At least the list of prominent Virginians includes George Thomas, but why not Winfield Scott? I would have thought that Nat Turner was a fairly significant Virginian, but it may be for the best that he's left out, considering how his rebellion would probably be presented.
There was no such thing as lost cause in that war it was a fight for southern independence. The lost cause was just a name that Yankees gave it to make the south look bad
Kevin Levin I've done over 20 years of digging researching and studying the true reason for the war and how the slaves were treated the reason for the war was when the south succeeded from the north the union came and invaded the C.S.A. there were hundreds of free black men that fought beside and carried the rebel flag into battle. 90% of the time a slave would inherit freedom and a plantation he worked on from his master when he passed. I've read hundreds of letters from former slaves and talked to desendence of slaves and most of them were born slaves learned a trade from their master and died doing that trade in a business. Slaves had their days off and they were paid a little at times when the master would go into town the slaves would go with them nobody criticized them for being in town or among whites they would buy essentials and the owner would get them some food and clothing as well. They were forced to work in factorys up north for no pay just a roof over head and had to scratch for food don't belive all that you read in history books if you look where it's written up north just to make the south look like bad guys
First off Lee never had or owned a slave and there was nothing civil about the war it was a fight for southern independence when the south declared independence from the United States they were invaded and not all blacks were slaves there were many free blacks that fought right along side the whites because they believed in independence from big government, and let's not forget the blacks were slaves up north too and treated like s#*t forced to work in factories the south was mostly farming and the north was industry south making money off foreign trade and D.C. was not getting it all
It's not the most glaring example, but I notice the standards dropped Vicksburg and replaced it with Shiloh. I'd argue that the former is more important, but in a practical sense it just unnecessarily made all classroom material teachers had previously put together on Civil War battles now obsolete.
The problem I have with children being taught that Lee and other Confederates were "traitors" to the U.S. is that if we do that but don't point out that George Washington and the other rebels in the Revolutionary War were "traitors" to Britain (although clearly for much better reasons, something which should also be pointed out), it seems like victor's history. Something that one would expect in a totalitarian society where the government's point of view is presented as "the truth," rather than one where students learn different perspectives and are encouraged to see things from different points of view.
Perhaps it would be better to frame the Confederates as "traitors" to the cause of human liberty and freedom, and to then discuss the Northern and Southern forces that allowed their treachery to flourish.
The problem with that is that it's not how the word "traitor" is generally used, including when discussing Confederates. While words can and do have different meanings to different people, I'm opposed to the idea of creating a new definition of a word in order to be able to apply it--or deny it, if it's a positive word--to those one doesn't like.
It's worth teaching that Northern business interests often gave financial backing to the plantation economy. The South obviously enforced a brutal slave system, but many in the North had no real problem with it as long as it was kept far away from them. Many Northerners propped up cheap cotton and slave labor because it was in their business interests. Abolition was a minority opinion, often unpopular in free states. No side was truly free of the scourge of slavery, although the North imagined itself to be.
Thank for the follow-up, Dave. There is no question that the Northern states were complicit in slavery, but I fail to see what this has to do with the question of whether Lee committed treason.
I was trying to say that both Lee and the Northern business interests were traitors to the abstract idea of "freedom," which maybe makes more sense in my head than it would in a classroom.
Yes, Virginia is indeed addicted to the myth of REL. As a native Virginian who has lived in the Commonwealth for all but 15 months of my 65 years, my embarrassment grows as the months pass. Note: A couple years ago, I did a somewhat less than exhaustive search of the DMV sites of the Southern states looking for those offering CSA-related plates. Guess what? Virginia is the only one offering one of REL. Here's a view of the plate (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#splates/info.asp?idnm=REL).
Thank you for this! I completely agree. Have you read "The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War Between the States" by my great-grandfather, Hunter H. McGuire, and George L. Christian? They were very concerned that students were not being taught "true" Southern history. I wrote this about McGuire: https://medium.com/@margaretseiler/a-closet-full-of-skeletons-9c68d96904f5.
I just added Ms. Miller’s book to my “Next Purchase” list - thank you! It received a starred review in Booklist, a journal librarians use as a purchase reference, and Ms. Miller has been honored by the Society of School Librarians International, among many others.
At least the list of prominent Virginians includes George Thomas, but why not Winfield Scott? I would have thought that Nat Turner was a fairly significant Virginian, but it may be for the best that he's left out, considering how his rebellion would probably be presented.
There was no such thing as lost cause in that war it was a fight for southern independence. The lost cause was just a name that Yankees gave it to make the south look bad
Kevin Levin I've done over 20 years of digging researching and studying the true reason for the war and how the slaves were treated the reason for the war was when the south succeeded from the north the union came and invaded the C.S.A. there were hundreds of free black men that fought beside and carried the rebel flag into battle. 90% of the time a slave would inherit freedom and a plantation he worked on from his master when he passed. I've read hundreds of letters from former slaves and talked to desendence of slaves and most of them were born slaves learned a trade from their master and died doing that trade in a business. Slaves had their days off and they were paid a little at times when the master would go into town the slaves would go with them nobody criticized them for being in town or among whites they would buy essentials and the owner would get them some food and clothing as well. They were forced to work in factorys up north for no pay just a roof over head and had to scratch for food don't belive all that you read in history books if you look where it's written up north just to make the south look like bad guys
Hi Darrel,
It sounds like you've done a great deal of reading in the literature of Lost Cause apologists. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
First off Lee never had or owned a slave and there was nothing civil about the war it was a fight for southern independence when the south declared independence from the United States they were invaded and not all blacks were slaves there were many free blacks that fought right along side the whites because they believed in independence from big government, and let's not forget the blacks were slaves up north too and treated like s#*t forced to work in factories the south was mostly farming and the north was industry south making money off foreign trade and D.C. was not getting it all
With all due respect, Darrel, you really need to do some reading.
It's not the most glaring example, but I notice the standards dropped Vicksburg and replaced it with Shiloh. I'd argue that the former is more important, but in a practical sense it just unnecessarily made all classroom material teachers had previously put together on Civil War battles now obsolete.
I suspect most history textbooks reference Vicksburg.
The problem I have with children being taught that Lee and other Confederates were "traitors" to the U.S. is that if we do that but don't point out that George Washington and the other rebels in the Revolutionary War were "traitors" to Britain (although clearly for much better reasons, something which should also be pointed out), it seems like victor's history. Something that one would expect in a totalitarian society where the government's point of view is presented as "the truth," rather than one where students learn different perspectives and are encouraged to see things from different points of view.
Perhaps it would be better to frame the Confederates as "traitors" to the cause of human liberty and freedom, and to then discuss the Northern and Southern forces that allowed their treachery to flourish.
The problem with that is that it's not how the word "traitor" is generally used, including when discussing Confederates. While words can and do have different meanings to different people, I'm opposed to the idea of creating a new definition of a word in order to be able to apply it--or deny it, if it's a positive word--to those one doesn't like.
Not sure I follow. What do you mean by "...discuss the Northern and Southern forces that allowed their treachery to flourish"?
Thanks, Dave.
It's worth teaching that Northern business interests often gave financial backing to the plantation economy. The South obviously enforced a brutal slave system, but many in the North had no real problem with it as long as it was kept far away from them. Many Northerners propped up cheap cotton and slave labor because it was in their business interests. Abolition was a minority opinion, often unpopular in free states. No side was truly free of the scourge of slavery, although the North imagined itself to be.
Thank for the follow-up, Dave. There is no question that the Northern states were complicit in slavery, but I fail to see what this has to do with the question of whether Lee committed treason.
I was trying to say that both Lee and the Northern business interests were traitors to the abstract idea of "freedom," which maybe makes more sense in my head than it would in a classroom.
Got it. Thanks, Dave.
Thanks for the comment, Lee. We will have to agree to disagree.
I guess Virginia wants to ignore the likes of Winfield Scott, David Farragut, and George Thomas.
Yes, Virginia is indeed addicted to the myth of REL. As a native Virginian who has lived in the Commonwealth for all but 15 months of my 65 years, my embarrassment grows as the months pass. Note: A couple years ago, I did a somewhat less than exhaustive search of the DMV sites of the Southern states looking for those offering CSA-related plates. Guess what? Virginia is the only one offering one of REL. Here's a view of the plate (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#splates/info.asp?idnm=REL).
Here's a link to a story done on it in early 2021. https://www.pilotonline.com/government/virginia/vp-nw-confederate-relics-symbols-remain-virginia-20210302-zw3bdbjty5hzffznib322hsilq-story.html
I remember this controversy. Thanks for the links, Mark.
Thank you for this! I completely agree. Have you read "The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War Between the States" by my great-grandfather, Hunter H. McGuire, and George L. Christian? They were very concerned that students were not being taught "true" Southern history. I wrote this about McGuire: https://medium.com/@margaretseiler/a-closet-full-of-skeletons-9c68d96904f5.
Not this one in particular, but I've read plenty of books, pamphlets, etc. that embraced the same agenda. Thanks for the link, Margaret.
If only they’d just buy my young adult bio of Lee they could cover all the points you mention. 😊
You are absolutely right. Here is a link to *Robert E. Lee: The Man, The Soldier, The Myth*
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/588711/robert-e-lee-by-brandon-marie-miller/
I just added Ms. Miller’s book to my “Next Purchase” list - thank you! It received a starred review in Booklist, a journal librarians use as a purchase reference, and Ms. Miller has been honored by the Society of School Librarians International, among many others.
Thank you very much, Kevin!