Reply to Are Catholic schools' curriculum as lefty as the Arlington Public Schools?

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

Reply to "Are Catholic schools' curriculum as lefty as the Arlington Public Schools?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Fairfax County is not as bad as Arlington PS, but they still misrepresent the War of Northern Aggression.  At least they let you have Christmas, and there is great music in their Choral and Orchestral programs including plenty of liturgical.  It's balanced by other faiths of course, but it is there.  I'm pretty conservative, but I wasn't overly appalled by Fairfax. [/quote]

In Fairfax and Arlington there are schools named after Confederate generals, and the Arlington House, the national memorial to Robert E. Lee, in Arlington Cemetery has been a field trip for most Arlington middle school students for years. They may call it the "Civil War," but textbooks all over the US call it that. There is no APS policy against Christmas. It's all up to the school and some schools celebrate Christmas more than others. [/quote]

Sure, but when you go to Arlington they might mention it was Robert E Lee's house.  They may even mention that it was occupied by Union forces right after Lincoln illegally over threw the Constitution and invaded Virginia, starting with Alexandria.  The Union forces took Arlington because it was high ground, which from an artillery position, was key.  What they don't tell you is that Arlington was chosen by Yankees to bury their dead on just to make sure he would never live there again, or that the federal government illegally took the land (Mrs Lee tried to pay the $92 in back taxes through an agent, but was turned away).  Finally, years later it, after taking the case to the Supreme court, it was awarded back to Lee's heirs, who being thoroughly and understandably sick of a lovely estate that had been turned into a cemetery full of Yankee dead as a giant "FU" to the South, sold it at fire sale prices.

Schools certainly don't tell you that Virginia was pro-union up until the Union attack on Fort Sumter, or that from 1651 to 1660 there were more Irish slaves in America than the entire non-slave population of the colonies!  Certainly no one seeks to understand why it was ok for West Virginia to secede from Virginia (when VA was basically occupied and could hardly have a fair vote), but VA wasn't allowed to secede from the Union?

There is certainly Yankee bias to education nowdays....  the names that are on buildings are just there because we can't change them, not because we Honor them.  Just look at the statue of Appomattox, the Lone Confederate Soldier, and you can feel the pain of the South, and it hasn't gone away.[/quote]

Lol, where to start?  Anyone who thinks that the labor system of the Chesapeake pre-Bacon's Rebellion -- mainly white indentured servants (who certainly did lead Hobbesian existences that were "nasty, brutish and short" for the most part) -- was equivalent to chattel slavery is living in a non-factual world.  Race-based chattel slavery replaced indentured servitude in large part because the ruling elite of the Chesapeake saw Bacon's Rebellion, fueled mostly by landless whites who were former indentured servants, as an indication that they needed a labor force that was easier to control.  The answer? Chattel slavery of Africans.

Moving up a couple centuries, into the 19th century, it would be a vast overstatement to term Virgina "pro-Union" prior to Sumter.  Certainly there was a reasonable amount of unionist sentiment, mainly by former Whigs, in Virginia and the other four Upper South states that did not secede until after Sumter.  Not enough to make them "pro-union," however, and not as much as Lincoln hoped, certainly.  Remember that it was the South that fired the first shot at Sumter, after refusing to allow an unarmed union ship to land water and provisions for the Sumter garrison.  Jefferson Davis gambled that armed conflict would bring Virginia and additional Upper South states into the War (it did), and that these new states would be enough to deliver a Confederate victory (they didn't).

On secession, as a legal matter, of course, the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court, which ruled in the post-Civil War period that secession was not legal.  Victors' justice, perhaps?  Well, no less a person pro-states-rights President Andrew Jackson, slaveholder of Tennessee, asserted in the antebellum period that nullification (refusing to follow federal laws if a given state "nullified" them) was treasonous, as it might lead to the open treason of rebellion.  The Constitution provides no mechanism, other than Amendment (or adoption of a new framework document, compare how the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation), for a given state to leave the union.  It states that it is for the purpose of establishing a "perfect union."  Unlike the old Articles of Confederation, there was no clause retaining state sovereignty.

I do agree with your contention that the US willfully put a graveyard on Robert E. Lee's plantation to punish Lee/make a symbolic statement about his decision to resign his country's commission to fight for his rebelling state.  I rather think the fact that Lee kept his head after the war, and his heirs received damages for the loss of functional use of their land, as evidence of the extraordinarily lenient response, by historical standards, of the victorious side.  Lee himself, by accepting defeat with dignity and not encouraging any sort of insurgency, deserves credit, along with Lincoln (the Second Inaugural Speech is remarkable) and U.S. Grant, who insisted upon treatment of the Confederate forces as honorable foes rather than traitors.

Bottom line?  The South fought gallantly.  They believed they were fighting for independence and freedom.  Nevertheless, they fought a war for slavery.  Slavery was why they seceded, and secession precipitated the Civil War.  Any obfuscation of those key facts is ahistorical.

An excellent one-volume history of the war, recognized as a fair treatment by both Northern and Southern historicans, is "Battle Cry of the Republic" by Robert MacPherson.  [/quote]

Just wanted to check, because I do want to make sure I'm looking at the correct book, you mean Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics