Laugh My Ass Off

1970s Alabama History Book Reveals Why Southerners Are Confused About The Civil War Period (IMAGES)

Posted in Uncategorized
at 2016.02.16
With 0 Comments

Astonishing passages from an old history book taught students that slaves had it great until Radicals ruined everything.

Activist Bree Newsome, who committed a righteous act of rebellion at the end of June by climbing the South Carolina statehouse flagpole and taking down the Confederate battle flag which had been flying at the capitol since 1961, has been very active on Twitter since her arrest.

Newsome has been absolutely vociferous in denouncing the flag and has gotten a lot of backlash from history revisionists from the South who deny the flag is about anything negative like slavery or segregation.

Newsome responded by shaming several Confederate apologists and making the call for mandatory history classes:

The answer to her final question came from Corry Lee Smith who posted passages from what they claim was their 1970s Alabama History book:

The passages in the book, particularly relating to slavery and the American Civil War, are astonishing.

Suddenly, everything fell into place as I read the highlighted lines.

The book, Alabama: A History for Schools, was written by Charles Grayson Summersell, a history professor at the University of Alabama and revered historian in the south. He published his version of Alabama state history in 1955, and his book was used in Alabama schools according to the tweeter well into the early 1970s. Based on his other books, which you can view on Amazon by clicking here, its important to note Summersell viewed the Confederate army favorably which explains why his history book is full of historical inaccuracies, whitewashing the causes of the civil war, heavy bias and painting slavery as generally positive.

What isnt explained is WHY Alabamas school system allowed slavery to be glossed over and the era rewritten, but, I think we can surmise that since George The National Guard has to force me to be decent Wallace was governor at the time its obvious that southerners wanted to instill a false sense of pride into young minds. Were seeing the result of his agenda still today, as flag supporters spew line after line of incorrect or sugar-coated civil war history in order to justify flying the flag that ultimately symbolizes slavery, segregation, rebellion, domestic terrorism and racism.

Okay, brace yourselves, its bad:



Slaves were the earliest form of social security and everybody loves social security. It was a dream! The slaves got top-knotch medical treatment, so, you know, they could continue working long, grueling hours doing hard labor for no money.


The slaves were treated so well unlike the people in the union working for money, and the Union was just being libtarded and they MADE Alabama go to war.

Also, sectionalism. The definition of sectionalism is being loyal to ones own interests rather than the general well-being. Because human rights for all in the U.S. went against the souths general well-being.

I cant even with this guy!


Poor Alabama being forced to adopt a Constitution written by radicals. Dont worry though, the KKK came in on their white horses and saved everybody!

Horrifying. This explains so much.

It also makes me wonder if southern English textbooks incorrectly teach when to use your and youre too because I have yet to meet a southern conservative on the internet who knows which version to use correctly.

It goes to show, Bree Newsome is on to something with her pleas for correcting incorrect history.

Featured Image via Flickr


Trump Busted

WATCH: BUSTED! Trumps Middle East Business Ties Exposed As He Calls For Ban On Muslims In U.S. (VIDEO)


You Thought Donald Trump Was Bad? The Rest Of The Republican Field Is Islamophobic As Well


Trumps Name Is So Toxic Even Canada Is Striking Back


White House Press Secretary Blasts Trump For Un-American Anti-Muslim Comments (VIDEO)

  • What would Studs say

    Imagine what Texas schoolchildren will be saying in 25 years…

    • glogrrl

      Imagine what theyre saying now.

  • Tim

    Funny thing about books is how many different perspectives they come from. What is funnier is those who are trying to argue which is most accurate based on what they were taught when none of us were actually there to see it with our own eyes.

    • Keyser Soze

      Well to anyone who actually thinks slavery was great for the slaves, I can only say this: come clean my house and mow my lawn, for no money, for the rest of your life. Itll be great!

      • Dartsblaster2011

        I do tend to agree Keyser Soze, and I even have a lot of cast off clothing with which to clothe any volunteers. Of course, they may have to get sort of used to the bull whip the foreman totes and uses pretty liberally but anything is better than being free and on your own, huh?

      • Kevin Kuhl

        And if you dont do it to my satisfaction you will feel the strap across your back. Oh…by the way, Ill be selling your child at the next auction……Sure, they were happy.

    • runnerin1

      Some of us apply a little common sense. Some of us have none to apply.

    • David Bonfiglio

      There were plenty of people who saw it with their own eyes and still saw only what they wanted to see. That i
      is about all the civility I can muster.

    • Johnny 5

      One doesnt need to directly witness history to gain an accurate concept of it, provided one uses reputable sources. One can employ common sense. It will always be skewed toward the victors version, but claiming slavery was actually good for the slaves, as opposed to freedom, is a dead giveaway that youre reading pure apologist drivel.

    • Linda King Blackman

      i actual witness blacks being called (n word in public and them expected to take it and say yes mame yes sir). a older black woman in there about 1963 was told in a cafe she had to leave not to sit down after ordering her food.

      • Susan Patrie

        *Civil War*.

        • funkyfunky

          You must be very proud. Lindas grammar isnt the best, but shes still a much better person than you.

    • John S

      You dont have to time travel to know being enslaved, stripped of all human rights and dignity including the ability to keep your children, wasnt a vacation.

      Besides we have plenty of first person contemporaneous accounts from all sorts of people. Do you want to give up your salary and freedom to be your employers slave?

    • https://twitter.com/MetroIssues Metro Issues

      You are arguing against reason, and further against the reality that many have gone on to learn history from a wide variety of historians who knew what they were talking about, by reading their books or taking their higher education classes.

    • JonGorski

      none of us were actually there, which is why we base our knowledge in primary sources, accounts from people who WERE there to see it with their own eyes.

      Youve never been on the Moon, but Im sure youre more than certain its not made of cheese.

    • MaBriggs

      Just because you werent there to witness it doesnt mean it didnt happen. We werent there to see the Revolutionary War yet it still happened.

    • D Toole

      Have you ever took the time to read actual accounts from slaves?

  • Heist Barnes

    Slaves had it so great and were so happy the nation enacted fugitive slave laws that systematically made it a requirement to return any escaped slave to the owner. The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory. After the compromise of 1850, the Supreme Court
    made slavery a protected institution and arranged a series of laws that
    allowed slavery in the new territories and forced officials in Free
    States to give a hearing to slaveholders without a jury. So much for the Happy Darky theory espoused by some historians.

  • Brooke

    I wish/hope that 12 Years a Slave becomes required reading in US History classes.

    • Alvi Mana

      Unfortunately, not in our lifetime.

    • Gary Nellis

      Will never happen in the south, sadly.

    • Randy Breeser

      more importantly…Howard Zinns A Peoples History

    • Eleanor Boening

      A better book is Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.

    • Kris Kendrick

      It is in college.

  • Roy Heath

    Isnt this illegal and a form of child abuse?

  • Thomas Lahmer

    Ok people first of all ….the slaves having it so great is what was being argued by the south at the time against emancipation…..lets not forget this ….the general public (and the politicians) at this time in history did have a consensus. The author to me seems to be pointing out the reasons the south were arguing for slavery….sheesh STOP THE F ING RACE BATEING! (or how ever you spell it)

    • https://twitter.com/MetroIssues Metro Issues

      Telling the whole truth about history isnt race bateing. (race bating) you see, the author was spot on about Southerners ability to spell.

      • Thomas Lahmer

        Oh and by the way it is Race-baiting…lol not batting…lol if your gonna be the spelling police at least be correct your self man….anyhow my point was the slaves were treated bad yes absolutely….The author of the text book seemed to me to be regurgitating the sentiment of the day…..Not arguing that the slaves had it good, which, in my opinion, is important. Dont sugar coat or spin it people need to be challenged to form their own opinions…it does no good to get angry about the past you cant change history.

        • Bryan Eldridge Hurst

          Uh, no. Shes pointing out that a common history book used in Alabama up until the early `70s sugar-coated slavery. And today we have generations of southerners raised on this crap, and being brainwashed about heritage and southern pride. She doesnt have to try to anger anyone any reasonable human being should be angry when reading this.

        • Gary Baker

          slave baiting masterbaiting whats the difference lol

      • Thomas Lahmer

        Oh and by the way it is Race-baiting…lol not batting…lol if your gonna be the spelling police at least be correct your self man….anyhow my point was the slaves were treated bad yes absolutely….The author of the text book seemed to me to be regurgitating the sentiment of the day…..Not arguing that the slaves had it good, which, in my opinion, is important. Dont sugar coat or spin it ….people need to be challenged to

        • chefacec

          too. :-/

      • Declan Sanchez

        If they would only stop inbreeding…

      • PissedOffSmoker

        I like how the author makes an important point and you choose to ignore it because you dont have anything to say against it.

      • Barbara Morgan Elliott


        • Boc

          I smirked, well played

    • Jerry Graybosch

      Read the text….when talking about healthcare and social security he is NOT regurgitating old opinions. They are clearly his own.

      • IBMMuseum

        …And those of his wife (a schoolteacher herself), who wrote the passages as he dictated them to her. She lived for over 15 years (until 2003) after his death and was a big part of the reason his books continued to be used (with large contributions to UA). His success was said to have largely been driven by her as his wife.

    • pbjtime

      Pretending that everything was (and is) okay is causing racial tension. Race baiting = denial of racism, the way holocaust denial is a slap in the face to Jews. Do you not see that? Because Im lilly white and its plain as day to me.

  • Jack McKechnie

    Texas believe it or not actually picks the school books for the rest of the nation. Is it any wonder now why you would have someone in say Iowa or in another state or even some one from Detroit like Kid Rock not have a clue as t its meaning…

    • Eleanor Boening

      How did you learn about what really happened if the true facts are not out there? If you were able to get the information, what makes you think the rest of the country didnt. What kind of ignorant thinking is that?

      • andrea

        There are more books than Texas Textbooks to read.
        But you have to be willing to realize that whats written in a Texas Textbook is useless and you are basically ignorant, before you can learn. Thats the issue.

  • disqus_1Ib1sKJkGz1

    To be clear, Radical isnt a term that this textbook invented to insult the Republican party. The Radicals were a wing of the Republican party before and after the Civil War; they gave themselves the name. (This doesnt take away from the other passages, which are incredibly racist. But Id expect that youd find the term Radical Republicans used in many American history textbooks, not just racist ones.)

    • Shanna

      good to know.

  • andrea

    I dont recall what history books said about the Civil War when I was in grade school. I think I had to learn about a lot of that outside of those books, probably by watching PBS. What I DO remember was reading the book Black Like Me, by John Howard Griffin, in which he demonstrated the vileness of racism by treating himself to look darker, and then exploring the Deep South, essentially masquerading as a black man like that woman we all vilified last month.
    Griffins purpose was to EXPOSE what he was seeing which was in fact truly awful and a major eye opener to anyone who read it. I was reading the book in 1979 or 1980 I imagine. It was in my elementary school library I think. However I grew up in Colorado, big difference.
    I flashed on that story decades later as I transitioned from male to female and experienced the exact same kinds of things he described: the truth of sexism, walking down the same street as a woman, as I had as a man, and getting cat-called in a very frightening way. The most useful history book, to me, should put us in the shoes of the people from all walks of life in any given period.

  • Polyglot1960

    This is why so many are fighting so hard to preserve the flag of Southern Hospitality.

  • Declan Sanchez

    Alabama the land that time forgot……soon to be joined by Texas.

  • 8th grade teacher

    I am a teacher of Social Studies in North Carolina. If you seriously want to discuss this issue and make people who were taught from these textbooks understand your position calling them ignorant is not the way to do it. I dont have textbooks at all so I use things such as Incidents in the life of a slave girl and Unchained Memories which are the stories of the former slaves written down during the New Deal. I am a product of North Carolinas school system and I am not ignorant. I know the difference between your and youre and I can use them correctly. I am offended by some of the comments on here. As I tell my students, if you want to be heard stick to the topic without name calling those that do not agree with you. Lets keep it civil and respectful.

    • http://louiszwu.blogspot.com/ Michael Powers

      Unfortunately, the ignorant and hateful always seem to have the loudest voices, while those who call for reason and civility are often summarily ignored. Oddly, this is one aspect of America that seems to have no cultural boundaries.

      • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

        Yes, liberals do seem to have the loudest voices and theyre always talking about hate and coming from positions of ignorance you actually are 100% right about that!

    • ken mabry

      Thank you. I grew up in the South. East Tennessee. The history books taught us that slavery was exactly what the Civil War was all about. English teachers taught us how to speak correctly such as pronouncing tire as that and not saying tar. We learned contractions Youre a contraction for you are. and your as a possessive. And no one inbreeds. Quit being fools you Northerners. Just quit it. Your are no better than anyone else!

      • Rai Goldin

        Yes, we are. We won. Stop fighting the war and sulking about it. Seriously. We know that educated, sophisticated people come from all 50 states, and so do hick ashholes. If you have to yell that youre one and not the other, then the issue really is in question.

        PS You blew it in the last sentence, brain-trust.

        • ken mabry

          I am not re-fighting the Civil War. I am glad the Union (not you/there were union soldiers from the South) won. Slavery is a crime against humanity. When people disparage a whole region sometimes it makes you ant to yell. I do admit some of us here bring it on ourselves.

          • David Stephenson

            We dont disparage the south because it makes us feel good about ourselves, we disparage it because we have never been given a single reason not to. The south continues to live up to the worst expectations about it every time the issue is in question, and claiming to be a good southerner while still having pride about living in that shithole area of the world (unlike many actual good people who live in/came out of the south, who view it as a mark of shame) makes me incredibly skeptical of your claims.

      • http://kkarstens.wix.com/karstenscreations Kevin Karstens

        Quit being fools you Northerners. Just quit it. Your are no better than anyone else!

        Id say the side that did NOT support slavery or whitewash history is the better side…call me crazy. But dont call me a fool, thats for the side that DID those things…

        • ken mabry

          I apologize to you for calling Northerners fools. That was wrong and way over the top. And arrogant. I know you took it personally. Im sorry.

        • GOTBOOTH

          Didnt support slavery? Are you aware of the Corwin amendment? You do know that during that war there 5 Union slave states? How about 6 months AFTER Abes Emancipation Proc WVA coming into the Union as a slave state. Did they teach you that? Have fun googling.

      • Mark Smith

        A little off topic I know, but, pronouncing tire as tar is a southern thing? I grew up in central NY, about 20 miles north of Syracuse, and that is how a large number of people say it, And lur, instead of lure. The list goes on.

        • ken mabry

          Its pretty much on topic Mark. Interesting to find commonality. Our pronunciation and grammar drove the teachers here crazy.

      • obadiahorthodox

        Im a damn Yankee from Ohio. We were taught in school that the (un) Civil War was all about slavery. The economy of the Southern States had for its foundation slavery. The states rights issue Southerners always scream about was the States Rights to hold human beings hostage and force them to expend their lives in harsh labor, and/or be beaten with horse whips till their bodies were torn to shreds and they finally learned their place as 3/5ths human and to always stay in their place.
        Makes me ashamed to be an American white male because of all the horrible things done to human beings in the name of economic prosperity and American exceptionalism. Long live American hegemonic supremacy. (snark)

    • Rai Goldin

      Sweetheart, I live and teach in Arizona, the land of SB1070. You know the people who believe this stuff are batsh*t crazy, and taking it personally when you KNOW youre not the topic of discussion makes you look defensive of the indefensible.

      You may not have difficulty with homonyms, but you certainly seem to have difficulty with detachment. You really do come off like youre protesting far too much.

      • 8th grade teacher

        First, I am an adult that is not known to you and therefore the term sweetheart is inappropriate in this case. Second, I am not protesting anything, I am just saying that when you make degrading and rude comments about people in general (such as Southerners) you are displaying the same type of prejudice that you profess to be against. Therefore, people tend to tune you out because of your rudeness. Also in response to your comment about being better than Southerners: remember in South Carolina, people came together after the murder of 9 innocent people and worked for removing the flag and giving support the families and Mother Emmanuel Church. They burned down sections of Baltimore when there was an injustice there. If you think that you are better than all Southerners, you are a perfect example of why this country is in the situation it is in. The only way to heal this nation is to come together and discuss issues rationally and with civility.

        • Rai Goldin

          I dont think Im better than all Southerners, just ones with whiny attitudes. Dont defend the indefensible and then expect respect.

    • marilyn

      Im a southerner as well. I was an English and history double major in college, and I also know the difference between your and youre. However, I dont get offended when people say derogatory things about southerners. I dont get offended, because we earned it. We earned every bit of the disdain with our attitudes and behavior. Of course there are some of us who are educated, decent people, and the people who say snarky things about southerners actually tend to know that. They really do. But we, as a people, have a long history of being jackasses, and everybody knows that too. If I am ever tempted to take offense at something someone has said about the South, I just remind myself of that fact. We earned it. And we havent done very much at all to try to change peoples perceptions of us. We just continue to wallow in our blind stupidity, and wear our hatred with pride. Is it really any wonder people look at us with contempt?

    • Shanna

      The above book is from the 1950s. Theres a big movement to write history books in the same vein, and its gaining some traction in parts of the southern US. The point of the post was to show that there was an official curriculum of the era in SC that painted slavery as overall beneficial to all including slaves, and that northern liberals ruined a good thing. Your inclusion of the two books you mention are laudable. glad to hear it, but remember theres a lot of white southerners in their 60s and 70s who believed all that stuff and still do.

    • andrea

      Im a transplant to the South from the West.
      Im trying to be civil but honey, yall have some serious problems and you need to face them. The South is the armpit of the nation. Im sorry but it cant be fixed until you unburden yourself from that completely unearned Southern Pride. You cannot be proud of being so backwards.
      There are things to be proud of in the South. Unfortunately, no one can hear over the ye-haa-ing of the Dukes of Hazzard.

      PS have lived here for 20+ years, so I think I am qualified to comment. It is TRULY ass-backwards here, and Im in a more progressive state. Ive been to the less progressive ones which look to me like theyre about on the same level as Mexico.

      It is truly that bad. Im sorry.

    • Ernest C Chapman

      8 grade teacher, are the facts regarding the misinformation truly factual or made up? Im curious as to why you choose to defend the use of bogus information, by deflecting the issue and making it one about civility. I did not take the thread as a reflection of all southerners. I believe the point was to show how ignorant the system has made a number of southern taught students and that their ignorance is manifested in their manner of speech.

  • whymilikethis

    First, I believe Bree Newsome deserves a medal. I was communicating via Facebook with a number of southern women from South Carolina a few days ago. I hoped only to enlighten them on how Southern Pride was viewed by so many. When I mentioned what I believe to be horrendous and blatant racism or prejudice which I saw displayed every time I visited the south; what I learned about the south from friends, family, relatives, boyfriend, etc. I was not trying to be offensive at all, I only hoped they would be interested in a perspective that was not one of their own.They pretty much all agreed that there was not nearly the level of racial divide and that the news/media inflated what it actually is like. I need to add here that all of these people were white. Except for one lady, most believed it was part of their heritage and symbolized their deep love of their home. I countered that every day, any time of the day, there is some kind of violence in the south due to racism. I asked how they could be proud of that. I asked why,if taking down the flag might ease some of the intense racial tension, wouldnt that be the best thing to do? I also asked them if it meant anything to them at all that flying this flag was a slap in the face of 99% of blacks, not just in the south but nationwide (worldwide). By that time, despite my respectful questions and my being very polite, assuring them that I was merely curious, things got heated. Near the end of the conversation I asked them how much did Pacific Northwest Pride mean to them; that Pacific Northwest Pride meant as much to them as Southern Pride meant to me. I wanted to know, couldnt they be just as proud without the flag? Couldnt they see that it MIGHT just ease a tiny bit of tension with blacks & wouldnt that be a good thing? Apparently not. I respectively told them that the rest of the US didnt see things their way, that they didnt represent the US with their thoughts or ideas, that racism in the south was certainly nothing to be proud of, that really only white southerners did NOT think that the south was the very hub of racial unrest in America. Southern charm? Southern Pride? Southern ladies? Im thinking those phrases are pretty mythical because on my exit of the conversation, I did not witness any of those ladies being charming. Prideful? Yes.

    • D Toole

      The closet racists will never understand, no matter how you explain it or show it to them.
      I was severely beaten several times growing up in rural Tennessee because of my darker skin. Twice I was even sexually assaulted on the school bus. When I tried to get help, I was repeatly told different versions of thats what your kind likes and accused of initiating by school officials. (I was in 4th 5th grade at the time of sexual assault, my attacker was in 8th grade.)
      To this day, those in the town still make excuss, try to discredit and rationalize what happen to me and what continues to happen to minorities there.
      But its all heritage and never hate in their minds.

    • Cara Lea

      The sad truth of the matter is that the majority of the population in the United States of America has an IQ of between 83 100. 113 is the max common. So, consider that for a minute please. Most of the people in America are barely above being borderline mentally disabled. Yes, I know I am being a little harsh here but take facts into account, put things into context. Now, also take into account that racial acts occur everywhere ever few seconds out of every day, not just in the South, and usually who is it that is speaking about racism? Is it a white person being racist? Or is it someone claiming that we are being racist? Most of the time I have found it to be the later. So, if that is indeed the case, does the problem lie with me, or the person who is claiming that I am racist? Because I, nor anyone in my community, have not done anything racist. We are proud of our heritage because we have respect for those that died for what they believed in, those that made us who we are. They may not have believed in a way that you support, but so what, at least they had a back bone to fight for what they believed in. Many bad things did occur during the civil war, and also before and after it. We need not just look at the negative, we need to see the positive as well. I hope the population sees here what has occurred in so many other parts of history. The winning party is trying to justify themselves and they are trying to erase the losing parties history and change it to make them look evil so that the population will support the winning party. And of course the common man is going with it because look at the intelligence we posses. Just because a symbol means one thing at one period of time, does not mean that it still holds the same meaning for people as time progresses. It is the same with language. What means hello in one language can mean screw you in another and you can easily offend someone. People are going to get offended, there is just no way to please everyone. Rather than trying to sooth the tension between the blacks (please notice that you said the tension is between the blacks with the whites, its not the whites with the blacks, so who is causing the trouble here?) which really wont do much because they will demand more and more til they take away everything, you should just let people have their symbols instead of taking them away because in reality it really wont fix anything, youll just create an even bigger mess. Now, here we get to the part about slavery. The unions today are used to make sure that workers get fair compensation for their work, so workers now get health insurance, dental insurance, etc and all that is taken from their pay. Well, would it not make sense that you paid someone with food, shelter, and health care that it was a fair trade for their work? No, slaves may not have had a choice in what they were doing or where they were or things like that, but they did get food, shelter, and care. Think of your car. You use your car to go to work, school, everywhere. You take good care of your car, dont you? Because it helps you earn money. Dont you think slave owners would do the same for their slaves? It is only logical, but I am sure that there were abusive slave owners. There definitely were, because there is always going to be someone evil or bad amidst the good. To wrap all this up, because I have a life and things to do, people to help, we let you have your gay flags, your gay pride, so let us have our flag and southern pride too. You demand equality, well so do we. If you dont like how we act, you can move somewhere else. People dont have to change for you. Sorry, but that is just not how life works. Thank you for your time, and I am sorry that you encountered any heat from the South, but honestly what can you expect when you try to take something from someone and you try to tell them that they arent as good as you are.

  • Lucky Jackson

    The statement with our own eyes, or were you there? Is a really a stupid tool that dummies have embraced. Religious apologists and under informed people are the ones who use it.The very thing that Science and education and reasoning bring to the table is you do not need to see it with your own eyes, or be there. I was not there when A. Lincoln was shot and I did not ever meet Julius Caesar., Most crimes would never be solved, if this child-like thinking was used.

  • drumstick00m

    Dammit William Faulkner, I want to feel bad for Quentin, but you keep making it damn difficult!

  • disqus_22iqFVV4qK

    Im Glad my mom took me to see Mandingo in 1975. That movie truly depicts Slavery as it was back then. Todays version would be Jango unchained. I havent seen 12 years a slave. Im sure its not as graphic as the other two movies.

    • Susan Patrie

      Seriously? Youre going to use movies as reliable sources? lol

      • Boc

        Im really hoping those references were sarcastic

  • cetude

    Actually the Holy Bible perpetuated slaveryministers preached the gospel of slavery because it was approved of in the Bible. See for yourself:

    Exodus 21:7: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

    God approved the practice and laid down rules for buyers and sellers.

    Leviticus 25:44-46: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

    Exodus 21:20-21:When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

    Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ.

    Colossians 4:1: Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

    Titus 2:9-10: Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

    Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

    Exodus 21:7: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

    • D Toole

      All the more reason to NOT believe in fairy tale deities.

    • pbjtime

      Like many of the Christians who argues against slavery, they viewed the discussion of slavery the same as the discussion of government Christians were not to rebel against their government, for there was a separation of Church and state all of these issues are this world and one should show submission to your slave master or God or wife or neighbor, for we were all to turn the other cheek regardless of the situation. However, no Christian could be a slave owner, knowing that it violated the primary rule that one must treat others as they wish to be treated.

      • cetude

        You are absolutely 100% WRONG-the Bible preaches keeping slaves and the South kept slavesChristiansbecause the Bible says they canand even justified the practice using the Bible. The Ministers all over the South preached the virtues of slaveryit was used as a tool to keep the trade alive and well. Only civil war ended the practice. Now if you ever took a History class you would know this.

        • pbjtime

          Im not arguing that the southerners didnt use the Bible to justify their use of slaves. Im arguing that this interpretation was not universally accepted the North was Christian, too.

          • cetude

            It was accepted enough in the South to cause a civil war.

          • pbjtime

            Some does not equal all in logical arguments: There is a difference between saying Christianity supports slavery and A segment of Christianity supported slavery. Christians as a group, much like America, cover a broad set of people and beliefs. To be correct, you would state, Prior to the civil war, the Southern Baptist Convention believed that slavery and white supremacy was justifiable under Biblical law. It would be factually incorrect to say, In pre-civil war America, Christians believed slavery was justifiable under Biblical law.

            To be fair to your point, slavery of non-Christians was tolerated by the Church up until the middle ages the Church argues it was tolerated or else it would have incited war, which if our own civil war is any indication, may well have been the case.

  • warsaw

    The education in the north was no better. I went to Catholic school in the 50s and never heard a thing about the reason for the Civil war. The nuns spoke about the darkies who were coming up from the south and how someday they would make us (whites) get off the sidewalks as they passed. Really happened in Connecticut!

  • warriorgoddess

    Arguing that the slaves were well-treated with medical care, etc. is just pathetic and shows how low the apologists have to stoop to make their points. Of course slave owners would provide medical care for some (but certainly not all of their slaves). They considered them investments- livestock in fact. They provided medical care to those that would provide further value if they were back to full health. Those that would not provide the further value were not given treatment. It is simple and kind of sums up how people felt about other people- both back then and now. The feeling being that some people matter more than others. It is wrong and everyone backing that thinking should be ashamed.

  • HM8432

    Devils Advocate, here. Yes, there was indeed a pro-Confederate bias in these textbooks (*Gasp!* Alabama, a southern state, had textbooks offering a Southern viewpoint? The horror!), but that doesnt necessarily mean the facts were incorrect; after reading the underlined passages (many of whom WERE historically accurate), its apparent that most of those passages were merely uncomfortable truths by 21st Century, PC standards. Bree failed to point-out WHY those statements were factually wrong (just because it was written from a Southern point-of-view, doesnt necessarily make the information false)! This article by Newsome is entirely emotion-driven (she even resorts to pointing out trite pronunciation-errors, that shes guilty of as wellthats the hallmark of a weak argument), rather than that of being logical. Facts dont stop being facts just because someone is upset by them.

    • Skip Moreland

      So you are saying that slavery (as you say it is historically accurate) was good for those enslaved? Because that is what the history book was touting, slaves just had it great. And historically, that is pure BS and completely inaccurate.

      • Boc

        No, hes saying that the stereotypical Uncle Toms Cabin image of slavery isnt exactly indicative of the whole of the South. Now, another uncomfortable truth is that the individual slave was a high value commodity, so it tended to be in the owners best interest to treat him/her in a non barbaric manner.

        Yes, owning people is and was immoral, and the separation of family units was a horrible thing, and they worked without compensation for the (sometimes) grueling labor. But the vast, vast majority were not whipped and beaten.

        Yes, I am a product of the Alabama public school system, and I completely understand the intricacies of your and youre. You had some typos so Id recommend proofreading better prior to hitting that publish button and calling others ignorant next time.

        • pbjtime

          There is no need to treat them in a non-barbaric manner because they are high value if anything, it encouraged barbarism. They were chained and whipped for not complying after all, a lot of money was paid for them so if they ran away or didnt perform, it was a huge loss of investment. Nothing like beating someone until they perform or chaining them to prevent their escape to prove your complete barbarism.

          And I think what you just said shows you ARE a product of the Alabama system and from a yankee perspective, this is why your state is poor. Your education system is more concerned about protecting the feelings of white, far right religious rednecks then it is about proper education. This is why so many in the south thinks the world is 3000 years old and that slavery wasnt all that bad. Until this ends, the south will continue to be the laughingstock of the county.

          • Mark Mayes

            Wow! Thats the way. Keep shaming them the religious waywith guilt. GUILT and SHAME and mocking scorn are the best way to teach a lesson!

          • pbjtime

            The past is nothing to be ashamed of, you arent responsible for what others did long ago. Im shaming you for DENYING the evils that happened, just like I would a holocaust denier.

        • Skip Moreland

          Where did I correct anyones grammar or word usage? Its his and yours ignorance I address.
          The whitewashing of how slavery was certainly took with you two. Uncle toms cabin is the whitewashed version of what it was like to be a slave. You should read how people saw the horror of slavery and never do justice as to how much of a horror it truly was. You are truly ignorant if you think slaves were decently treated. I really wish all of you could experience slavery and see how bad it is. Then you wouldnt be trying to say slavery wasnt that bad.
          Saying slavery was good for them is like saying genocide was good for the native americans. Oh wait, that is precisely what americans used to say. And some still think that way.

        • Shanna

          Slaves and Blacks were never treated with dignity in the south by whites and white establishment until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s. Theres no but. Doesnt matter if someone was never physically beaten. Being owned and disrespected as something less than human is devestating enough. but has no place in the discussion of slavery. It was wrong then and to justify it in any means now is wrong.

        • andrea

          Forcing someone to work without pay and not allowing them to leave is treating them in a barbaric manner.
          There is not a non-barbaric manner to have slaves. Slavery is barbarism. it is uncivilized. Its what less-evolved people do.
          Its despicable.

      • HM8432

        Slavery itself was bad, though a necessary-evil, since large-scale automated farming machines and sharecropping/migrant farming was not present in our country at that time. The facts I was referring to, were what Bree underlined as being questionable. Forgetting that only 12% of southerners owned slaves at the beginning of the Civil War, and that everyone, everywhere (including the South) recognized it was an institution that was dying-out anyway, the whole idea that slavery was the primary, rather than the secondary-cause of the Civil War, is revisionist hogwash; the victors typically re-write the history books, always sanitizing THEIR complicity (the North supplied the South with slaves, even after it was illegal, and returned escaped-ones to that region, for example). To be honest, if you were a slave-owner who just paid a huge amount of money for a slave, and were expecting a lifetimes-worth of manual labor from them, wouldnt it be in your best interest to keep that slave(s) health and strong? Theres a reason theres only one photograph of ONE slave with whip-marks all over his back, because that sort of mistreatment of slaves wasnt as common as anti-slavery activists wanted people to believe. It didnt fit their narrative, as is true with sanctimonious-types today who will ignore uncomfortable facts if it doesnt fit their personal-narrative (as yourself)! Personally, I think the freed slaves should have been shipped-back to Africa as Lincoln and Marcus Garvey later advocated (we all know Africa is a veritable Garden of Eden…so peaceful, and disease/poverty-free!)…we ALL would have been better-off today had that been done, we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

        • pbjtime

          It wasnt a necessary evil, it had been outlawed in many areas. Slavery is necessary the way any depressed wage is necessary to keep a few rich and the rest poor and powerless.

          • HM8432

            So how would YOU have ensured an adequate harvest to feed the populace, had you live up-to the mid-19th Century, hmmm? Its easy to be an armchair-quarterback and pass-judgment (using inferior 21st Century standards) as if you could have somehow done it better…what, the crops would have picked-themselves, by MAGIC, perhaps? Slavery was necessary, and northerners, though they wont admit it, indirectly benefitted from the institution.

          • pbjtime

            Ah, they were feeding the populace with cotton, eh? And youll note from the Texas declaration of secession that there wasnt much mention about feeding America. {Texas} was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. {The non-slave holding states} proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.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.

          • HM8432

            Cotton wasnt the only crop be picked by slaves, just the most profitable one. Nice cut-and-paste though!

          • pbjtime

            And the primary one- the south grew 75% of the WORLDS cotton the non slaveholding states in 1860 produced half of the nations corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

            So it looks like you could grow large quantities of food without slaves, so I was not armchair quarterbacking.

          • mfinca

            The Souths main crop by far was cotton. Not much food value. Many farms did not produce enough food to be self sufficient.

          • HM8432

            Cotton was merely the most profitable crop. The South still provided the nations fresh produce (including to northern states), as the Midwest didnt become viable agriculturally, until the 1880s, when better farming equipment/techniques, and the eradication of the Indians, made it possible there. Because of this, and the fact that the North funded/supplied the slave-trade up until the Civil War, The North was complicit, and directly benefitted from this institution (but youll never hear about it in THEIR textbooks!).

          • mfinca

            I suggest you do more reading. You might try the series The Ordeal of the Union, by Allan Nevins. They were written in the 1940s before the Civil Rights era and cover US history in the 1840s and 50s. I think you will find the second volume covers this issue best. You will find that your stated facts are incorrect.

          • chefacec

            Puhleeze….hell ignore that like a hungry child or a vet with PSTD. He doesnt care for facts…..

        • Skip Moreland

          Theres only one problem with what you say, all the states that seceded stated slavery as the primary reason to leave the union. The north was moving away from slavery and the south was clinging to it. And thus the south decided to wage war in order to keep slavery.
          As for there being only one photo, photography was still being developed at the end of slavery, it wasnt practical until the 1850s. and why would someone want pics of slaves who had been whipped? No you are quite wrong about slaves not being whipped, it is documented too well that it did occur frequently enough.
          Keep trying to say that slavery was good for them. I wish all of you who keep trying to push that lie could endure what slavery was for a length of time, just to see how good it is. Bet you wouldnt last very long.
          Send them away and have all you bigots and racists with no one to hate? You would only find someone else to replace them and hate anyways.

  • D Toole

    This wasnt just taught in the 70s. My Tennessee high school taught the same bs when I attended (2006 2009).
    We were taught the Southerners saved the slaves from a savage life in Africa, therefore, advancing their chances of survival and allowing the opportunity to eventually prosper. That slavery wasnt bad at all and slaves were treated equally and with respect.

  • The Denver Diamond

    That was the same stuff I learned in a different state only the way they chose their words was different. The word choice told the same information but said it in a less biased way. The word choice here makes them seem almost defensive over these facts that they are talking about.

  • TakeActionWAHM

    It should be pretty clear from this just why Black History month was established in 1976. White history certainly wasnt telling the whole story.

    • Susan Patrie

      Neither does black history tell the whole truth. Everyone embellishes to create sympathy.

      • pbjtime

        Slavery doesnt need embellishing to create sympathy. Nor does the Jim Crow era, which was frankly so incredibly horrific it is hard to read any accounts of it without blushing in national shame.

  • Susan Patrie

    It was NOT a holocaust. Look up words before you use them.

    • Sheepeople

      Susan, you are product of a culture of cowards who take pride in the power of ignorance. Your delusions can not be shared with people who think for themselves instead of following like children.

      I doubt you have the attention span to read this, but others will. From todays The Washington Post

      History is the polemics of the victor, William Buckley allegedly said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War.

      As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done, and why. Their resulting mythology persists which is why a presidential candidate can suggest that slavery was somehow pro-family, and the public believes that the war was mainly fought over states rights.

      The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause of white supremacy and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation that they spread, which has manifested in both our history books and our public monuments.

      Take Kentucky. Kentuckys legislature voted not to secede. Eventually, 90,000 Kentuckians would fight for the United States, while 35,000 fought for the Confederate States. Nevertheless, according to historian Thomas Clark, the state now has 72 Confederate monuments and only two Union ones.

      Neo-Confederates also won western Maryland. In 1913, the United Daughters of the Confederacy put a soldier on a pedestal at the Rockville, Md., courthouse. Montgomery County never seceded, of course. While Maryland did send 24,000 men to the Confederate armed forces, it sent 63,000 to the U.S. Army and Navy. Nevertheless, the Confederate monument tells visitors to take the other side: To our heroes of Montgomery Co. Maryland That we through life may not forget to love the Thin Gray Line.

      In fact, the Thin Gray Line came through Montgomery and adjoining Frederick counties at least three times, en route to Antietam, Gettysburg and Washington. Lees army expected to find recruits and help with food, clothing and information. They didnt. Maryland residents greeted Union soldiers as liberators when they came through on the way to Antietam. Recognizing the residents of Frederick as hostile, Confederate cavalry leader Jubal Early demanded and got $300,000 from them lest he burn their town, a sum equal to at least $5 million today.

      Today, however, Frederick boasts what it calls the Maryland Confederate Memorial, and the manager of the Frederick cemetery filled with Union and Confederate dead told me in an interview, Very little is done on the Union side around Memorial Day. Its mostly Confederate.

      In addition to winning the battle for public monuments, neo-Confederates also managed to rename the war, calling it the War Between the States. Nevermind that while it was going on, no one called it that. Even the game show Jeopardy! accepts it.

      Perhaps most perniciously, neo-Confederates now claim that the South seceded for states rights. When each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states rights.

      In its Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union, for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had given offense: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.

      These states had in fact exercised states rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal governments attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some also no longer let slaveowners transit through their states with their slaves. States rights were what Texas was seceding against.

      The Texas declaration also made clear that it was seceding for the cause of white supremacy.

      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.

      Despite such statements, neo-Confederates put up monuments that flatly lied about the Confederate cause.

      For example, South Carolinas monument at Gettysburg, dedicated in 1965, claims to explain why the state seceded: Abiding faith in the sacredness of states rights provided their creed here. This tells us nothing about 1863, when abiding opposition to states rights as claimed by free states provided South Carolinians creed.

      In 1965, however, its leaders did support states rights. Indeed, they were desperately trying to keep the federal government from enforcing school desegregation and civil rights. The one constant was that the leaders of South Carolina in 1860 and 1965 were acting on behalf of white supremacy.

      So thoroughly did this mythology take hold that our textbooks still stand history on its head and say secession was for, rather than against, states rights. Publishers mystify secession because they dont want to offend Southern school districts and thereby lose sales.

      Consider that The American Journey, perhaps the best-selling U.S. history textbook, claims that secession occurred because Southerners feared for their rights and liberties. On the next page, Journey becomes more precise: White Southerners claimed that since the national government had been derelict by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and by denying the Southern states equal rights in the territories the states were justified in leaving the Union.

      Journey offers no evidence to support this claim. It cannot. No Southern state made any such charge against the federal government in any secession document I have ever seen. Under Presidents James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, members of the pro-Southern wing of the Democratic Party, the federal government vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. The seven states that seceded before February 1861 had no quarrel with the national government.

      Teaching or implying that the Confederate states seceded for states rights is not accurate history. It is white, Confederate-apologist history. It bends even breaks the facts of what happened. Like other U.S. history textbooks, Journey needs to be de-Confederatized.

      So does the history test we give to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Item 74 asks, Name one problem that led to the Civil War. It then gives three acceptable answers: slavery, economic reasons, and states rights. If by economic reasons it means issues about tariffs and taxes, which most people infer, then two of its three correct answers are wrong. No other question on this 100-item test has more than one right answer. The reason is not because the history is unclear, but because neo-Confederates still wielded considerable influence in our culture and our Congress until quite recently, when a mass of politicians rushed to declare the Confederate battle flag unsuitable for display on government grounds.

      Now the dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., has noted that the cathedral needs to de-Confederatize its stained glass windows. That would be a start for the District of Columbia, which also needs to remove its statue of Albert Pike, Confederate general and leader of the Arkansas Ku Klux Klan, from Judiciary Square.

      The Pentagon also needs to de-Confederatize the Army. No more Fort A.P. Hill. No more Fort Bragg, named for a general who was not only Confederate but also incompetent. No more Fort Benning, named for a general who, after he had helped get his home state of Georgia to secede, made the following argument to the Virginia legislature:

      What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction … that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery.

      With our monuments lying about secession, our textbooks obfuscating what the Confederacy was about, and our army honoring its generals, no wonder so many Americans support the Confederacy. Across the country, removing slavery from its central role in prompting the Civil War marginalizes African-Americans and makes us all stupid.

      De-Confederatizing the United States wont end white supremacy, but it will be a momentous step in that direction.

  • CletusBeauregard

    This is why we need national educational standards.

  • wildwilly1111

    Here, and I always thought history was written by the victors…

  • WilmaWonka

    Ugh, that is just outright cringe-worthy.

  • Christopher Hall

    Look at the last of the paragraph, at the top of the last pic. That should have been highlighted.

    Southerners were tricked by them tricksey Northerners.

    The pages should have caught on fire from the power of the lies printed on them. There should. at least, have been scorch marks.

  • Christopher Hall

    Im kind of surprised that they didnt spin it that the Civil War was really about the North trying to move into the South, since it was so good there.

  • sam_brit10

    It doesnt matter how well they treated the slaves. Not that I believe most slaves were treated well, but it doesnt matter. Owning people is morally repugnant and wrong. Period.

  • Thomas Phillips

    all American people stand aside return this land back to the native Indians problem solved every one is so caught up in there race or religion who should or shouldnt be here but if you honestly dig deep enough every one here that is not a native Indian dose not belong here

  • Steve Black

    Your an idiot…..and I really do know the difference between you and youre or the differences between their, there and theyre…..BTW, I grew up in Alabama and never had this textbook. My history teachers would have laughed for eternity if they had seen that bunk written in our text books. With that said, youre still and idiot.

  • 1NedSprockethead1

    Some of you intellectually stunted yappers might want to read up on indentured servants.

  • cetude

    The Muslim Arabs did the slave trade in Europe, and were also delivered to Americahowever, the African leaders captured their own people and sold them for trinkets and iron. The African leaders themselves kept slaves. A slave back then cost about $10,000 probably about $75,000 by todays standards. most slave owners just had one slave and they often worked with them in the fields. They were NOT routinely beaten ether because quite frankly they were too expensive to abuse.

  • Jessica

    Well this makes me incredibly happy that I did AP US History. Even in Texas, AP still has its own curriculum that doesnt involve any of this nonsense.

  • JamaicanJewel

    Surprisingly, no mention herein of the influence of the Koch brothers on the latest round of teaching materials to be used for higher and lower learning in schools today.

  • splendiferous2

    The colleges were just as dishonest. So many of the teachers were racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic. THe vast majority of students with degrees leave the state on graduation. They taught us one lie after another. If you questioned anything, you were charged by default as being disrespectful. god how hated living down there. it hasnt changed. You may think it has, but it hasnt.

  • Rai Goldin

    Not an Arizona native. Born and bred Yankee.

  • DrBubba

    Says they had the best healthcare it says…. the first ObamaScamCare?
    Why do you think that any of this is NOT the truth? It isnt wonderful and stuff, but it is still the truth. Not sure why you all reject the truth all the time. From racism to bogus man made climate change.

  • Greg

    You people didnt expect our Schools System to get anything different from the raciest Democratic Governor George C Wallace, and his Democratic buddy/author Charles Summersell did you? It just so happened that Charles worked for the University of Alabama, 1935-1978, the same university that George graduated from in 1942. And after George became Governor of Alabama, he stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to halt the enrollment of black students. This textbook was only written to gain black votes by toning down slavery, and making the republican party look like villains. Alabama was ruled by democrat governors from 1874-1987, thats 113 years of racism.

    • http://louiszwu.blogspot.com/ Michael Powers

      Certainly, there was a time when Democrats were the bad guys, and Republicans were the good guys. The roles reversed during the civil rights movement in the early 60s. The nightly news was filled with video of fire hoses and police dogs. (It was back when news was more of a public service, rather than a method of generating cash like today). We had to change. Most of the Democrats who couldnt or wouldnt move in this new direction Dixiecrats, as they were called fled the party. The few that stayed had very little say from then on, and faded into obscurity. Of those that fled, most were welcomed with open arms by Republicans, who saw nothing but warm bodies and votes. The same mistake was made decades later when they embraced the tea party.
      The party of Lincoln died long ago.

      • Greg

        Michael, you and tens of thousands more have been been misled by the Democrats. There was never a role reversal during the Civil Rights movement. Did you know that George Wallace was re-elected twice after his stance on segregation(1971, and again in 1983). His wife was also elected Governor after his fist term ended in 1967. There were also three other Democratic Governors elected after the Civil Rights movement. It was 1987 before first Republican Governor was finally elected after 115 YEARS of Democratic led racism. Now lets look at some other Southern State Governors… Georgia 131 YEARS of Democratic led racism, it was 2003 before a Republican was elected as Governor… Mississippi -106 YEARS of Democratic led racism, it was 1992 before a Republican was elected as Governor… Kentucky 56 Years of Democratic led racism, it was 2003 before a Republican was elected as Governor. So tell me, when was the role reversal? All I see is Racist Democratic Governors that led for many many years before the Civil Rights movement began in the early 60s, all the way to the late 80s, early 90s, and some into 2003.

        • http://louiszwu.blogspot.com/ Michael Powers

          So, the Southern Strategy and dog whistle politics werent the result of Republican policies? And why then did most black people start voting for democrats around that time? Why did red states pass voter suppression laws within 48 hours after the supreme court ruling?

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Sorry, well before that time the Democrats started their false narrative about how Republicans were against the little people and for big corporations and it got a lot of traction with blacks and weak minded liberals. That happened BEFORE the southern strategy.

      • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

        WRONG those people with the fire hoses and police dogs were all Democrats. The civil rights legislation was ALWAYS proposed by Republicans it was just that in the 60s they finally got enough Democrats to join them (because they saw the writing on the wall) to pass it. But still hardcore KKK LEADERS like Robert C. Byrd retained high Democrat positions.

        • http://louiszwu.blogspot.com/ Michael Powers

          Certainly they were Democrats. But that party no longer exists, any more than does the party of Lincoln. When presented with our flaws, we didnt double down. We faced them, changed, and moved on. While at the same time, Republicans have spent the last 40 years trying to turn this nation into something resembling 16th century Spain. Some twisted corporate theocracy. Lucrative for a handful of people. Everyone else? Not so much. Your masters tend to do well in third world countries.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            A big part of your problem, in fact the same problem a lot of people have that I run across on line is they jump to a lot of false conclusions. One of yours is that Im a Republican. Wrong. Another is that I have some master. Again, wrong. And, finally, your characterization is completely backwards as it is Democrats who are openly more and more beholden to corporate interests and the interests of their much vaunted 1% as any guest list of their fund raising parties shows. Plus theyre in the middle of coordinating competing Muslim (middle east) and Catholic (Mexico, Central and South America) invasions as if to re-create the fight that did actually happen in Spain though it ended with the defeat of the last Moorish stronghold around 1500, so your description is interesting but rather backwards, Id say.

  • Shanna

    Unfortunately, this is the same BS that white conservatives tell each other. Those that believe these lies also are freaked out that children are learning different points of view on slavery. Slavery was only beneficial for the owners. The South was oligarichial in nature. The system retarded the economy of the lush south. I can remember my mother telling me that MLK was a communist who was schooled in Cuba. All of it is awful lies.

  • Jerry Loyd

    As a child of the 60s growing up in the south I remember that our curriculum glossed over a lot of vile history. But not all of our teachers did. I thank them for that.

  • Ray Rainer

    The strangest thing about slavery is that slavery really went against the self interest of poor white southerns because slaves took jobs from them. And I am not talking just about picking cotton, even though many poor white people picked cotton when slaves were not available. So you had poor white southerns fighting and dying for the privilege of wealthy plantation owners to have slaves. Slaves were very expensive to purchase, as well as to care for. Poor white southerns certainly couldnt afford one. The same theme is still prevalent in the south, where they vote against their own self interest. The fact that the south has turned Republican, tells you this is not the same Republican party of Lincoln. The Republican party of today serves the wealthy. If you cant beat them, join them. You can say what you want and you can say liberal this and liberal that; you can just about make up anything by putting a bunch of words together but the proof is in the pudding.

  • dan828

    45 year old textbook. Really? Any kids taught by that book would be in their 60s now.

    And, btw, the term radicals was the term used for a wing of the Republican party at that time. Its appropriate usage.

Comments are closed.