcoat" the truth regarding slavery as the cause for secession...but so too, he provides the context that makes at least four of the five offered "answers" arguably "correct", provided they are fully explained. "A" is correct if you consider that it was the Federal government's intention to override state legislatures against slavery. "D" is correct if you consider that the prevailing economy of the South depended on slave labor (though yes, it did in some capacity up North as well). "E" is correct if you presume that many Confederate soldiers fought not for slavery, or state's rights, or anything more than a sense of regional loyalty, and may have had little to no broad understanding of what they were fighting for beyond hearth and home.

If you want to go to further "extremes", even "C" has some basis in truth, considering the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861, which essentially favored industrialization through the taxation of imported goods (something we see much differently today of course.)

It is obvious the test writers were aware of these arguments, and rather than seeking to fully transmit an understanding of the issues, sought to promote a "rote" view of history.

Don't misunderstand me; (presumably) like my Civil War ancestor...a Southern farmer who wore Union blue and died in a CSA prison camp...I consider slavery and the prevailing evil of it, the great cause of the loss of over half a million American lives during the War...and countless more in centuries before. However, I cannot understand why more than a century and half later, we're still looking for a modern "bogey-man". "Reconstruction" destroyed whatever remained of the South's economy post-war. Not only slaveholders, but subsistence farmers (even some who fought for the Union) lost much, if not everything. Whole communities (including the one I currently reside in) were uprooted and replaced with Northern industrialists, their families, and fortunes over the following twenty years. Former Confederates realigned themselves with the ideas of "re-unification", at least one senior CSA general (Longstreet) even went so far as to lead troops against white-supremacists in Louisiana. For better and worse, the "Ante-Bellum" South was erased.

The following disgraces of Segregation, "Jim Crow" and opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came not from 19th Century ideas on slavery, but 20th Century bigotry, resentment and fear exacerbated as much, if not more by the economic and social impacts of Reconstruction as the over-romanticized view of the Confederacy. They were similarly defeated not only by enlightened views from outside former slave holding states...but the strong sense of unity between Southerners of all races, who share a common cultural bond.

I agree that we should teach students that the Civil War was not precipitated by some "alternate" and potentially "noble" cause compared to slavery. However, we should also avoid presenting the previous four centuries of our nation's history as steeped only in exploitation and genocide. Tests like this one appear to be suppressing any critical thought, and I can only hope the 92% of these students who "didn't get it right" are more intelligent than NPR assumes them to be.

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel I've not seen this post, thanks Chip.