» This Story:Read +| Comments

What Was the Civil War Really About?

Obama Era Brings New Angle to a Longtime Pedagogical Question As Region's Students Begin Springtime Lessons on the War Between the States

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009

The Civil War began 148 years ago this month with the assault on Fort Sumter and ended when rebel forces surrendered in 1865, but the battle over how to teach the conflict to new generations of Americans has never stopped.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

Ask Northerners the cause of the war, and the answer often is a single word: slavery. In many places in the South, the answers can vary: states' rights, freedom, political and economic power.

As students across the region begin springtime Civil War lessons, historians say the election of Barack Obama as the first African American president offers an unprecedented opportunity to break through stereotypes and view the era in broader ways.

"His election means we can be more honest. We can stop giving one-word answers," said Edward L. Ayers, a Civil War scholar who is president of the University of Richmond, in the city that became the capital of the Confederacy.

Obama's ascent, historians say, has opened the door to a national discussion about race. There is renewed relevance to issues surrounding the country's racial past, including the origins and aftermath of its deadliest conflict, said Randall Miller, professor of history at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.

"This doesn't mean the subject will be any less controversial," Miller said, "but it does mean that we are again talking about issues such as slavery, freedom, race and fundamental identities."

Debate over teaching the conflict traces back to the late 1800s, when Confederate supporters propagated the "Lost Cause" view of Civil War history, according to Ed Bonekemper, an adjunct professor at Muhlenberg College and author of several books on the war.

This pro-Confederate interpretation held that slavery did not cause the war and that the South fought heroically despite having no chance of winning. Many historians nowadays say the outcome was not, in fact, inevitable.

There is little disagreement among professional historians that the South's effort to maintain the institution of slavery was the central reason that 11 Southern states seceded from the Union and civil war erupted. Today's textbooks have largely caught up with this view. But that doesn't necessarily translate to the classroom.

"The way courses are taught depends on the teacher, and changes in textbooks can only go so far," said prominent historian James M. McPherson, a Princeton University professor emeritus.

Les Albers, a history teacher at Washington-Lee High School in Arlington County, agreed: "The Civil War is taught in Alaska a whole lot different than the way it is taught in Tennessee."

Teacher Sharon Drow at Belmont Ridge Middle School in Loudoun County said she teaches her sixth-graders that the war was fought over states' rights.


CONTINUED     1        >



» This Story:Read +| Comments

More in Education Section

[Michelle Rhee]

Michelle Rhee

Full coverage of D.C. Schools Chancellor.

[Fixing D.C.'s Schools]

D.C. Charters

Learn about every charter school in D.C.

[Class Struggle]

Class Struggle

The latest on education from columnist Jay Mathews.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company