quotation is arresting and important. Holt then asks: “Identifying Bias: How
does the writer reveal his opinion of the Black Codes?” Although not perfect,
that question might lead students to draw interesting observations. The quote
shows the extent to which the war had become identified with the cause of
black freedom, for example—at least among Republicans, the Tribune being an
important organ of the Republican Party. It then links the intense emotional
attachment to “our” war dead to the cause of antiracism. “Into a frog pond”
deserves analysis, too, as a piece of rhetoric that at once disrespects the state
of Mississippi and proclaims Northern power over it. The answer in the
teacher’s edition, however, makes clear that no actual thought is envisioned:
“By writing that northern men will turn Mississippi into a frog pond before
allowing the state to impose the Black Codes.” This merely repeats the
quotation, turning the assignment into another exercise of rote repetition.
Although we can hope the authors had nothing to do with such silly teaching
suggestions, their names are on the books and they should be held responsible
for what is inside their covers.
Ironically, once in a while the material added by publishers’ clerks conflicts
with and enhances the base narrative. In American Journey, someone added
“My Lai Massacre” and its date to the map “The Vietnam War,” even though
the text never mentions the event. Exactly what students are to make of this map
notation is unclear.
In interviews with me, publishing executives blamed adoption boards,
school administrators, or parents, whom they feel they have to please, for the
distortions and lies of omission that mar U.S. history textbooks. Parents,
whether black militants or Texas conservatives, blame publishers. Teachers
blame administrators who make them use distasteful books or the publishers
who produced them. But authors blame no one. They claim credit for their
books. Several authors told me that they suffered no editorial interference.
Indeed, authors of three different textbooks told me that their editors never
offered a single content suggestion. “That book doesn’t have fifty words in it
that were changed by the editor!” exclaimed one author. “They were so
respectful of my judgment, they were obsequious,” said another. “I kept
waiting for them to say no, but they never did.”^54
If authors claim to have written the textbooks as they wanted, then maybe
they are to blame for their books. Sometimes they don’t know any better. I
asked John Garraty, author of American History, why he omitted the plague in