Comments on: Teaching Civil War Era –To Judge or Not To Judge

By: Mark Douglas

Mark Douglas — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:58:07 +0000

Teach the truth –tell how the Southern leaders for 40 years had pushed, by any means, slavery further and further. Teach how the South violently supressed freedom of speech and even control what religions could preach, from 1820 on.

Teach how Lee kept a “Hunting List” of slave girls in his own handwriting, for example, and paid six times the normal bounty to get one young girl back, who had a very light skinned child. He screamed at her while he had her tortured, then sold her infant for extra punishment, and a nice profit, since the child could pass for white.

Teach how Davis ordered all blacks ever freed to be re-enslaved “forever” and promised to enslave all the blacks in the North, and said he would reunite the nation as all slave states.

Teach how Southern leaders bragged that they were just the first nation to actually be FOUNDED on the “Holy Word” of God to enslave blacks. Other nations allowed slavery of different types — but only the SOUTH, they bragged, would do slavery according to God’s word, and enslave only the black race. They predicted the entire world would follow this Godly example, as surely as the world followed other great truths, like Galileo and Adam Smith.

We have hid all the vile truth about the South, which is a huge mistake.

Teach about the insane demands by the South, after seven states seceded — the “Five Ultimatums” as reported in the Richmond Newspaper of March 23, 1861. Each of the five ultimatums were about slavery — specifically, to SPREAD slavery. Incredibly, they issued an ultimatum that Lincoln would have to SPREAD slavery into the territories.

This was an ultimatum to the USA from the CSA. It was not an ultimatum the insisted on to remain in the Union — it was what they demanded for them not to go to war. Spread slavery into the territories — by force, or the South would go to war.

This is like HItler issuing an ultimatum for USA to attack Britan, or he would attack USA.

But it made perfect sense to the Southern Leaders who issued the ultimatum.

Its time we taught the truth about the Civil War, and the period of terror and violence leading up to it.

This politically correct nonsense about teaching “both sides” is a farce. Both sides? Teach the truth.

By: Michael Hait

Michael Hait — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:50:07 +0000

One question that no one seems to be asking, but that appears to be at the center of this question, is whether or not presenting a biased quote — which Douglass’s statement obviously is — necessarily implies the bias of the historian.

In my opinion, as historians we are required to present the facts objectively, that is, to not purposely misrepresent or withhold facts to support any bias that we may hold. Clearly, presenting a quote like this and implying that it is representative of anything other than the opinion of one man would be misrepresenting and withholding facts. However, if the quote is presented in context of who Frederick Douglass was and why he may have believed as he did, does this remove an accusation of bias on the part of the historian?

In shorter terms, does “unbiased” necessarily equal “present all sides”?

In keeping with the example here, is it really necessary to balance Douglass’s statement with quotes from the leadership of the Republican party, the leadership of the (loyal) Democratic party, the leadership of the secessionists, the leadership of both militaries, poor Southern non-landowners, the Southern yeomen, women on both sides of the conflict, free blacks on both sides of the conflict, etc.?

By: mike mo

mike mo — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:03:35 +0000

Its interesting to see how this post has generated a large amount of discussion.

By: G. Mazzoli

G. Mazzoli — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:05:06 +0000

At first glance, I must admit that I gave this Douglass quote fairly little thought. Only after Prof. Pinsker brought the statement into question did I realize that careful consideration was needed, as Douglass is heavily biased. What can I attribute this to? Most certainly it would be the fact that I was born and raised in New England, taught history in a Northern school system, and have essentially been conditioned to think that the North won the Civil War, and to believe that the South was absolutely wrong in seceding from the union. Only recently have I discovered that those from the South are taught to consider the Civil War in a different light.
So is it wrong to begin a Civil War class, which by nature should be as objective as possible, with a biased quote like this? I don’t believe so. Frederick Douglass was one of the premier intellectuals of that time, and has every right to echo his sentiments about the frustrations of Jim Crowe laws. After all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just as we will likely find from different authors on the same subject throughout the course. I do think that using this quote right from the beginning is an effective teaching tool in that it forces students, like me, to think in a different way than they ordinarily would. I realized that I must try to leave all my preconceived notions about this war behind, in order to fully understand its impact from all angles. Although I may agree with Douglass’ statement, it is important to realize that it is dangerous to make a war as large as this into two clear-cut sides. Perhaps using this quote puts the Professor at danger of conveying a bias of his own to the class, but I think the discussion that it sparked was an important step in learning the history of the Civil War.

By: tkacyon

tkacyon — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:52:30 +0000

I believe that by starting the syllabus with this quote was neither wrong nor right. It was a way to challenge us to think about what we knew of the civil war and to show us that there are different sides and view points about the war, and that it was not only about slavery. Sure, picking this quote is slightly controversial, but there are also probably a number of a quotes that are more suggestive than this one. For me, the quote means that Douglass truly believe the war was just about the south wanting to keep slavery and that it fought to succeed from the Union in order to keep it. But, it also means, there are more reasons- underlying and surfaced reasons- that this war came about.

By: Tim Smith

Tim Smith — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:51:44 +0000

It is clear that starting the course off with Douglas’ quote was designed to be controversial. It is certainly hard to discredit what Fredrick Douglas had to say about the horrors of slavery, but in this case I think it serves as a warning to the way we go about looking at this issue. All of the experience I have had studying the Civil War has revolved around the institution of slavery and the Southern States’ supposed desire to preserve it by destroying the Union. But there is clearly more to it than that. Our first class was the first time that I really thought about the virtues of the Southern States – not for slavery obviously – but for the characteristics for which they proudly, and in many cases rightfully, fought and the country we would see today if some of those were still a part of who we are.
The danger of starting off with a quote like this one, especially from someone so passionate and widely respected, is that it could close our minds off to the other side. Throughout grade school, at least from the standpoint of someone educated in the northeast, the impression has been that the North was good and the South was bad. This comes from seeing only the issues of slavery and the destruction of the Union, but this is inconsistent with a liberal arts education.
I think that this was a good way to start off the course because of the warning that it does convey. By reading the bitterly harsh words of Fredrick Douglas, a man who is so widely respected today, we cannot help but be alarmed. It makes me realize how much more there is to the story and it serves as a motivator to look at the South in a different way – unlike any positive quote about the South probably could.

By: Takehiko Takahashi

Takehiko Takahashi — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:51:32 +0000

I believe having Douglass’s quote at the top of the syllabus is a good way to begin this course. One reason is the timing of this quote, which was almost thirty years after the surrender at Appomattox. Douglass’s quote is a reflection which reveals that even after three decades, emotions between both sides were still high. Many veterans of the war on both sides remained adamant about their positions and reasons for fighting. Former CSA President Jefferson Davis maintained up until the day he died that the South’s course of action during the war was the correct one. The fact that Douglass’s quote contains bias should not be an issue so long as we analyze the quote and even challenge it with data and statistics from the time period. By challenging the quote, I do not mean to say that Douglass’s remarks are wrong but instead that it is our task to view the other side before deciding which side/argument has more credibility.

By: KN

KN — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:02:54 +0000

I agree with Cameron – I think that starting the course with such a powerful quotation is a good idea but I certainly understand why some may find it too powerful or too bias for potentially setting a precedent at the very beginning of the semester. I think the quotation is appropriate because although it is one persons opinion, it emphasizes a point of view that was held by plenty of people during the period. I think that all history is bias in some way or another depending on who is presenting the information. Of course it is important to consider history objectively, but being objective comes from evaluating different points of view – like Frederic Douglas’s. I think if anything, the quotation urges us to be critical and cautious when evaluating different peoples opinions regarding the war.

By: obrienbr

obrienbr — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:36:43 +0000

Why can’t a history class incite a controversial debate? I believe that it is the teacher’s job, especially in a history class, to get students thinking and discussing the opposing sides of a topic like this. As long as we are aware of the bias in the sources we look at, there is no harm in studying them. We form our opinions based on both sides of the argument.

By: KTC

KTC — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:19:53 +0000

I disagree with Faragher that history is ultimately a moral art. Being moral to one can be immoral to the others. We can argue that the A-bottom massacred Hiroshima, but at the same time we can say it saved thousands of American soldiers. History class should pursue a relative objectiveness rather than preaching an opinionated morality. This quote on the syllabus is meaningless to history students if it solely meant to make students take pity on Douglass and condemn slavery. However, the quote is useful if it meant to reveal the hidden controversy of the story. Since the instructor mentioned such controversy in class, this quote is therefore a good one.