7th grade VA history

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else find it troubling that my child's 7th grade history class is being taught that Robert E Lee's legacy was that he opposed slavery -(even though he had slaves and fought against the union in the civil war)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it troubling that my child's 7th grade history class is being taught that Robert E Lee's legacy was that he opposed slavery -(even though he had slaves and fought against the union in the civil war)?

I believe that is a true statement based on records. Are the other things you stated not mentioned as well?

[Anonymous]

I find it troubling that you seem opposed to the idea that people are nuanced.

Would you be troubled if they were taught that President Clinton's legacy includes support for women's rights?

[Anonymous]

It’s complicated. He did write this, so the claim isn’t totally unfounded-

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

But clearly opposition to slavery is pretty much the opposite of what he is actually remembered for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s complicated. He did write this, so the claim isn’t totally unfounded-

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

But clearly opposition to slavery is pretty much the opposite of what he is actually remembered for.

No expert here, but I think his wife inherited the slaves. So, it is somewhat nuanced.

Personally, I always thought his legacy was that he urged the former confederates to reconcile with the north after the war. He urged them to put down their arms and cooperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it troubling that you seem opposed to the idea that people are nuanced.

Would you be troubled if they were taught that President Clinton's legacy includes support for women's rights?

This. No one can understand these days that people are complicated with good and bad parts and conflicts with their beliefs and actions. They think people are either good or evil it seems despite the fact that we are trying to teach kids to be better critical thinkers. A lot of people at the start of the US thought it would be difficult to integrate blacks as equals which we know from reconstruction and racism in the north was a correct belief. I don't know enough about Lee and his thoughts and treatment of slaves, but the fear of problems due to integration was the reason many of the founding fathers who owned slaves agreed upon that 3/5 person rule and tried to push deportation to Libya.

[Anonymous]

3/5 person rule

The 3/5 rule was purely political. The Southern states wanted to count the slaves full in the census (therefore more electoral votes and more congressmen). The North did not want them counted at all because they would give the South more votes. The 3/5 rule was a compromise. Had nothing to do with integration or racism. Just votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s complicated. He did write this, so the claim isn’t totally unfounded-

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

But clearly opposition to slavery is pretty much the opposite of what he is actually remembered for.

No expert here, but I think his wife inherited the slaves. So, it is somewhat nuanced.

Personally, I always thought his legacy was that he urged the former confederates to reconcile with the north after the war. He urged them to put down their arms and cooperate.

That was how I learned it. I moved here from another state, so we didn't learn Virginia-specific history. In American history, we were taught that Lee helped to bring the country back together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

3/5 person rule

The 3/5 rule was purely political. The Southern states wanted to count the slaves full in the census (therefore more electoral votes and more congressmen). The North did not want them counted at all because they would give the South more votes. The 3/5 rule was a compromise. Had nothing to do with integration or racism. Just votes.

Of course it had to do with racism. You can't count a person as only 3/5. The north didn't want them counted as people yet they are credited with restoring their status as free human beings. Do you see the irony?

[Anonymous]

Of course it had to do with racism. You can't count a person as only 3/5. The north didn't want them counted as people yet they are credited with restoring their status as free human beings. Do you see the irony?

Please go read some real history about this. The 3/5 compromise was formed long before the Civil War at the Constitutional Convention (1787).

It was a political decision. Of course, slavery was wrong--but, this was not about trying to get rid of slavery, but how to count the slaves in the census. Wikipedia is not always the best source, but this is a pretty simple description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Counting the slaves as 3/5 was a compromise--the Southern states wanted them counted as full--so they would get more votes. North did not want them counted at all. Racism was not the issue here, politics was.

You cannot change history just because it suits your political outlook.

Slavery was a despicable and horrible institution--but, when people throw around the 3/5 person argument (which does sound awful), they do not understand what the compromise was about. It was the North that did not wanted them counted as whole--not because they did not see them as whole people, but they did not want the South to have the votes. FWIW, women were counted as whole even though they did not get the vote--but that was true in the North and the South.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course it had to do with racism. You can't count a person as only 3/5. The north didn't want them counted as people yet they are credited with restoring their status as free human beings. Do you see the irony?

Please go read some real history about this. The 3/5 compromise was formed long before the Civil War at the Constitutional Convention (1787).

It was a political decision. Of course, slavery was wrong--but, this was not about trying to get rid of slavery, but how to count the slaves in the census. Wikipedia is not always the best source, but this is a pretty simple description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Counting the slaves as 3/5 was a compromise--the Southern states wanted them counted as full--so they would get more votes. North did not want them counted at all. Racism was not the issue here, politics was.

You cannot change history just because it suits your political outlook.

Slavery was a despicable and horrible institution--but, when people throw around the 3/5 person argument (which does sound awful), they do not understand what the compromise was about. It was the North that did not wanted them counted as whole--not because they did not see them as whole people, but they did not want the South to have the votes. FWIW, women were counted as whole even though they did not get the vote--but that was true in the North and the South.

What are you talking about? Of course I know when it was voted on. That's why I stated founding fathers. We are not talking about how slavery was despicable. It's a generally accepted opinion of everyone. Everything about government is political. Doesn't mean there is no racism in it. Racism is often politically motivated. There is no agenda I have other than to point out that people too often are trying to judge people and actions as good of bad rather than nuanced with positives and negatives. Maybe you have an agenda to make the north look picture perfect.

I was stating that in addition to politics and money, there was racism because blacks were being discussed as 3/5 of a person. There is no 3/5 of a person without intended racism. The irony with the north is that it was the north who wanted the 3/5 of a person for political and economic reasons to have more federal representation and then of course the north and south both fought the civil war for political and economic reasons over cotton. While the common thinking of liberals today is that the civil war was over slavery. It is more nuanced. It was over cotton's prosperity to which the south thought slavery and states rights was essential for keeping that prosperity. The south kept wanting more states rights but then contradicted themselves with the Dred Scott case when they asked for federal government intervention. While the south put slavery into their declarations of seceding, this was partly their belief and partly because of political and economic reasons over cotton. The north in turn did not declare war to overturn slavery but to preserve the union which was motivated by needing the wealth of the south's economic prosperity in cotton and they kept slavery in the north throughout the entire war. Lincoln changed his mind through the course of the war to emancipate slaves, however he never emancipated the slaves in the north till after the war even though he could have. What is ironic is that the north used the thinking of blacks as inferior as a political tool to gain more northern representation in Congress when writing the constitution and then used this same view years later as a tool to motivate people to change the constitution and to get blacks to fight their battles to preserve the union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course it had to do with racism. You can't count a person as only 3/5. The north didn't want them counted as people yet they are credited with restoring their status as free human beings. Do you see the irony?

Please go read some real history about this. The 3/5 compromise was formed long before the Civil War at the Constitutional Convention (1787).

It was a political decision. Of course, slavery was wrong--but, this was not about trying to get rid of slavery, but how to count the slaves in the census. Wikipedia is not always the best source, but this is a pretty simple description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Counting the slaves as 3/5 was a compromise--the Southern states wanted them counted as full--so they would get more votes. North did not want them counted at all. Racism was not the issue here, politics was.

You cannot change history just because it suits your political outlook.

Slavery was a despicable and horrible institution--but, when people throw around the 3/5 person argument (which does sound awful), they do not understand what the compromise was about. It was the North that did not wanted them counted as whole--not because they did not see them as whole people, but they did not want the South to have the votes. FWIW, women were counted as whole even though they did not get the vote--but that was true in the North and the South.

What are you talking about? Of course I know when it was voted on. That's why I stated founding fathers. We are not talking about how slavery was despicable. It's a generally accepted opinion of everyone. Everything about government is political. Doesn't mean there is no racism in it. Racism is often politically motivated. There is no agenda I have other than to point out that people too often are trying to judge people and actions as good of bad rather than nuanced with positives and negatives. Maybe you have an agenda to make the north look picture perfect.

I was stating that in addition to politics and money, there was racism because blacks were being discussed as 3/5 of a person. There is no 3/5 of a person without intended racism. The irony with the north is that it was the north who wanted the 3/5 of a person for political and economic reasons to have more federal representation and then of course the north and south both fought the civil war for political and economic reasons over cotton. While the common thinking of liberals today is that the civil war was over slavery. It is more nuanced. It was over cotton's prosperity to which the south thought slavery and states rights was essential for keeping that prosperity. The south kept wanting more states rights but then contradicted themselves with the Dred Scott case when they asked for federal government intervention. While the south put slavery into their declarations of seceding, this was partly their belief and partly because of political and economic reasons over cotton. The north in turn did not declare war to overturn slavery but to preserve the union which was motivated by needing the wealth of the south's economic prosperity in cotton and they kept slavery in the north throughout the entire war. Lincoln changed his mind through the course of the war to emancipate slaves, however he never emancipated the slaves in the north till after the war even though he could have. What is ironic is that the north used the thinking of blacks as inferior as a political tool to gain more northern representation in Congress when writing the constitution and then used this same view years later as a tool to motivate people to change the constitution and to get blacks to fight their battles to preserve the union.

Oh goodness.

I'm glad you're revisionist history makes you feel better. I guess we all are entitled to our own facts.

[Anonymous]

You are the revisionist sweetie. Everything I mentioned is covered in the history books. Ask any black person whether a decision to make blacks 3/5 of a person is a racist law or not and let me know if they say no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are the revisionist sweetie. Everything I mentioned is covered in the history books. Ask any black person whether a decision to make blacks 3/5 of a person is a racist law or not and let me know if they say no.

You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts.

The reason, in this instance, was politics.

There is plenty of evidence of racism without throwing this in. It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true.

[Anonymous]

The reason for the civil war was politics as well. You think you are smarter than you are.