Grant said in his Second Inaugural Address that it was his “firm conviction that the civilized world is tending toward republicanism, or government by the people through their elected representatives, and that our own great Republic is destined to be the guiding star to all others.” In my readings of Grant, I think he would have argued for American Exceptionalism.
Would you agree or no? Is Grant an example of “how Americans’ concept of their own exceptionalism (superiority) has shaped how Americans approach each other and approach the world”?

But do I teach that Americans are better? Nope. That would tend to promote some of the very problems I highlight when I explore how Americans’ concepts of their exceptionalism have shaped the course of American (and world) history.

Query: If Americans are so exceptional, then why did those pesky white southern secessionists want to leave?

I’ve never heard of the text assailed by Mr. Williams. I have heard of the ones you mention.

While textbooks used in the survey classes of Texas are generally adopted by textbook committees at both the state and local levels, teachers in Texas may supplement with a variety of resources of their own choosing so long as they are generally supported as fact-based resources within the educational community. (So, I guess I won’t be using H. W. Crocker, III’s “resource,” darn it!) What neither Mr. Williams nor the original story make clear is whether this was the adopted text or a supplemental text.
– — -
As I approached base texts for one of my two electives this year (American Constitution & Civil War Studies), I was free to choose what I wanted to use in the classroom. I am using We the People…The Citizen and the Constitution published by the Center for Civic Education and Joy Hakim’s A History of US — Book 6: War, Terrible War published by Oxford University Press. For the other one (The Bible in History & Literature), I was given a text that administration and the local board felt would pass muster from the legal sense in much the same way I use an approved text for my US History survey classes.

Richard Williams has no problems with having teachers impose upon students view with which Richard Williams agrees.

I did chuckle at his highlighting the textbook used in a Texas school. I’ve never heard of the text, or the publisher. That said, Richard may want to investigate how texts are chosen, and who exactly elects school boards.

The irony in this situation is that it’s common knowledge that some people water down their survey texts to increase the chance of an adoption in Texas, given the size of the market. The Texas market’s not particularly known as a PC one.

I think that if we only teach the puritan side/AE (Jamestown story for all the southern readers out there) of that story we are doing a disservice to history. Teaching the full story, as best we can in a survey class, is not anti-American nor pro-American…it is jut plain history.

Nice to hear from you. I actually pointed out in the other post that I do explore notions of American Exceptionalism throughout the year and I suspect we cover much of the same ground. We also spend a great deal of time exploring the various (often contradictory) ways in which Americans have defined freedom. Thanks again for chiming in on this one.

When my classes discuss Winthrop’s “city upon a hill,” I do teach the idea of American exceptionalism. In fact, it is a major recurring theme in my American history courses. That said, I teach it as an IDEA to be discussed and debated, not as a simple fact. We look at later uses of Winthrop’s phrase (by Kennedy, Reagan, Giuliani, Palin, etc.) as well as variations on the theme (O’Sullivan’s “manifest destiny,” Lincoln’s “last best hope of earth,” Obama’s “Yes, We Can”) and discuss how it has evolved over time. As I see it, this is an exercise in intellectual history.

I also point out to students that “American exceptionalism” really has at least two meanings. One is simply the idea of America as unique in some way or ways (i.e., an “exception to the rule”). This, I believe, is what the Frenchman Alexis deTocqueville referred to in the early nineteenth century when he coined the phrase. Then we have the idea of America as superior (i.e., an “example for other nations to follow”). This typically has religious connotations (i.e., America as a “city upon a hill” and Americans as “God’s chosen people”). This is often implicit—but there’s a reason that politicians love Winthrop.

I think there’s something to the former. America is (or at least, was) in many ways unique or exceptional. To deny this, I think, is ahistorical. However, to say that a nation is “superior” to others is a drastic oversimplification—superior in what way(s)? Politically? Culturally? Economically? All of the above?

I personally think there’s plenty to be “proud of” as an American, and perhaps the United States is in some ways “superior” (based on our own norms and standards, of course). That said, even high school students realize that in other ways, we—as a nation—still have much room for improvement. These are the conversations that we have in my classes, and I think it’s important to point out that history is not a zero-sum game.

Just because the United States has served as a source of inspiration for some other nations does not mean that it is actually the “last best hope of earth.” Similarly, to admit our nation’s failings does not make us “inferior.” To understand this is to understand that history is not a set of names and dates and facts, but a way of understanding the past, and—by extension—the present.

In short, I think there’s room for both pride and embarassment in American history. America is an “exceptional” nation in some ways, but in others, it is as flawed as the individuals who have shaped its history. And all nations, because they are made up of imperfect human beings, have this in common.