Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers
The Washington Post ^ | 20 Oct 2010 | Kevin Sieff

Posted on 10/20/2010 8:19:20 AM PDT by Palter

A textbook distributed to Virginia fourth-graders says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War -- a claim rejected by most historians but often made by groups seeking to play down slavery's role as a cause of the conflict.

The passage appears in "Our Virginia: Past and Present," which was distributed in the state's public elementary schools for the first time last month. The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history. Virginia education officials, after being told by The Washington Post of the issues related to the textbook, said that the vetting of the book was flawed and that they will contact school districts across the state to caution them against teaching the passage.

"Just because a book is approved doesn't mean the Department of Education endorses every sentence," said spokesman Charles Pyle. He also called the book's assertion about black Confederate soldiers "outside mainstream Civil War scholarship."

Masoff defended her work. "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write," she said. "I am a fairly respected writer."

The issues first came to light after College of William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff opened her daughter's copy of "Our Virginia" and saw the reference to black Confederate soldiers.

"It's disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship," Sheriff said. "It concerns me not just as a professional historian but as a parent."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: black; blackconfederates; civilwar; confederate; dixie; godsgravesglyphs; history; historyeducation; soldiers; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last
To: Palter

Frederick Douglas reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels.”


121 posted on 10/20/2010 2:16:37 PM PDT by Rebeleye (retired veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Photobucket
122 posted on 10/20/2010 3:34:29 PM PDT by mojitojoe (Caractacus..or Bob if a boy & Boudicca if a girl....such hard decisions for dearie Snidely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Masoff defended her work. "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write," she said. "I am a fairly respected writer."

If you gotta say it yourself, you probably ain't ...

123 posted on 10/20/2010 4:25:46 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks Palter.
Virginia education officials, after being told by The Washington Post of the issues related to the textbook, said that the vetting of the book was flawed and that they will contact school districts across the state to caution them against teaching the passage.
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


124 posted on 10/20/2010 7:42:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

There were indeed black CSA and it would be in the 1000s. I have several books on it.

1000s just from southern Louisiana alone including their own companies...one from a mulatto community uptown.

it’s just a fact not meant to imply much of anything to me other than indeed a fair number did fight for the South or were in the employ of white soldiers too often in exchange for freedom...Bedford Forrest did this for a fair number.


125 posted on 10/20/2010 10:58:59 PM PDT by wardaddy (the redress over anything minority is a cancer in our country...stage 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

African Americans have a proud history of serving honorably in every war our country has fought.


126 posted on 10/20/2010 11:05:03 PM PDT by Private_Sector_Does_It_Better (If you like the employees at the DMV, post office, SS office... you'll love government healthcare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Excellent post.

Those who want to believe the CSA Army was “integrated” really ought to read some of the debates in the Confederate Congress in early 1865 over whether blacks should be “officially” allowed into the army or not.

With the CSA collapsing around them and Richmond besieged, the Congresscritters still managed to work themselves up into a frenzy over the importance of maintaining white supremacy and the peculiar institution unimpaired.

When they did finally pass a law (February 1865?) allowing slaves into the army, with the owner’s permission, largely as a result of a plea to do so from RE Lee, they were still unable to bring themselves to explicitly guarantee freedom to the soldiers.


127 posted on 10/21/2010 5:06:12 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (You shall know the truth, and it shall piss you off mightily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: x
LOL to that....and publicly announcing your IQ as well ;-)
128 posted on 10/21/2010 6:51:10 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick; Palter
Walts Ice Pick: "By the 1860's, nearly everybody in the South had some African DNA. So, if you apply the old "one drop" rule, nearly everyone in the Confederate Armies was black."

A ludicrous claim, easily refuted by modern DNA studies.

The opposite is true, of course: nearly every African-American has some percentage of "white blood" -- also easily proved by modern DNA analysis.

129 posted on 10/21/2010 8:31:11 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots; Non-Sequitur
combat_boots: "This war was and is about who gets to make money off goods and how much they get to make.
I think that included sources of cheap labor.
I think Northerners wanted and encouraged the thought that freed slaves would be willing, cheap labor for canal and rail lines.
To call slaves ‘free’ was just lip service."

Pal, you've got some odd ideas rattling around in your brain.
Let's see if I can help clarify:

First of all, before the 1860 election, only a small minority of Northerners were truly anti-slavery.
The rest were happy to vote for the pro-slavery Democrats or "Dough-faced" & "moderate" Whigs.

Even in 1860, 60% of the US electorate voted for pro-slavery parties.
Only 40% voted for the anti-Slavery Republicans.

But how did even 40% vote Republican?
Did they somehow suddenly desire "cheap labor for canal and rail lines"?

No.
It was books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and the execution of John Brown at Harper's Ferry that galvanized America's conscience.
It was also the Sunday sermons in thousands of Northern churches over many years, even decades, which slowly, slowly focused Northern attention on the indefensible moral status of slavery.

Were politics involved?
Of course -- after all, Lincoln was a former railroad lawyer who promised Federal aid to build the Transcontinental Railroad.
But this had nothing to do with slavery, or the South.

Finally, it was the South -- not the North -- which seceded and which began shooting, so it's the South's motivations which matter.
That is especially so since Lincoln, along with most "moderate" Northerners, was fully prepared for slavery to continue, and die a natural death long term -- provided slavery was not allowed to expand into non-slave territories and states.

So why did the South secede?
Answer: because they could not tolerate the idea that slavery would become a dieing institution.
And the South's reasons were not just sentimenal longings to preserve their antebellum life-styles.

The immediate, focused reason was: only by expanding the territories, states and even other countries for legal slavery could the demand for, and therefore the prices of slaves be kept high and growing.

That's what the Civil War was all about.
The rest is just, well, blather.

130 posted on 10/21/2010 9:38:59 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“So why did the South secede?”

I go back to my original posting about the war being for control of the economic future of the country. I don’t have the stats at my fingertips anymore and congratulate you on having them.

But don’t call my ideas odd and expect me to back off. They come from way, way back in my lineage and reflect both the working man’s way of looking at CW I, mixed with a more elitist version provided by the winner’s version.

I don’t usually go into detail about myself, and certainly not on CW thread slugfests. I have my own version of how I see things, and it’s not like those opposed have not attempted to persuade me otherwise—all through my life.

I have both slavers and abolitionists in my background. The abolitionist end mostly won out, but I’m not fool enough not to see the parallels with what is still occurring in the US. I’ve looped around behind the States Rights movement, but I’m no Pickett and I’m bloody well dug in on my thinking.

You can have your opinions about who started the violence, but there were several different kinds, not all of which were physical. They’re still not, and we’re still in a slave society without calling it that. Color of skin isn’t the source by a long shot, and the slavers are Northern now mostly, as I see it.


131 posted on 10/21/2010 9:58:01 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
combat_boots: "I go back to my original posting about the war being for control of the economic future of the country."

Of course that's true, in a very general sense.
But there's no reason to be so general when the historical facts are clear and simple to understand:

Basically the Deep South, especially, saw the rise of Northern abolitionist anti-slavery Republicans in 1860 as a mortal existential threat to the prosperity and survival of their "peculiar institution" -- slavery.
That's why it was the South -- not the North -- which seceded.

But even though Republicans were the only abolitionist party (there were three others in 1860), their candidate, Abraham Lincoln, said nothing and promised nothing regarding abolition during the campaign.

Indeed, none of Lincoln's earlier anti-slavery remarks was "radical" enough to imply he intended to immediately abolish slavery in the South.

But what he had been adamant about was the North's refusal to allow slavery to expand into non-slave territories & states.
And that's what caused the Deep South to declare it's secession.

combat_boots: "But don’t call my ideas odd and expect me to back off. They come from way, way back in my lineage and reflect both the working man’s way of looking at CW I, mixed with a more elitist version provided by the winner’s version."

It might interest you to learn that I first heard a version of your ideas from a Marxist history professor, many, many years ago.
I thought it was nonsense then, and still do.

One problem is: it ignores the obvious -- the stated reason why the South seceded -- and it assumes what cannot be even demonstrated, much less proved.

So I keep it simple, and take our Civil War era ancestors at their own words, while ignoring Karl Marx's lunacies.

combat_boots: "You can have your opinions about who started the violence, but there were several different kinds, not all of which were physical.
They’re still not, and we’re still in a slave society without calling it that. Color of skin isn’t the source by a long shot, and the slavers are Northern now mostly, as I see it."

Of course, as long as you talk in broad generalities and vague metaphors (i.e., "slavers are Northern now"), then there's no way to disagree or discuss.
But if you ever decide to get specific, then I can help you learn the difference between historical facts and metaphorical fantasies.

;-)

132 posted on 10/22/2010 10:34:39 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Have your last word then.

I have my family’s history.

“historical facts”


133 posted on 10/22/2010 2:35:34 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
combat_boots: "we’re still in a slave society without calling it that."

combat_boots: "I have my family’s history."

Pal, we all have our family histories, some more exotic than others... ;-)

But none can possibly justify your claim that "we're still a slave society."
That is pure hyperbole and metaphorical exaggeration, at best.

At worst, it's Marxism -- which I would hope you are not suggesting, here on Free Republic.

:-)

134 posted on 10/23/2010 3:34:55 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Ah.........

And here I was thinking you were merely wanting to insult me & my family.

“we’re still a slave society”

No. I’m quite conservative.

What I meant was in reference to 1) being wage slaves; 2) the practice in the last 40 years, anyway, of paying out golden parachutes and obsene compensation/bonuses/options & stock to executives, which serves to divide people working at the same corporation into castes; and 3) the job environments of companies like Appe, Microsoft, etc., which pride themselves on ‘campuses’ that are more like plantations.

I view these business practices as the wholesale adoption of a slave mentatlity in practice by (usually) Northern corporate interests. The North may have won CW I, but it nevertheless liked the profit margin.

Having come from a family of small businessmen, these are just my observations over the course of my own working life.

And no, I don’t mind the guy/gal at the top making a lot of money.


135 posted on 10/23/2010 6:15:55 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Docbarleypop

I suspect it’s a corruption of “hoi toide,” which is an almost stereotypical example of the Virginia Tidewater accent (”hoi toide = hig tide for the unfamilar).

It’s emblematic of the landed gentry and the wealth of Virginia going back to colonial times, when religious dissenters settled in the Shenandoah Valley and beyond into what became West Virginia, with the Anglican establishment (literally the Established State Church) east of there.

It’s odd and fascinating, what a regional, dialectical term can tell you sometime, isn’t it?


136 posted on 10/23/2010 7:09:16 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

just seen this mentioned on FOX.
There are many reports of union soldiers saying in their memoirs and reports that they were surprised to see blacks fighting WITH the confederacy.
Nathan Bedford forest was another one who had blacks fighting along side him.


137 posted on 11/12/2010 5:17:07 AM PST by manc (Homosexuality is a mental disorder as is liberalism. Anyone supporting this needs mental help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: central_va

surprised I was not pinged to this. Anyway just seen this on FOX and they had this guy on saying it is all a myth.
Hell will these people wake the hell up and understand there are many reports, memoirs out there which reads the union soldiers were surprised to see blacks fighting with the south.

Of course the guy saying it was a myth got round the fact that there were blacks fighting for the south by saying they were involved in the war effort for the south but they were not soldiers , a claim a poster has made on here time and time again


138 posted on 11/12/2010 5:21:52 AM PST by manc (Homosexuality is a mental disorder as is liberalism. Anyone supporting this needs mental help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va

EXACTLY, case closed.
It really grates some that there were blacks fighting for the south, even today some blacks fly or have no problem with the rebel flag and yet some white do gooding liberal fools have a being problem with it


139 posted on 11/12/2010 5:25:19 AM PST by manc (Homosexuality is a mental disorder as is liberalism. Anyone supporting this needs mental help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

LOL.
Had to do a search on this to see if it were mentioned on here as I have just heard about this on FOX.


140 posted on 11/12/2010 5:33:40 AM PST by manc (Homosexuality is a mental disorder as is liberalism. Anyone supporting this needs mental help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson