Civil War Memory

Well, we are getting down to the final few weeks in my AP American History course.  It’s always a mad rush in the last few weeks as I have to make sure that I’ve covered most of the major events into the 1990s.  Over the past few days we’ve been talking in detail about the rise of the modern conservative movement and given my recent posts [see here and here] on the supposed left-wing conspiracy in our college and high school classrooms I thought I might share a few thoughts about what we specifically look at.  According to some I am playing my own small part in this conspiracy as I spew my hatred for America and my denials of American Exceptionalism in front of my students.  I guess one need look no further for evidence of this than my use of Eric Foner’s book, Give Me Liberty!: An American History (Norton)

As I was reviewing the chapter it dawned on me that Foner offers a very rich overview of modern conservatism.  The title of the chapter in question is “The Triumph of Conservatism” and covers the period from 1969 to 1988.  Sub-chapter headings include “The Rebirth of Conservatism,”  “The New Conservatism,” “The Conservative Sixties,” “The Rising Tide of Conservatism,” “The Religious Right,” “The Tax Revolt,” “Reagan and American Freedom.”  The chapter covers a number of concepts and movements associated with conservatism, such as Libertarianism the Religious Right and includes references to Milton Friedman, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, William F. Buckley, “Young Americans For Freedom,” “neo-Conservatives,” Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Jeane Kirpatrick.  Court cases that favor a conservative reading of the Constitution include Milliken v. Bradley, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Bowers v. Hardwick, among others.  The chapter includes a full-page reprint of “The Sharon Statement” (1960)

Consider Foner’s own interpretation of the “New Conservatives” for yourself:

The “new conservatives” understood freedom as first and foremost a moral condition.  It required a decision by independent men and women to lead virtuous lives, or government action to force them to do so.  Although they wanted government expelled from the economy, new conservatives trusted it to regulate personal behavior, to restore a Christian morality they saw as growing weaker and weaker in American society.

Her lay the origins of a division in conservative ranks that would persist to the end of the twentieth century.  Unrestrained individual choice and moral virtue are radically different starting points from which to discuss freedom.  Was the purpose of conservatism, one writer wondered, to create the “free man” or the “good man?”  Libertarian conservatives spoke the language of progress and personal autonomy; the “new conservatives emphasized tradition, community, and moral commitment.  The former believed that too many barriers existed to the pursuit of individual liberty.  The latter condemned and excess of individualism and a breakdown of common values. (p. 1026)

That seems to me to be an incredibly thoughtful, albeit brief, description of the modern conservative movement that gives students a framework for understanding a great deal of recent political and cultural history.  It led to a very interesting class discussion today that I hope to continue tomorrow as we move further into the 1980s.

On the rise of the Religious Right, Foner has this to say:

The rise of religious fundamentalism during the 1970s expanded conservatism’s popular base.  Even as membership in mainstream denominations like Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism declined, evangelical Protestantism flourished.  Some observers spoke of a Third Great Awakening (like those of the 1740s and early nineteenth century)…. Evangelical Christians had become more and more alienated from a culture that seemed to them to trivialize religion and promote immorality.  They demanded the reversal of Supreme Court decisions banning prayer in public schools, protecting pornography as free speech and legalizing abortion.  (p. 1050)

As I said above, the chapter’s focus on conservatism is incredibly rich and benefits immensely from Foner’s commitment to looking beyond the major figures and most prominent organizations in the movement.

Now, of course, there is room to disagree even with the brief excerpts that I’ve provided here, but can we agree that there is nothing that is blatantly anti-American or biased in favor of a liberal/Democratic view of American history?  Actually, if you gave me this book without the author’s name I’m not sure I could nail down the political identity of the author.  Than again I don’t spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the political affiliation of historians.  I tend to judge the quality of their work based on the principles of good history.

Anyway, I hope this alleviates the concerns among some of you that I am feeding my students anti-American ideology.

A couple of years ago I had a parent contact me about the textbook I was using to teach my AP American History course.  I had just switched from The American Pageant to Eric Foner’s new book, Give Me Liberty! The parent was concerned about the political bias of Foner as well as the overall narrative that his child would learn over the course of the year.  I am a huge fan of parents who take an interest in their child’s education so I agreed to meet with him at his earliest convenience.  We never met in person to discuss his concerns, but we did exchange a number of emails.  The first thing I did was ask the parent to give me an idea of what exactly he found troubling.  Shortly thereafter I received a response that focused on the amount of coverage on issues of race.  I read the response carefully, but had difficulty pinpointing the exact problem so I followed up by asking for specific references.  His response was interesting.  The parent pointed to two sections, one on Reconstruction and the other on Jim Crow, which he believed constituted too much attention.  In addition, he also made it a point to remind me that he was not asking me to swap Foner for a book by Rush Limbaugh.  This last comment took me for a bit of a loop.  It concerned me that Rush Limbaugh would actually be considered as an alternative to Foner or for that matter any trained historian. I thought about how to respond to this last comment as I did not want to offend the person, but I finally decided to assert myself since I was hired to teach the course and my school gives me complete freedom to choose appropriate texts for my students.  I said that it was good to hear that he was not making such a suggestion since Rush Limbaugh is not a historian and Eric Foner is one of the most respected scholars in the field.

In addition I asked if the parent’s concern about Foner’s coverage of race extended beyond the number of pages.  In other words, was there a problem with the interpretation itself.  I went on to offer an explanation as to why I chose this particular book.  In fact, one of the reasons I chose this particular text was the amount of coverage of racial issues, which I explained was important to understanding crucial aspects of American history, including the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and countless other subjects.  As a historian, however, I understand that thoughtful people can and should disagree about the way in which information is presented and interpreted.  Unfortunately, our conversation never addressed these issues.  I should point out that this parent is well educated and a very successful lawyer.  We eventually met a few weeks later during a parent-teacher night.  We chatted for a bit, but the topic never came up.  I encouraged the parent to contact me at any point regarding concerns about the textbook or any other materials covered in the course.  That never happened and his son went on to score a 5 on the AP Test.

[Read more...]

This is a post I’ve been wanting to write for some time now. I’ve been somewhat uncomfortable in the classroom this year and I think I finally understand why. My primary goal as a history teacher is to get my students to engage in critical thinking about as much of their world as possible. We can ask our students to memorize facts and reasons, but if they can’t think for themselves about what they read than none of it is has any intrinsic worth. Of course my classes spend a great deal of time connecting events in American history to more recent events and trends, and within those discussions the war in Iraq looms large. My AP classes finished WWI last week and my two regular surveys are now getting started. In the survey classes my students work on an essay that asks them to think about the role of propaganda in a democracy. I give each student a handout that includes relevant background on George Creel and the Committee on Public Information along with copies of recruitment posters. Along with this issue we also talk about the balance between national security and the right to engage in civil disobedience and free speech. Not surprisingly, Eric Foner provides detailed coverage of this issue in his textbook, Give Me Liberty.

I am finding it more difficult this year to hold these discussions with my students, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. For some reason they are more resistant to debates that place them in a position to question the actions of the federal government. Students not only seem less willing to question the federal government, some find my suggestion that they even consider the issue as unreasonable. It is as if the suggestion to question is somehow unpatriotic. I’ve actually made disclaimers that my attempts to cajole them into questioning is not necessarily a reflection of any specific stance on my part in relation to theses issues. I have a few students who are very close to a position that justifies or permits any act on the part of the federal government to control public speech and behavior. When asked to justify their position, they simply tout the standard line that any anti-war speech or other action may hurt the morale of the soldiers in Iraq or lead to insecurity at home. Of course I could explain this away by dismissing these students as immature or simply unable to engage in mature discussion about the complex questions surrounding this issue. So, it is no surprise that when it comes to the extreme actions on the part of the federal government during WWI there is very little critical analysis. I should point out that I have plenty of students who are engaged and are willing to step back and examine any issue with a critical eye. What I am trying to emphasize is my perception (and it is just a perception) that more of my students are having difficulty with the idea that they should engage in debate over the boundaries of legitimate government action during wartime.

I don’t know if any of you have felt the same about your classrooms. I’ve thought about how to explain this trend and I always come back to the way in which the Bush administration and the nation as a whole has framed the debate between national security and freedom of speech over the last few years. My juniors and seniors have basically come of age during this post-911 period. Many of them do not read the newspaper, but instead watch the evening news or those entertainers/political commentators such as Chris Matthews and Bill O’Reilly. These are shows that spend very little if any time actually engaged in intellectual discussion. At the beginning of the war we were told not to question the reasons surrounding the decision to go to war for fear of jeopardizing the military mission. Since victory was declared the Bush administration has done a wonderful job demonizing the press for distracting the nation from the wonderful successes we’ve enjoyed in Iraq over the last three years. Within this context it is no surprise that more of my students have matured within this entrenched fear and suspicion that our government has fostered over the last few years. It’s as if they’ve internalized the formula: “If the government is doing it, they must have a sufficient reason for doing it.” I should point out that this is not about whether one should support or not support the war, George Bush, or a specific stance on the “War on Terror”; it is about preserving the role of the people in continuing to work as an additional check on the actions of the individuals who are elected to public office.

I did not grow up during the Vietnam War, but I do know that most Americans did not seriously question the rationale for going to war following Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. At some point a few years later Americans woke up and spoke out. Have we made the same mistake this time around? Why all of a sudden are Americans questioning the policies of this government? Yes, they have every right and I am pleased that finally the majority have decided to take a more critical look at the policies of this government. I sometimes wonder where we would be right now if more Americans had spoken out not simply for or against the government and the war, but just to demand more information — how about accountability for what has obviously gone very wrong?

I have no interest in seeing my students adopt any particular ideological/political viewpoint. All I care about is that whatever they believe they leave themselves open to revision and constantly push themselves to better understand their own views as well as the views of others. Democracies are like classrooms: they must be places where its citizenry understands the importance of questioning and it must create an environment that faciliatates a healthy skepticism. This begins in the classroom!