Teaching Civil War Era –To Judge or Not To Judge

Beginning a syllabus with a opinionated quote is not the best way to start a syllabus. At the start of a course, students may not have enough background information to form their own opinions or to recognize the bias in a quote. However, once a student has adequate background information here is nothing wrong with choosing a side and defending it. History is more than just mere facts, and debate is an important part of its study.

I think by starting the course with a quote like this we as students could react two ways: either automatically take the side Douglass, or be sparked by the underlying conflict of those words. In my previous history classes we were always challenged by both viewpoints in order to make our own moral judgement about conflicts. This quote could be seen as controversial because of its ovbious bias, but should also spark an interest in us to explore the details which this quote simplifies and make our minds up for ourselves.

Douglass’s quote is heavily biased, immediately placing blame on the Confederacy. Being an advocate for the abolishment of slavery, Douglass would obviously construe the basis of the Civil War as slavery, just as figures today focus on one aspect that supports their cause while ignoring other relevant facts. While the quote holds bias, it is not necessarily a bad one to start with because it incites such controversy. Being a student of history, I am instantly intrigued to dig deeper. Knowing already that the waning political power the South possessed compared to the rapidly increasing power of the North was a large factor leading to secession, I can rule out the assertion that the American Civil War was clear cut between liberty and slavery. On a final note, because I am beginning to think this sounds more like a rant than a response, I feel that this quote puts what many high school history classes teach in a nutshell, that being the South supported slavery and was wrong and the North was against slavery ans was right. Thought provoking way to start off what looks to be an interesting semester.

Beginning the Civil War Era history course with such a bias quote is dangerous. If students fail to understand the quote’s context and the quoted person’s background information, they acquire an incomplete and partisan perspective of the disputes of the Civil War. However, by discussing and further exploring the quote, as we are so doing, students gain a more thorough understanding of the arguments the American people experienced during the Civil War era. What did each side believe and why? Why did someone like Frederick Douglass, or even someone who was not a former slave, perceive the war, and the South, in such a way? How did the two opposing sides perceive each other’s objectives? In accordance to Faragher’s statement, written history is ultimately a variety of different perspectives on the same historical facts. As I learned in History 204, each historian collects and arranges the facts in a dissimilar way, therefore one is reading a historian’s own personal interpretation of the facts. Furthermore, although the goal in historical writing is to achieve objectivity, subjectivity is inevitable. So, although it may seem unwise to begin a class with a quote from one side of the argument, by examining its meaning, context, and background, it is safe to say it effectively introduces the controversies regarding the Civil War in a throught-provoking way. Also, the use of Douglass’s quote gives the students an immediate and initial understanding of where the professor’s opinion lies since it was he or she who chose the quote and to print it on the syllabus.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.?