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 ...
Is reply 79 direct enough for you?
Oh. Well, in brief.....
On my dad’s side, people ran to W Va. The guy there was in the cavalry. They lost everything. Where they went to was ignored as a part of the post-CW economy. Small farmers, small businessmen, miners, facotry workers came out of that line of the family mostly, and they turned into hill folk, having been property owners previously.
On my mom’s side, the guy fought for the North. That side of the family were and continued to become professionals. They owned intellectual and political capital. It shows all through the ancestry and my own upbringing.
If you look at the Mason-Dixon line, you’ll see the disparity arising from which parts of what states got developed after CW I. My lineage illustrates perfectly how that split took human form.
The basis for industrialization posed a threat to the South, yes, but who owned the transport and supply lines was the key. We all know the rest, but the human cost of that has a lineage, too, like that in my own family. One side was hoy toy and the other not. The hoy toy side was and is Northern.
Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about evolution being taught in our schools.
I forgot to mention that I still have Southern relatives. I think of them as colonizers mostly, as they’re the hoy toy types.
We have crossed paths on this subject many times. I think it fair to say that you would feel that all CSA soldiers were "illegal" since the war itself, in the mind of many, was an act of treason.
Soldiers win WWII or any other war who filled those roles were, at the end of the day, soldiers. Enlisted as such, treated as such, and paid as such. Blacks who filled these roles for the rebel army had no legal status and were not considered soldiers at all. Not until 1863, when blacks were authorized to be enlisted as musicians, or 1864, when blacks were authorized to be enlisted as laborers working on fortifications and military construction, did they achieve any official standing. And, of course, March 1865 when they were finally authorized as combat soldiers.
True. But strictly from the confederate viewpoint, blacks did not serve legally as combat soldiers until March of 1865.
I should mention, too, that while there are those who contend that “The South actually won the war” (I had one of those as a prof), the actual economic development of the South and its people was simply raided and cut off like a huge piece of granite after CW I in the Reconstruction. We know what happened there. It was pure revenge. Against all comers.
And that I blame on federalism. As far as I am concerned, the Statists won.
“Why is this still an issue? Historical fact is just that - historical facts.”
Because the true socialist progressive agenda is carefully hidden. Facts just get in the way of the agenda. Perception is everything, fact is inconvenient.
You’re talking about post-rebellion. If the war was indeed all about economic control of the U.S. then there should have been something prior to the war indicating that, shouldn’t there? So how was the North imposing economic control over the South or vice-versa?
It's just that they didn't all know it, or acknowledge it.
What happened to your famous "None of the above" answer? LOL
I look at as part of the Rebellion, not post. I am thinking of the development of canals & the rail lines, roads and regional cities.
My thoughts point to the cotton gin and the stern wheeler, along with the development of the Erie Canal and subsequent rail (and paved) roads, which follow them. Also, I think of the tit for tat of the Compromise of 1850 as just one more example of the back & forth in American politics that continues to this day. People were fed up with
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.
My opinion anyway.
We are getting off track of the original contention of the article, which was they wanted the section in the text regarding black CSA soldiers removed because they contend it is false.
It is not "false" per se, but rather makes what may be a contentious claim as to the number.
The statement: "African Americans served in uniform on the side of the CSA."
Is a true statement, as you have now acknowledged.
When given nothing but asinine selections to choose from then I'll take 'None of the above' every time. That was not the situation in this particular case.
True.
It is not "false" per se, but rather makes what may be a contentious claim as to the number.
I would agree with that as well.
The statement: "African Americans served in uniform on the side of the CSA." Is a true statement, as you have now acknowledged.
It is, and I acknowledge it.
Who are the usual subjects?
Excellent articles. Thank you!
Who do you think? Want to predict what the answer would be if either of us asked to subscribe to his e-zine?
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.