Lies My Teacher Told Me (26 page)

Quite possibly textbooks should not portray this murderer as a hero, although other
murderers, from Christopher Columbus to Nat Turner, get the heroic treatment. However, the
flat prose that textbooks use for Brown is not really neutral. Textbook authors'
withdrawal of sympathy from Brown is perceptible; their tone in presenting him is
different from the tone they employ for almost everyone else. We see this, for instance,
in their treatment of his religious beliefs. John Brown was a serious Christian, well read
in the Bible, who took its moral commands to heart. Yet our textbooks do not credit Brown
with religiositysubtly they blame him for it. “Believing himself commanded by God to
free the slaves, Brown came up with a scheme . . . ,” in the words of Ldnd ofPromise. The American Pageant calls Brown “narrowly ignorant,” perhaps a euphemism for overly religious, and “God's
angry man.” “He believed that God had commanded him to free the slaves by force,” states American History. God never commanded Brown in the sense of giving him instructions; rather, Brown thought
deeply about the moral meaning of Christianity and decided that slavery was incompatible
with it. He was also not “narrowly ignorant,” having traveled widely in the United States,
England, and Europe and talked with many American intellectuals of the day, black and
white.

By way of comparison, consider Nat Turner, who in 1831 Jed the most important slave revolt
since the United States became a nation. John Brown and Nat Turner both killed whites in
cold blood. Both were religious, but, unlike Brown, Turner saw visions and heard voices.
In most textbooks, Turner has become something of a hero. Several textbooks call Turner
“deeply religious.” None calls him “a religious fanatic.” They reserve that term for
Brown. The closest any textbook comes to suggesting that Turner might have been crazy is
this passage from American History: “Historians still argue about whether or not Turner was insane.” But the author
immediately goes on to qualify, “The point is that nearly every slave hated bondage.
Nearly all were eager to see something done to destroy the system.” Thus even American History emphasizes the political and social meaning of Turner's act, not its psychological
genesis in an allegedly questionable mind.

The textbooks' withdrawal of sympathy from Brown is also apparent in what they include and
exclude about his life before Harpers Ferry. “In the 184s he somehow got interested in
helping black slaves,” according to American Adventures. Brown's interest is no mystery: he learned it from his father, who was a trustee of
Oberlin College, a center of abolitionist sentiment, if Adventures wanted, it could have related the well-known story about how young John made friends with
a black boy during the War of 1812, which convinced him that blacks were not inferior.
Instead, its sentence reads like a slur. Textbook authors make Brown's Pottawatomie
killings seem equally unmotivated by neglecting to tell that the violence in Kansas had
hitherto been perpetrated primarily by the proslavery side. Indeed, slavery sympathizers had previously killed six
free-soil settlers. Several years before Pottawatomie, at Osawatomie, Kansas, Brown had
helped thirty-five free-soil men defend themselves against several hundred marauding
proslavery men from Missouri, thereby earning the nickname “Osawatomie John Brown.” Not
one textbook mentions what Brown did at Osawatomie, where he was the defender, but eight
of the twelve tell what he did at Pottawatomie, where he was the attacker.'

Our textbooks also handicap Brown by not letting him speak for himself. Even his jailer
let Brown put pen to paper! American History includes three important sentences; American Adventures gives us almost two. The American Pageant reprints three sentences from a letter Brown wrote his brother. The other nine books do
not provide even a phrase. Brown's words, which moved a nation, therefore do not move
students today.

Textbook authors have an additional reason to avoid Brown's ideas: they are tinged with
Christianity. Religion has been one of the great inspirations and JOHN BROWN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN

explanations of human enterprise in this country. Yet textbooks, while they may mention
religious organizations such as the Shakers or Christian Science, never treat religious
ideas in any period seriously.20 An in-depth portrayal of Mormonism, Christian Science, or the Methodism ofthe Great
Awakening would be controversial. Mentioning atheism or Deism would be even worse. “Are
you going to tell kids that Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus? Not me!” a text
book editor exclaimed to me. Treating religious ideas neutrally, nonreligiously, simply as
factors in society, won't do either, for that would likely offend some adherents. The
textbooks' solution is to leave out religious ideas entirely.21 Quoting John Brown's courtroom words“whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should
do even so to them”would violate the taboo.

Ideological contradiction is terribly important in history. Ideas have power. The ideas
that motivated John Brown and the example he set lived on long after his body lay
a-moldering in the grave. Yet American history textbooks give us no way to understand
the role of ideas in our past.

Conceivably, textbook authors ignore John Brown's ideas because in their eyes his violent
acts make him ineligible for sympathetic consideration. When we turn from Brown to Abraham
Lincoln, we shift from one of the most controversial to one of the most venerated
figures in American history. Textbooks describe Abraham Lincoln with sympathy, of course.
Nonetheless they also minimize his ideas, especially on the subject of race. In life
Abraham Lincoln wrestled with the race question more openly than any other president
except perhaps Thomas Jefferson, and, unlike Jefferson, Lincoln's actions sometimes
matched his words. Most of our textbooks say nothing about Lincoln's internal debate. If
they did show it, what teaching devices they would become! Students would see that
speakers modify their ideas to appease and appeal to different audiences, so we cannot
simply take their statements literally. If textbooks recognized Lincoln's racism,
students would learn that racism not only affects Ku Klux Klan extremists but has been
“normal” throughout our history. And as they watched Lincoln struggle with himself to
apply America's democratic principles across the color line, students would see how ideas
can develop and a person can grow.

In conversation, Lincoln, like most whites of his century, referred to blacks as
“niggers.” When responding 10 Stephen Douglas's race-baiting in the Lincoin-Douglas
debates, Lincoln himself sometimes descended into explicit white supremacy: “I have no
purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.
There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever
forbid their living together upon the footing ofperfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there
must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I
belong, having the superior position,“” Only one textbook quotes [his passage; the rest
censor Lincoln's racist ideas, as they censored Douglas's.;J Lincoln's attitudes about race were more complicated than Douglas's, however. The day after Douglas declared for white supremacy in Chicago, saying the issues were “distinctly
drawn,” Lincoln replied and indeed drew the issue distinctly: “I should like to know if
taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon
principle, and making exceptions to itwhere will it stop? If one man says it does not
mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man? If that
Declaration is not . . . true, let us tear it out! [Cries of ”no, nol“] Let us stick to it
then, let us stand firmly by it then.”24 No textbook quotes this passage, and every book but one leaves out Lincoln's thundering
summation of what his debates with Douglas were really about: ”That is the issue that
will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be
silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principlesright and wrongthroughout the world,

Lincoln's realization ofthe basic humanity ofAfrican Americans may have derived from his
father, who moved the family to Indiana partly because he disliked the racial slavery
that was sanctioned in Kentucky, Or it may stem from an experience Lincoln had on a
steamboat trip in 1841, which he recalled years later when writing to his friend Josh
Speed: “You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio
there were on board ten or twelve slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was
continual torment to me, and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any
other slaveborder.” Lincoln concluded that the memory still had “the power of making me
miserable.”26 No textbook quotes this letter.

As early as 1835, in his first term in the Illinois House of Representatives, Lincoln cast
one of only five votes opposing a resolution that condemned abolitionists. Textbooks
imply that Lincoln was nominated for president in I860 because he was a moderate on
slavery, but, in fact, Republicans chose Lincoln over front-runner William H. Seward
partly because of Lincoln's “rock-solid antislavery beliefs,” while Seward was considered
a compromiser.

As president, Lincoln understood the importance of symbolic leadership in improving race
relations. For the first time the United States exchanged ambassadors with Haiti and
Liberia. In 1863 Lincoln desegregated the White House staff, which initiated a
desegregation of" the federal government that JOHN BROWN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN

lasted until Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln opened the White House to black callers, notably
Frederick Douglass, He also\tontinued to wrestle with his own racism, asking aides to investigate the feasibility of
deporting (euphemistically termed “colonizing”) African Americans to Africa or Latin
America,

Six of the twelve textbooks mention that Lincoln opposed slavery. Two even quote his 1864
letter; “If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.”28 However, most textbook authors take pains to separate Lincoln from undue idealism about
slavery. They venerate Lincoln mainly because he “saved the Union,” By far their favorite
statement of Lincoln's, quoted or paraphrased by nine of the twelve books, is his letter
of August 22, 1862, to Horace Greeley's New York Tribune;

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I
believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union.... I have here stated tny purpose according to
my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere could be free.

Most textbooks don't let students see all of the above quotation; seven of the nine leave
out the last sentence,29 Thus they present a Lincoln who was morally indifferent to slavery and certainly did not
care about black people. Ironically, this is also the Lincoln whom black nationalists
present to African Americans to persuade them to stop thinking well of him.

Every historian knows that the fragment of Lincoln's letter to Greeley that most textbooks
supply does not represent his intent regarding slavery. Lincoln wrote the letter to seek
support for the war from Northern supporters of slavery. He aimed it not at Greeley, who
wanted slavery to end, but at antiwar Democrats, antiblack Irish Americans, governors of
the border states, and the many Republicans who opposed emancipating the slaves. Saving
the Union had never been Lincoln's sole concern, as shown by his 1860 rejection of the eleventhhour
Crittenden Compromise, a constitutional amendment intended to preserve the Union by
preserving slavery forever." Every textbook writer knows that a month before Lincoln wrote
to Greeley, he had presented the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet as an
irreversible decision, but no textbook makes this clear. Not one explains the political context or the intended audience for the
Greeley letter. Nor does a single textbook quote Lincoln's encouragement that same summer
to Unitarian ministers to “go home and try to bring the people to your views,” because “we shall need all the anti-slavery
feeling in the country, and more.” If they did, students might understand that
indifference was not Lincoln's only response to the issue ofslavery in America.

When textbook's discuss the Emancipation Proclamation, they explain Lincoln's actions in
realpolitik terras. “By September 1862,” says Triumph ofthe American Nation, “Lincoln had reluctantly decided that a war fought at least partly to free the slaves
would win European support and lessen the danger of foreign intervention on the side of
the Confederacy.” Triumph has forgotten its own earlier judgment: “President Lincoln had long believed slavery to be wrong.“ For if Lincoln opposed slavery, why would he emancipate ”reluctantly” and merely
for reasons related to international politics?

To be sure, international and domestic political concerns did impinge on Abraham Lincoln,
master politician that he was. But so did considerations of right and wrong. Political
analysts then and now believe that Lincoln's September 1862 announcement of emancipation
cost Republicans the control of Congress the following November, because Northern white
public opinion would not evolve to favor black freedom for another year.32 Textbook authors suppress the possibility that Lincoln acted at least in part because he
thought it was right. From Indian wars to slavery to Vietnam, textbook authors not only
sidestep putting questions of right and wrong to our past actions but even avoid
acknowledging that Americans of the time did so.

Abraham Lincoln was one of the great masters of the English language. Perhaps more than
any other president he invoked and manipulated powerful symbols in his speeches to move
public opinion, often on the subject of race relations and slavery. Textbooks, in keeping
with their habit of telling everything in the authorial monotone, dribble out Lincoln's
words three and four at a time. The only complete speech or letter any of them provide is
the Gettysburg Address, and only four of the twelve textbooks dispense even that.
Lincoln's three paragraphs at Gettysburg comprise one of the most important speeches ever
given in America and take up only a fourth of a page in the textbooks that include them.
Nonetheless five books do not even mention the speech, while three others provide only the
last sentence or phrase from it: “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”