What do kids in the South learn about the Civil War?

Question

From conversations I've had, and posts I've read here, it seems that schools in the south teach that the war was called "The War Between the States," and that it had nothing to do with slavery, but was actually about states' rights. Now anyone who has studied even a little about the war and what led to it knows that the only "states right" that the south was worried about was the right to own slaves, so pretending this wasn't about slavery seems to be an attempt to whitewash the past. Can anyone who goes to school in the south, or used to, tell me if this is really still happening, and what you think about it? I'm honestly curious.

Answer 1

You're quite right. Kids in the south learn that the war was an attempt by the North to economically dominate the South, and that it had little or nothing to do with slavery. In fact, most southern colleges and universities teach the same thing, so teachers learn this as well and perpetuate the myth among their students. The Civil Rights movement is portrayed in much the same way, as a battle between northern troublemakers and the valiant defenders of the right of states to do what they want, with little hint of the oppression of African Americans that inspired the movement. Though there is a strange sort of schizophrenic presentation of people like Martin Luther King as heroes, without any mention of how the power structures of the southern states fought against them.

Answer 2

In Georgia I learned to call it The War Between the States, and that it was about the north attempting to subjugate the South, economically and culturally. The South took great pride in being the heart of the new nation, with 4 of the first 5 presidents being Virginians. But many changes seemed to shift power away from the south and farmers in general to the north and bankers, manufacturers and merchants. We learned that the supposed sympathy for the slaves was not real, as slaves were still held in the north, and that the South was tricked into attacking Fort Sumter to give the North a chance to go to war. There was a lot more like that. I have a more nuanced view of things now, but as is often the case, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Answer 3

The Civil War WAS about states' rights, and slave-owning was one of those "rights" in contention. It played a major role, both directly and indirectly, but it was by no means the sole cause of the war. There were huge economic issues involved. If you think that slavery was the only cause, you aren't looking closely enough at social, political, and economic conditions leading up to the Civil War. However, no reputable school teaches that these events justified armed conflict on a large scale, or that slavery was ever a humane and justifiable institution.

Even Lincoln wasn't the staunch abolitionist that we like to remember him as. He once explained, "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."

Lots of people, including academics, call the Civil War "The War Between the States" - it's just another term to describe the event. It's similar to people referring to World War I as "The Great War," because it was on such a large scale. "The War Between the States" is an identifying term, not a eupehmism.

Schools in the South use exactly the same textbooks as in the North. We learn the same history. There are undoubtedly a few backwoods pockets of people who still believe the Confederacy will rise again - these are the same idiots who call it "The War of Northern Aggression." Please don't judge the rest of the South by a few ignorant rednecks.

Answer 4

When I was growing up (I'm 58) in Lubbock, Tex. it was in our history books as the Civil War, but I heard lots of adults call it "the war between the states." This subject is very divisive even today, but to be fair to all sides, the civil war primarily was over the expansion of slavery into the new territories, not against slavery itself. Also though the economic needs of north and south were diametrically opposed, for instance over tariffs, the differences actually made them compliment each other, and the advantages for both northern businessmen and southern plantation owners to be a part of the United States was considerable. As historians , both southern and northern, came to agree, the war was not caused by economic differences, except slavery. As the Wikipedia article stated," While controversy over the morality of slavery could be contained, it was the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories that made the conflict irrepressible. Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences that led to control issues, states' rights and secession."
Partly the south feared being dominated by the north as immigration and other factors increased the northern population at an ever increasing rate. And this fear drove the south to want to secede.
The South had given birth to almost every president until Lincoln. "The North's growing population would mean the election of pro-North presidents, and the addition of free-soil states would end Southern parity with the North in the Senate. As the historian Allan Nevins described the Southern politician John C. Calhoun's theory of states' rights, 'Governments, observed Calhoun, were formed to protect minorities, for majorities could take care of themselves'.
"Jefferson Davis stated that a 'disparaging discrimination' and a fight for 'liberty' against 'the tyranny of an unbridled majority' gave the Confederate states a right to secede.
The states rights arguments though divisive were not really at the heart of the war. But when the south withdrew from the Union, then it put the state's rights arguments front and center. If the Union was to be preserved, the south could not have the right to leave.The act of secession was therefore a call to arms, and the war began.

Answer 5

I am from Virginia and we were always taught the National view, i.e. it was about "slavery" which is not wholly true. In fact the Civil War almost began decades earlier over federal tariffs on imports that lead South Carolina to pass the "Act of Nullification." The tariffs hurt the south economically which was dependent on foreign trade, the north was not as dependent. Before the "act of Nullification" resulted in civil war John C. Calhoun negotiated a compromise which averted war. However, the unresolved issue of states rights versus national authority lead to civil war. So it was a combination of issues and not just slavery which lead to Civil War.

Answer 6

As someone who went to school in the South, I can tell you that we are taught that the Civil War is about slavery, but that it is also about the STATES' RIGHTS to determine certain things for themselves, among them, the right to own slaves, but also to make a living as an agrarian society with a Northern half of the country that was more industrial. People rarely go to war over 1 thing; it takes repeated wrongs to push a society to war.

Also you need to know that the North was just as involved in the salve trade as the South; they simply didn't have the uses for slaves that a plantation-laden South did. But the ships were built in Portsmouth and Boston and sailed to Africa. They picked up the slaves with Northern sea captains at the helms and brought them back to the Barbados in exchange for money at salve auctions. With the money, they bought rum and other liquor to take back north while Southern plantation owners bought the slaves and took them back to the South.

I wonder if kids in the North are taught about the evils that the carbetbaggers did when they descended on the South after the Civil War and attempted in one or two years to reverse the wrongs done by slavery over a hundred years or more by simply taking money and property from all whites, whether they'd owned slaves before or not. Do you learn of the mass migration of slaves North in the hopes of finding a better life and then returning to the South after factory life sickened them?

It has been said that History is written by the winners, but the most recent trend in history is what people call "revisionist history" -- an attempt to re-write history to be more objective. But this can go equally overboard in the opposite direction as the original account. Be sure that history is taught correctly to Southern school kids as directed by that time period's texts and administrators. Our history no more resembles "Deliverance" or "The Dukes of Hazard" than yours should. Just know that all of the Northerners coming to the negoes' rescue were not riding white horses or were welcome even by the *****

Answer 7

I'm from the South. When I was in school it was about slavery, but just not slavery. The Southerners didn't want the Northerners telling them what to do, just like we don't want the government telling us what we can and cannot do.

Answer 8

I'm from the south and I've always been taught that the war had everything to do with slavery.. I've never had any of my teachers tell me that slavery was was justifiable. Others have but none of my teachers..

Answer 9

I'm in the west, but that is a very interesting question, and now I'm curious. Out here, we're taught that it was a combination of slavery and states' rights. Interesting... Star for you!

Answer 10

Growing up in the south you also learn the civil war is also know as "the war of northern aggression" go ask your teacher about that one.