Note: In response to reader comments, the author of this piece has written a follow-up post, What really caused the Civil War?
It looks like the cliché, “history is written by the victors” is not necessarily true in Texas. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using new social studies textbooks based on state academic standards that barely touch on the shameful history of racial segregation, do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws, and soften the role that slavery played in the US Civil War. A chapter on immigration in a high school textbook entitled, World Geography, even refers to African slaves as “workers.”
Why is the school board in Texas making these kinds of changes? What does this mean for these children and their understanding of our shared history?
The war that never ended
Ever since the Civil War ended in defeat and Radical Reconstruction was forced upon the South, conservatives in Texas and other Southern states have made a concerted effort to change the historical narrative from one of plunder and enslavement to one based on a noble and heroic campaign of self-defense against an oppressive central government.
This phenomenon is reflected in the recent uptick in use of the Confederate flag (whose symbolism of white supremacy directly influenced the Charleston church shooter Dylan Roof), in the scores of public monuments glorifying the deeds of Southern generals, and the popularity of Civil War reenactments (many of which carry a racist undertone). Now, it’s also reflected in the changes that boards of education are making to school curricula in these states.
Don’t mess with Texas—about slavery
In an example of what might be called “whitewashing,” the Texas State Board of Education’s (TBOE) guidelines for teaching lists “sectionalism, states’ rights, and slavery” (in that order) as the causes of the Civil War. Pat Hardy, a Republican member of the TBOE, stated, “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”
However, the declarations of secession for Texas and every other Southern state explicitly state that they were leaving the union to protect the rights of white citizens to own black slaves. The 1861 Declaration of Causes “which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union” articulates the darker agenda of “states’ rights”:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
These declarations and the scholarly consensus on slavery’s primary role in starting the Civil War leave little room for debate that our history books need to reflect the truth about slavery.
Texas gets a “D” in history
In shaping the state curriculum and history standards according to its political views, the TBOE has at best ignored the expertise of historians and scholars and at worst shown hostility and contempt for them.
The Fordham Institute’s The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011 points out that the TBOE consistently “distorts and suppresses less triumphal or more nuanced aspects of our past,” like slavery and segregation. Texas, whose history standards are given a rating of “D,” is particularly guilty of presenting a “politicized distortion of history” based on an “evangelical Christian right agenda promising to inculcate biblical principles, patriotic values, and American exceptionalism.”
David McCullough, a famous historian and two-time Pulitzer Prize–winning author, notes, “We’re raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.” Unfortunately, given the level of meddling by school boards in Texas and other states, it appears that our ability to discern historical truth from speculative fiction will only get worse in the coming years.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
More from this author: What really caused the Civil War?
Related articles on AvvoStories:
53 comments
Epistemology, The Civil War, Racism in America, The Scientific Method, Racism, Ideology
[…] I wrote in my previous post on this subject, there is a long established scholarly consensus among credible historians that […]
Derek Heuring
More tripe from an indoctrinated regurgitator of Liberal drivel. If you're interested in the facts read the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Joe Sellers
Couldn't agree more, Derek. If anyone tries to tell the WHOLE story of why the South fought the Civil war, and they include the facts regarding States Rights, they're vilified as racist. Very sad because the result of undermining States Rights was our country's first big leap toward the centralized, Big-Brother type government that our forefathers opposed.
Joe Marcom
I suspect this i just another load of "stuff" from those folks who made it their mission to obliterate Southern history and culture.
Factual, it is not. Every war has both a "noble cause" to use as an excuse for the bloodshed AND an actual reason which may not be so noble. Slavery was the perfect excuse for the War of Northern Aggression (aka Civil War), but the real reasons were many, and slavery was not the most important. What really mattered was whether we would continue to have a Federal government, with power dispersed among the states (see Article IX and X of the Bill of Rights) or a National government, with power concentrated in Washington DC. With Lincoln's death and Lee's surrender, the latter view prevailed; but it noteworthy that the issue remains unsettled to this day. Opposition to the de facto dictatorship in Washington increases daily. Another revolution is coming; it remains to be seen whether it is peaceful or not.
Johnny Flanagan
The answer is here: Read the Corwin Amendment, the first 13th Amendment passed by Congress in April 1861, and signed by President Lincoln and sent to the States for Ratification.
Josh
Need to do a fact check and not just depend on a Yankee point of view when it comes to the real reason(s) of the war of northern aggression. The South was attacked and beat down because they wanted out of the corrupt Union......still do!
Tim R
Strange, I didn't realize that school boards actually wrote the textbooks.
tjoe
I believe the "author" of this article needs to re-take American History 101. ( From a non-biased school )
Greg Kelsey
To say that the civil war was not about slavery would not be true. It just happened to be the key point of greivances the south had with the north. This while the north ignored the rule of law already in place. Moved in directions that circumvented prosperity for southern states that had slaves. And eventually gained enough power to change law. Sounds a lot like gay rights today. So I guess Texas schools should see the debate from a realistic view instead of a liberal view. Sorry Northern states. Cannot corrupt our children like you do in New York or Washington state. We will keep fighting until the end of time.
Morgan
To the author of this story... You sir, are an idiot!
WDTiffin
The author gets a D in history also. The Civil war was not about slavery but about Southern states seceding from the union. I hope it didn't take him to much time to write his article.
Chuck
PS. We in the South don't consider Texas as The South. Their BBQ is beef for gods sake!
Karen
This is an odd comment in my opinion. Texas was one of the earliest states to secede and join the Confederacy, and the Texas soldiers who fought in the war were heralded by Southern generals as being some of the bravest and most loyal of the Confederate soldiers. Not sure what state you live in or why you would want to dismiss Texas' Confederate heritage but the historical facts are pretty hard to deny.
Davis Maddox
This is possibly the most poorly written and biased article I have ever read. The fact that he blames the Confederate flag as a major factor in the church shooting is absolutely uncalled for and a rediculous accusation. Maybe if he read some actual history, not what is prescribed by the liberal government we have, he would see what the war was actually fought over. I'll fly my stars and bars proudly until the day I die because my family fought and died for it fighting for the rights of the south under an oppressive government. You have absolutely no clue how biased and ignorant you sound sir and you should receive no respect at all as a journalist. You disgust me.
Chris Carter
The thing that bothers Southernors is that history treats the North like an innocent bystander when it comes to slavery. Far from it. Northern ship captains regularly brought slaves back from Africa to the West Indies and North America. Slavery still existed in the North at the outbreak of the war and Julia Grant no less availed herself of a slave during the war. The North wasn't in the war to free the slaves any more than the French wanted to secure American independence during the American Revolution. To pretend otherwise is ignorance.
Tony
Do your homework. The civil war had nothing to do with slavery. It was about money and that of state's rights versus those of the federal government.
obammy
The south fought to preserve their rights. the union invaded the south and the southerners fought to protect their homes. the emancipation proclamation didn't happen until 1863, (the war started in 1860 for you millenials) and even then the purpose was to keep England and France out of the war.
dawson forest
Additionally, slaves were owned by very, very few Southerners. The cost for one prime field hand in current dollars is estimated between $80,000-$130,000.
dawson forest
Slavery was seen as one of many issues states were given the constitutional right to decide. The war WAS fought over State's Rights which included slavery, but NOT only slavery. The bigger issue was congressional representation, or lack thereof for the less populated South. Yes, the South wanted to keep Slavery...duh! But it was only part of the reason and anyone who thinks of the Civil War as some grand war for the liberation of southern slaves by northern whites is willfully ignorant...at best.
Raymond
I never in my life have I read so many naïve comments. I don't know a whole lot of history, but I do know a lot of the truth of history has been left out. Part of the reason the South wanted to preserve the Union is so they could continue to make laws to disenfranchise and enslave Black people. If that was not the case there was no need for the Emancipation Proclamation. The history of the Black man has been obliterated to basically what they have done as slaves instead of what they have done as men and woman who where in the forefront of helping to build this nation to what it has become.
Jim
The south wanted to preserve the Union?!? Naive comments? You are right when you say you don't know a lot of history -better read up on American history for the 100 years prior to the civil war. the reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation were 1. Lincoln believed it was the right thing to do 2. It was strategic in disrupting the Confederate war efforts. I for one agree, but consider the fact that it didn't happen until 3 years into the war. You might study up on the reasons for that.
scull
You're an ignorant, brainwashed moron! The victors do indeed write into the history books their version of the truth. That is why you believe what you believe without any consideration of the true facts!
KaliforniaKook
You're right: you don't know a whole lot of history. You should have stopped there. From that point on you've just regurgitated revisionist history.
Jade
I agree with you that the history books have reduced the story of the black man to a narrative of slavery. This narrative leaves out the success stories of people like Madam C.J. Walker, the first black woman to become a self made millionare. She was an innovative entrepreneur, and African American success story. I wonder why her story isn't included. The authors also fail to mention that there were just as many black slave owners as there were whites slave owners. They leave all of these important facts out because it goes against the bill of goods that the left is trying to cram down people's throats. Please understand that the same people who have reduced the history of black people and their important role in building our nation are the same ones who have distorted the truth about the civil war. I know that this is not what we were taught in school but the truth is that as wrong as slavery was, it was not the cause of the civil war. I sincerely ask you to research this yourself because a handful of biased authors who have generalized, summarized, distorted and diluted the whole of history down to a narrative of what they want the public to believe cannot be blindly trusted simply because it's bound in a hardback cover. I know that it's a hard truth to swallow, but our current education system has failed us grossly in this area. In this case Texas has not been trying to "rewrite" history. They have been trying to revive our true history. You are right in saying that parts of our true history have been left out. The true cause of the civil war is a HUGE part that has been blatantly lied about.
Anthony
The Civil War was definitely over slavery. How could you explain the following? When southerners traveled Into New York or other northern states and traveled with slaves, their slaves were considered free based on New York State law. The war was not fought for state rights, but the right to keep slaves/property in whatever place they were held or taken. Otherwise, they would have been fighting for the right of New York to free their property.
C smith
No, it was over states rights. If not why wasn't the northern slaves freed? They were not free until later during the war. Lincoln himself said the war was to preserve the union and NOT to free slaves.
William
Don't confuse slavery and secession, as the author has done. The immediate cause of the civil war was secession, i.e., preservation of the union, not slavery. If the civil war was fought over slavery, then why did the war not start BEFORE secession and why did the North not wage war against the slave states who remained in the Union? The author cannot answer these questions and still maintain the correctness of his position. Slavery existed for many years without a civil war. Without secession the civil war would not have occurred. Yes, SECESSION was due in large part to a desire to preserve (the constitutionally protected institution of) slavery. But secession and slavery are not the same.
R. Kelly Coker
Mr. Holtzmann is very reticent on reminding everyone that the Confederate states were the domain of the Democrats, as was the KKK their armed thugs enforcing Jim Crow and segregation and the "Stainless Banner" is still the symbol of the Democrats. As they've lost the fight to keep segregation, the Democrats elected to buy the vote with taxpayer money and destroy the black family with "family planning."
Tscroggins
Many of you who are arguing that the CW was not fought over slavery keep referring to the agenda of the North, but ignore the actions of the South. Read some of the big Southern newspapers during the time of Lincoln's election. Read transcripts from Southern Congressmen. Listen to Southern governor's speeches. Slavery was the cause of succession which was the reason the CW happened. To suggest that slavery wasn't the motivation is very misleading. I'm not opposed to listing all of the reasons for the South's unhappiness and the North's insistences, but it is clearly a political move to misinform children about something that we should all be very aware of. What's sad is that this is a story we've seen before. Deliberately trying to change history to protect the offended has led to many disastrous outcomes throughout modern times. I really hope that the intelligent and thoughtful people in Texas will demand the truth and force the board to make the appropriate changes. This is a major disservice to the kids.
Bryan
If we were going to really teach them history they would know that Jim Crow laws were in effect in the North before the civil war, African American soldiers were paid less and were segregated. The war was about state's rights. The issue at the forefront of impinging upon state's rights happened to be slavery, but it didn't become part of the war until years later. Key thoughts that might help readers would be that Lee (who was not in charge at the beginning of the war) did not like slavery at all, but he was from Virginia, and in those days, you were a Virginian first, and a US citizen second. After the war, it switched as the central government started to grow out of control to become the monster it is today.
Gary Johnson
Holtzman is a victim of northeast liberal historical revisionist history....
DC
Question, with less than 5% of the population in the south even owning a slave is it possible they could be right? And if the writing of the times was correct, after the civil war, only southern slaves were freed. Why?
Stephen
Ironic that the liberals would talk about rewriting history. I'll wager to say that some of the stuff in this article is taken out of context.
John Smith
I'm sure there's a lot of information in this article taken out of context. It's like when republicans take passages out of context from the Bible. So, I guess my question is: What's your point?
DJ
It is interesting that you quoted David McColluoch in your final paragraph as though that statement was somehow tied to this text book controversy. Perhaps it would be best to remind your readers that Mr McCollouch made those remarks 4 years ago. While his remarks are true enough, he was referring to the left's insistence of covering every special left-wing interest topic at the expense of the critically historic ones and placing them in their proper context. Certainly Texas is not placing the Civil War in its correct context, however the issue of Federalism vs. State Rights (as conceived in the 10th Amendment) cannot be ignored. The right of self governance and limited federal government, as laid down in the constitution, was perhaps the greatest causality of the Civil War.
histroian
Lincoln specifically chose not to fight over slavery because he was afraid to lose some of the northern states. The war from the southern view was over economic issues where the southern agricultural states could not compete with the industrialized northern states. Slavery became a side issue later on when it was obvious the south would lose. Read the Emancipation Proclamation, the slaves that were freed were the former slaves in the states the north controlled.
Dan Arbaugh
Try to do a little research on the statements of Congressmen from the South concerning succession....in addition the Declaration of Causes mentioned.
You're correct to say that the fight against slavery was late to the game in the North, but preserving slavery was always the root of succession in the South.
Only ignorance argues this point.
Kyle
If you would read the Confederate constitution it states clearly that any state can choose whether to or not have slavery. So any argument made that slavery was a cause is not true.
Ralph Ware
'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." -- President Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greely, August 22, 1862
Billie Tyree
Lincoln instigated the war against the Confederated states because he wanted to develop a strong federal government with weaker state governments, a Hamilton style government. The South wanted to continue in a Jeffersonian style government with strong states rights and a weaker federal government.
The north won and guess what, we now have a strong federal government with all the benefits.
Ymmot
The UnCvil War was fought over the economic oppression of the Northern Industrialists! Slavery in the South was part of that equation but was NOT the sole ISSUE of the war, but instead was the firebrand of Northern Industrialist brainwashed fools!
persistentIGNORANCEisSICKENING
@Ymmot It may not have been the SOLE issue of the war, however, it was the most POLARIZING ISSUE OF THE WAR. Take some time to read the declarations as they were written. You'd have to be a brain-dead fool to not see that for your self.
Historista
Support your claim or enroll in a college-level American history class. Or both.
Joe1938
First and foremost, slavery is wrong!! Next, read Lincoln's letters. The Civil War was fought to save the Union. The slavery issue was political and used to support the Union's war efforts. Back on the federal plantation, slavery is still alive and well in the good US of A. If you pay taxes, you are well aware of this.
Steve Ingram
In your attempt at accuracy concerning the Civil War era and racism etc. you left out the fact that during five years of war, not one active slave rebelled nor was there any black insurrection even though nearly all healthy white southern men were away fighting in the Confederate army. Lincoln and his cabinet couldn't understand it and that was the reason for the Emancipation Proclamation. But even that elicited no response from the black slaves in the south as still no attempt at insurrection or rebellion by the southern black slaves ever occurred. Why? In fact, no active slave ever fought for their own freedom. There are no accounts that exist of this happening.
When people start dealing with the facts instead of the emotions perhaps we could do as Dr. King wanted and live together as brothers and sisters with love, not hate. A one sided truth will not work.
Michael
"The Confederate Provost Marshal at Natchez reported early in 1862 that 40 slaves had been hanged within the year for such activities. Scholars will never know the exact number of insurrections immediately before and during the Civil War, because state governments did not reimburse owners of slaves executed at the orders of the extralegal courts. There was no official accounting because the vigilance communities kept quiet, and no one involved shared information on the counting of bodies. Information regarding these important events only surfaced as owners began to inquire about compensation for the loss of their slaves." Well. That blows your argument to pieces. Anything else you want to talk about out of the side of your mouth?
scull
Another "progressive" reject speaks.
J.W.
If the Civil War was about slavery than why did two states whom did not secede still have legal slavery? President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slavery unlawful only for states which had seceded from the union leaving two union states with slavery still intact. Perhaps your degree in the most vilified occupation in America, even lower than congress though the legislature is made up primarily of attorneys, left you with little understanding of the history of the civil war....
Fred
Holtzman is wrong in many of his suggestions. The men and boys of the North, especially Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Ohio did not join the Union Army to free the blacks. It was about saving the Union, not saving blacks from slavery. Lincoln said as much. (Loosely paraphrasing him) If I could save the Union by freeing all the blacks, I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the blacks, I would. If I could free the Union by saving some blacks and not other, I would.
Read your history. Read the letters of those involved in the war. Do some research or at least do better research then you showed in this article. Denigrating the statutes of those who went to war and fought for their country, even though they lost, reflects poorly on you.
Show me the posters asking people to join the Union army to help end slavery. If ending slavery was the reason for joining the Union army, the army would have been made up of maybe a couple thousand men from the Northeast. I found your article poorly researched and some of your conclusions mere speculation at best and more likely wishful thinking and revisionary thinking on your part.
scull
You are correct sir! And might I add that if those northern enlistees (and draftees) could see today what the outcome for this nation has become, they would have torn Lincoln and his supporters to little shredded bloody pieces!
not Bridget
Please--check out the Texas Freedom Network on this matter. These Texans (I'm a supporter) have several causes--strong public schools & accurate textbooks are among them. http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=TFN_homepage
It's not the "TBOE" but the SBOE (State Board of Education). It is elected; Republican members are eager to fight the culture wars in the classroom. Creationism ("Intelligent Design") is NOT in our textbooks, but the texts resulting from the Social Studies Standards set by the Republican majority board are flawed. Since Texas buys so many books, those available in other states will be influenced.
TFN will supply all the details you want about how this came to be. It's not a sudden thing & some Texans have been fighting the good fight for years.
Larry
Mr. Holtzman states that "the popularity of Civil War reenactments (many of which carry a racist undertone)". On what basis does he make such a broad, sweeping statement? This sounds like "speculative fiction ". I am a Social Studies teacher and I teach American patriotism and exceptionalism. I also work for human rights for Hispanics and African-Americans. I weary of people criticizing Southern Culture and equating it with ignorance and racism. Mr. Holtzman paints, I fear, with too broad a brush....which is in itself often used as a device to hide one's own historical bias.
George Brown
According to Abraham Lincoln, a far greater authority than today's political correctness and historical revisionists, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union