Liberal Lies About America

I know that FOX News and Sean Hannity are usually “fair and balanced” but it seems to me that this report about corrupt liberal elite academics and their biased textbooks is missing some important elements of investigative journalism – specifically, the investigative part.  I’ve never heard of Prof. Larry Schweikart or his new book about how liberals are destroying all that is good about American history.  I’m sure it’s filled with all kinds of examples, but what I find curious is that there is no attempt to confirm anything in this FOX report.  It should come as no surprise that I came across this video over at Richard Williams’s site.  It should also come as no surprise that Mr. Williams fails to include any commentary concerning the claims made in this video.  One must assume he believes the report to be an accurate reflection of the most popular history textbooks that are currently being used across America.  It certainly conforms to his own assumptions about higher education.

At one point Schweikart claims that most college textbooks claim that President Roosevelt and the federal government knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor, but failed to act on that information.  Since the report fails to include one textbook reference it is impossible to connect the individual claims to a specific textbook.  I will start with my own left leaning textbook authored by Eric Foner.  We all know that Eric Foner is one of the most popular of the liberal academics out there so his book should be helpful.

To this day, conspiracy theories abound suggesting that FDR knew of the attack and did nothing to prevent it so as to bring the United States into the war.  No credible evidence supports this charge.  Indeed, with the country drawing ever closer to intervention in Europe, Roosevelt hoped to keep the peace in the Pacific. (p. 850 in Give Me Liberty!)

Perhaps such a claim can be found in Out Of Many: A History of the American People, which was banned in Texas because of its left wing bias:

Confrontation with Japan now looked likely.  U.S. intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic code, and the president knew that Japan was preparing for war against the western powers.  Roosevelt’s advisers expected an attack in the southern Pacific or British Malaya sometime after November: General Douglas MacArthur alerted his command in the Philippines. (p. 755)

How about a textbook that includes that other left leaning nut, Gary Nash?

Roosevelt had an advantage in the negotiations with Japan, for the United States had broken the Japanese secret diplomatic code.  But Japanese intentions were hard to decipher from the intercepted messages.  The American leaders knew that Japan planned to attack, but they didn’t know where.  In September 1941, the Japanese decided to strike sometime after November unless the United States offered real concessions.  The strike came not in the Philippines but at Pearl Harbor, the main American Pacific naval base, in Hawaii. (p. 810)

And finally, let’s consider what is arguably the most popular college-prep textbook of the past few decades:

Officials in Washington, having “cracked” the top-secret code of the Japanese, knew that Tokyo’s decision was for war.  But the United States, as a democracy committed to public debate and action by Congress, could not shoot first.  Roosevelt, misled by Japanese ship movements in the Far East, evidently expected the blow to fall on British Malaya or on the Philippines.  No one in high authority in Washington seems to have believed that the Japanese were either strong enough or foolhardy enough to strike Hawaii. (p. 871)

I have five additional textbooks on my shelf that fall into line with what I’ve already referenced.  Perhaps tomorrow I will check out one or two additional claims made by this individual.  Click here for a review of Schweikart’s own texbook.

48 comments

Goodbye DISQUS

By now many of you have noticed that I’ve disabled the plugin for Disqus.  It is unlikely that I will activate again, but than again anything is possible.  Let me be clear that I actually think the service is very useful for moderating comments and promoting community and I appreciate the control it gives users over their comments throughout the blogosphere.  On top of that the customer service is first rate.  I highly recommend Disqus to those of you who are looking for advanced comment moderation features.  The one problem that persisted and that I could not get over is the problem that I have with all WordPress plugins: Plugins place the blogger in a dependency relationship with a third-party site.  I am willing to wager that the downtime with Disqus is no more frequent than with most plugins, but when it comes to comments I want an instant response.  Readers should not have to wonder whether a blog’s comment system is working properly on any given visit.  Perhaps I am overreacting, but I have a suspicion that a bad experience or even a few bad experiences, will turn off a reader from commenting in the future.

The other change to the site is the inclusion of a widget for Civil War Memory’s Facebook page, which you can join if you are on FB.  Once in a while it acts up, but for now I am willing to deal with it.  I am using it to communicate with “fans” of the blog and to share information that will not make it to the blog.  I am pleased that the number of fans continues to grow.  Please feel free to post your own notes, which will then appear in the feed on my blog.  You can post news items, events, and even your own Civil War related blog posts if you so desire.  All I ask is that your links loosely relate to the content of my blog.  Of course, I reserve the right to control the feed as well as membership.

2 comments

Claim Your Confederate Southern American Status on the 2010 Census

Kirk D. Lyons, Chief Trial Counsel of the Southern Legal Resource Center, wants you go to Question #9 and under “other race” claim “Confed. Southern Am.” After all, the Confederacy did exist for four short years (150 years ago).  More here.

27 comments

Commemorating Joseph Johnston In His Final Hour

A statue of Confederate General Joseph Johnston was dedicated today on private land as part of the 145th anniversary of the Battle of Bentonville.  The Smithfield Light Infantry, a local camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, asked the property owner to donate land for the memorial and launched a private fundraising effort to pay the $100,000 cost of the statue.  One of my readers was kind enough to share this photograph, which he took at the dedication.

Can someone tell me what Johnston is supposed to be pointing to?  Have some fun with it.

The statue depicts Johnston with his left arm raised. It’s a call for his troops to hold the line against Yankee forces, Booker said. “And,” he added, “to hold the line against political correctness.”  Political correctness, in Booker’s view, has recast Confederate symbols and distorted history. “These days, political correctness means a lot of things aren’t mentioned or aren’t defended in the proper way,” he said. “But that will not happen in this case, I assure you.” Booker pointed out that the plaque at the foot of the statue did not require anyone’s approval. It reads: “Defender of the Southland to the End.”John M. Booker, Lt. Commander, Smithfield Light Infantry, SCV

37 comments

Descendants of Silas Chandler Speak Out (Part 2)

A few weeks ago I shared an email I received from a descendant of Silas Chandler, who is one of the most popular “black Confederates.”  I’ve been in contact with two descendants and am planning a telephone conversation, which I hope will lead to an announcement of some ideas I have to help bring a more complete story of this individual to the general public.  Yesterday I received an email from yet another descendant:

I am a direct descendent of Silas Chandler from California. Over the years, I have heard many versions of Silas’ story, from family, on the web, and from Confederate historical societies. Thank you to Ms. Sampson for shedding some light on the subject from a reliable, direct source.

I remember when my great, great, great grandfather Silas was awarded the Iron Cross posthumously, and some members of my family attended the ceremony. While I’ve always had mixed feelings about it, it has ultimately become [a] source of pride for me, not offense. I may never be exactly sure how it went down, but I know that I have Silas to thank for my freedom. Believe me, I have no love fort he Confederacy or its symbols… I’m just also no big fan of the Yankees, and have no illusions about why the Civil War was fought.

I also know that some of the greatest men in history end up being “honored” by their enemies. This would not be the first time that history has been rewritten to make folks look more sympathetic or benevolent (see the movie “Glory” and the mounds of misinformation that it contains).

Anyone that thinks that Silas joined the Confederate army out of some “love” for his master is naive at best, and stupid/racist at worst. That being said, there were many slaves that were dragged into the field to fight against their own self-interest. This happened in the Civil War, and in the Wars for centuries and millennia before.

Honestly, I just hope this discussion unearths as much truth as possible. Thank you again to the Chandler family for helping to set the record straight. I look forward to learning more

Andrew Foster Williams
Oakland, CA

I am featuring this comment for a couple of reasons.  Most importantly, it reflects a memory of the war that is much more complex than anything the Sons of Confederate Veterans or United Daughters of the Confederacy would have you believe about the legacy of the Civil War within the African-American community.  Both organizations reduce their narratives down to loyalty to master and cause and they do this by commemorating slaves as soldiers.  Their preferred narrative has nothing to do with understanding the story of black men in the army or helping families uncover their histories; rather, it is an attempt to dissociate the Confederate war effort from slavery as well as the Lost Cause myth that slavery was benign.  Unfortunately, both organizations have been successful in convincing black families to take part.

What I appreciate about Mr. Williams’s response is the extent to which his narrative fails to support or vindicate either a Lost Cause or Emancipationist view of the war.  It sits uncomfortably in the middle.  On the one hand Mr. Williams has little patience for stories of a loyal Silas Chandler, but he is also suspicious of the assumptions that reduce the United States to the moral cause of emancipation.

Mr. Williams’s comment may also tell us something about why African Americans have been absent from public commemorations of the Civil War and why they may stay away during the Civil War Sesquicentennial.  After all, much of our public remembrance and memory of the war is wrapped up in neat dichotomies of North v. South and Union v. Confederate.  Where does Mr. Williams’s memory of the war fit into all of this?  It’s not wonder that many African Americans are suspicious of Civil War Memory.

9 comments