How Louisiana teaches students about the Civil War

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227

But sure, “muh Critical Race Theory” is the biggest problem right now…

[R.P. McM]

https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227

But sure, “muh Critical Race Theory” is the biggest problem right now…

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

[Alben Barkley]

“Louisiana doesn’t properly teach about slavery, therefore critical race theory is good” is not an argument that logically follows.

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

I still think Lincoln’s plan would have been better. What happened in actuality was Johnson was too lenient while the Radical Republicans were too punitive (breeding resentment). It was like the worst of both worlds. The more moderate course championed by Lincoln might have been better long-term and allowed for smoother re-integration of the South into the US without either leaving them resentful for generations or letting them just get away with everything. But I guess we’ll never know.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

I still think Lincoln’s plan would have been better. What happened in actuality was Johnson was too lenient while the Radical Republicans were too punitive (breeding resentment). It was like the worst of both worlds. The more moderate course championed by Lincoln might have been better long-term and allowed for smoother re-integration of the South into the US without either leaving them resentful for generations or letting them just get away with everything. But I guess we’ll never know.

America was sold quite short by the way Reconstruction ended up. Lincoln's firmly moderate but not too lenient path would have saved us a lot of problems. Johnson thought he was fulfilling Lincoln's vision but his background made him too forgiving, and then you had Radical Rs who were (justifiably) angry and pushed ideas that in retrospect were unlikely to be sustained in the long-run.
It's far from the first time an assassination made things worse in the long-run for societal peace.

[Ferguson97]

“Louisiana doesn’t properly teach about slavery, therefore critical race theory is good” is not an argument that logically follows.

I'm saying critical race theory isn't actually being taught nationwide, but this nonsense is, so it doesn't make sense to waste energy over something that isn't even being taught when we should be focusing on something that's an actual problem.

(And I happen to support CRT, but that's a different conversation.)

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Just reading through the “important people” and I’m pretty sure all of them are white…

[R.P. McM]

“Louisiana doesn’t properly teach about slavery, therefore critical race theory is good” is not an argument that logically follows.

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

I still think Lincoln’s plan would have been better. What happened in actuality was Johnson was too lenient while the Radical Republicans were too punitive (breeding resentment). It was like the worst of both worlds. The more moderate course championed by Lincoln might have been better long-term and allowed for smoother re-integration of the South into the US without either leaving them resentful for generations or letting them just get away with everything. But I guess we’ll never know.

Strong disagree. Had you been an AA individual living in the Deep South, I really doubt you would've viewed the prospect of a modicum of equality as a punitive act. It's real easy to sacrifice the liberty/dignity of others on the altar of national unity. Not your problem, evidently. Just like, going forward, it won't be my problem when Southern cities are ravaged by global warming. And you're kidding yourself if you believe that the South would've ever accepted the equality of AA's without the threat of military force. No, it's a very diseased culture, which is apparent even in the present day.

[Damocles]

This oversimplified and racialized view of Louisiana in the Civil War also ignores the truth of its complicated legacy. It’s important to note that prior to the civil war, New Orleans was a very wealthy city, with strong export markets for its goods, a thriving if nascent skilled professional class, and control over the extensive Mississippi River basin.

Louisiana, like many other confederate states, was not uniformly in favor of slavery, or of secession. There was furious debate, even among the creoles, whether it was healthy for the state’s economy to be dependent on exporting slave agricultural products, or whether tying the state’s wealth up in plantation slavery was a good idea.

Louisiana at that time was much unlike other southern states in that it was also home to a small, but thriving mixed race community, owing to the legacy of plaçage from French colonialism. There simply weren’t enough marriageable women from France who could bear children, so the next best option was mixed-race marriages between French men and Black women.

Funnily enough, it would be these mixed-race men and women from Louisiana who would go on to form the core of the Black middle class in the twentieth century, and provide the intellectual and political leadership to resist and ultimately overcome racial segregation.

[R.P. McM]

This oversimplified and racialized view of Louisiana in the Civil War also ignores the truth of its complicated legacy. It’s important to note that prior to the civil war, New Orleans was a very wealthy city, with strong export markets for its goods, a thriving if nascent skilled professional class, and control over the extensive Mississippi River basin.

Louisiana, like many other confederate states, was not uniformly in favor of slavery, or of secession. There was furious debate, even among the creoles, whether it was healthy for the state’s economy to be dependent on exporting slave agricultural products, or whether tying the state’s wealth up in plantation slavery was a good idea.

Louisiana at that time was much unlike other southern states in that it was also home to a small, but thriving mixed race community, owing to the legacy of plaçage from French colonialism. There simply weren’t enough marriageable women from France who could bear children, so the next best option was mixed-race marriages between French men and Black women.

Funnily enough, it would be these mixed-race men and women from Louisiana who would go on to form the core of the Black middle class in the twentieth century, and provide the intellectual and political leadership to resist and ultimately overcome racial segregation.

Sure, New Orleans was the most populous Southern city on the eve of the Civil War. But you're really reaching to make this much more complicated than it actually is. How did LA's representatives vote on the issue of civil rights? It was disgraceful, right? And it continues to be disgraceful — Steve Scalise is just "David Duke without the baggage." Here's my favorite quote from William Tecumseh Sherman, then a superintendent at a LA military academy, a few years prior to the onset of the Civil War:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

Equally applicable to modern day Trump-loving traitors.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

We were not punitive enough against former Confederates at the end of the Slavers Rebellion. We should have held a massive military tribunal to lock up Confederate war criminals along the style that was in place for Nazi war criminals following World War 2.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

“Louisiana doesn’t properly teach about slavery, therefore critical race theory is good” is not an argument that logically follows.

I'm saying critical race theory isn't actually being taught nationwide, but this nonsense is, so it doesn't make sense to waste energy over something that isn't even being taught when we should be focusing on something that's an actual problem.

(And I happen to support CRT, but that's a different conversation.)

CRT is a stalking horse. The GOP's goal (insofar as they even have one beyond stirring up dissension) is to prevent schoola from giving students the ability to recognize the GOP's ethically bankrupt positions across the board.

We should all be very familiar with the GOP's MO. They find something they can claim is controversial (especially to the poorly informed voters they love to target), point their fingers and howl, extract as much money and votes as they can, then rinse, later repeat with a different subject.

Some of their attempts are wildly successful (like abortion  or immigration), others are failures (banning meat, surrendering to the UN), and some land in-between (like fearmongering trans people). Even the failures lurk around the fringes of American politics for decades, and the successes permanently warp national debate and policy, but Republicans don't care.

[soundchaser]

Hey, just so everyone in this thread knows, people who live in Louisiana are (and were!) still capable of thought. You're certainly welcome to criticize this textbook (which is not one I or anyone I know ever learned from), but spare me your holier-than-thou "if only we'd shoved our boot down the state's throat" nonsense.

EDIT: And just to add, for anyone who's actually curious: the state gave this textbook its lowest evaluation possible, in large part because of its sourcing failures (and thus narrative failures) in Chapters 10 and 11. Books get published all the time - doesn't mean anyone's actually using them.

[Not Me, Us]

The South should have remained occupied until black equality was assured. Furthermore, every slave owner and Confederate military or government leader should have been executed for high treason. Had this been done, Jim Crow never would have happened and the Deep South wouldn't be the cesspool it is today.

[Damocles]

The South should have remained occupied until black equality was assured. Furthermore, every slave owner and Confederate military or government leader should have been executed for high treason. Had this been done, Jim Crow never would have happened and the Deep South wouldn't be the cesspool it is today.

“The picture painted of your involvement in this illegal rebellion against the United States is a depressing one. No other person has ever led such a concerted effort to compromise the territorial integrity of the United States, attack its institutions, and undermine the rule of law. This court has heard all about how you sought diplomatic recognition for your treason, and it is a well-known fact that your movement attempted to solicit financial, economic, political, and military support from the European great powers. Your name besmirches the very founding ideals of this country and rejects the Enlightenment, in favor of an economy predicated on subjugating free men, who are endowed by their creator with personality and consciousness.

Mister Jefferson Davis, before this court renders its verdict regarding your treason, are there any final remarks you wish to say?”

[soundchaser]

The South should have remained occupied until black equality was assured. Furthermore, every slave owner and Confederate military or government leader should have been executed for high treason. Had this been done, Jim Crow never would have happened and the Deep South wouldn't be the cesspool it is today.

Black equality doesn't exist anywhere in this country.

[The Free North]

https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227

But sure, “muh Critical Race Theory” is the biggest problem right now…

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

Oh dear.

So the solution to the south being vengeful today would have been more punishment in the years following the war which would not at all make them....more...vengeful? This follows the same logic as the people who think we didn't bomb Iraq enough because there are still terrorists out there.

[GP270watch]

 The big failure in teaching American history in schools, is the oversight of making students fully understand the backlash from ordinary White people towards progress and equality of Black people in America at multiple times in U.S. history. The fact that this isn't taught in schools is why so many White people today are uninformed and ignorant about America's truly racist past.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227

But sure, “muh Critical Race Theory” is the biggest problem right now…

I've long considered Abraham Lincoln the greatest leader in U.S. history. But lately, increasingly, I've been forced to reconsider that position. Had the Union been far more punitive towards the Confederacy, I think that at the current moment, we'd all be in a far better place.

Oh dear.

So the solution to the south being vengeful today would have been more punishment in the years following the war which would not at all make them....more...vengeful? This follows the same logic as the people who think we didn't bomb Iraq enough because there are still terrorists out there.

The only problem with the previous posters sentiments is the word punitive. The north should have extended reconstruction vastly longer, and brought the hammer down on terrorist groups like the KKK like the almighty wrath of God. I know reasonable objective measure should that have mint punitive, but rather just.

And if white Southerners resented it, absolutely by God f*** them. That's no more punitive and a mass murderer grousing about their life sentence.