AMERICA – PATHWAYS TO THE PRESENT

1995 Edition

by Andrew Cayton, Elisabeth Israels Perry and Allan Winkler
Published by Prentice Hall, Needham, Massachusetts, 1995

Textbook Evaluation

This U.S. history textbook is full of factual errors and half truths. The political bias is evident throughout. The authors take the worst events in U.S. history and makes it appear to be the norm. Every issue non-whites have is always the fault of whites and white culture. This textbook came out in 1995 which shows you how long our students have been getting brainwashed. Logic alone proves this textbook is mostly propaganda. Since 1790, over 80 MILLION people have immigrated to the United States. Not Canada. Not Mexico. Why would all these people come to a country that was so horrible? Why would millions fight to save our country? America is a good country.

Quotes from this textbook are in RED.

Page 25, 26 – “Christianity Under Pressure.”

“Another long term event that Christians interpreted as a bad sign was an invasion by believers in a rival faith, Islam. Starting around 700, followers of Islam had taken over(1) much of the Mediterranean world, from the holy city of Jerusalem to large parts of Spain.”

“Islam had originally arisen between 622 and 632 in Arabia, inspired by the teachings of the prophet(2) Muhammad. The prophet’s(2) followers, called Muslims, united by their new shared religion, then expanded(3) their empire from Arabia to new lands in Asia, Europe, and Africa in a prolonged series of invasions. This was painful to Christians because their religion, too, taught them it was their obligation to spread Christianity throughout the world.”(4)

CORRECTIONS:
(1) ”taken over” is vague. This could mean this land was taken over by peaceful conversion, which it was NOT. The correct word is “conquered”.

(2) “prophet” is not a verifiable fact. Should read “…teachings of a man named Mohammad, who believed he was a prophet from God.” (On page 203, in describing the new Mormon religion, says “The Mormons took root in upstate New York. The Book of Mormon, which founder Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from gold plates he had found. . . .”)

(3) “expanded” is not correct. Should read “Muslims conquered country after country and forcibly converted the native population to Islam. People who refused to convert were either executed or forced to pay a special tax.

(4) This sentence makes it appear that Islam and Christianity spread by the same violent methods which is not true. With some notable exceptions, Christianity spread by voluntary conversions while Islam nearly always forced people to convert under threat of execution.

—————————————————————-

Page 29 – (discussing the Songhai Government of West Africa)

“The major curriculum at the university at Tombouctou was the Koran, which was and remains today the holy book of Islam. Islam had reached Songhai by trade and by invasion from the north; with the new religion came knowledge of Arabic, the original language of the Koran. Thousands of African Muslims found that practicing the rituals of Islam gave great meaning to their lives.”

CORRECTIONS:
The last sentence does not belong in a history book. But if the authors want to make this statement, the
following statement should also be in this book: “No religion has peaceably converted more people than
Christianity because of the great meaning it brings to peoples lives.”

————————————————————————-

Page 116 – Discussing British disadvantages in defeating the Colonies during the Revolutionary War.

“The war was not popular in Great Britain. Many of the British resented paying taxes to fight the war and
sympathized with the Americans. In addition, the British had to fight against an enemy that was thousands
of miles away across an ocean, spread out over a huge territory, difficult to identify, and without any visible
organization that could be attacked.(1) As Americans would discover two centuries later in Vietnam, winning
battles and having superiority in training are not enough when your opponent constantly shifts ground – and will not give up.”(2)

CORRECTIONS:
(1) NOT true. The Revolutionary Army was a standing army that fought the British Army many times in
conventional warfare. There were many visible organizations – cities and factories – that the British would have attacked if they had been able to.

(2) Again, NOT true. There are no similarities between the Vietnam War and the American Revolution.
The US got involved in Vietnam to defend the South from Communist North Vietnam. The American
Revolution was based on a belief in freedom and self rule. North Vietnam wanted to impose a communist dictatorship on the south. The guerrillas in South Vietnam (Viet Cong) had been largely defeated but the North then sent hundreds of thousands of troops to fight in the south. The North kept the war going and had we bombed all the important targets in North Vietnam (which we didn’t) we could have won the war.

——————————————————————-

Page 286 – Manifest Destiny.

A New York journalist named John L. O’Sullivan neatly captured this sense of mission when he coined the phrase manifest destiny.

Writing in 1845, Sullivan claimed that it was the nation’s “manifest destiny to over spread and to
possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great
experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.” Increasingly in the 1840s, Americans believed that no other nation should be allowed to keep the United States from fulfilling its destiny.”

CORRECTIONS:
Millions of immigrants had already headed west long before O’Sullivan wrote about his concept of a
‘manifest destiny.’ The westward expansion would have happened regardless of belief in a ‘manifest
destiny.’ Millions of immigrants were pouring into America and they needed some place to go. Mexico
attracted some immigrants to Texas and California due to free land. Most settlers bought unoccupied land from the U.S. government for $1.25 per acre.(91) Belief in ‘Manifest Destiny’ was not accepted by all
Americans. Some derided the concept.

America did not invent the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny.’ This belief is as old as civilization itself. Although
the “crime” of ‘Manifest Destiny’ has only been applied to America, other countries had and have their own
version. Actually, America’s version of manifest destiny is pretty small compared to other countries, rulers
and religions.

Moslems believed it is their manifest destiny to conquer the world for Allah. The Soviet Union believed their manifest destiny was to conquer the world for communism. The U.S. military prevented this from happening.

Spain believed it was their Manifest Destiny to conquer all of the New World – except for Brazil – for Spain and Catholicism. In fact, Spain’s vision of Manifest Destiny was immense – far more aggressive then the U.S. Claiming all of the New World for Spain wasn’t enough.

In 1513, Vasco Balboa crossed Panama and was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from the west coast of the New World. With a wave of his arm, Balboa claimed the entire Pacific Ocean and all lands adjoining it for Spain. Although Balboa didn’t know it, he claimed modern day United States, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Japan, Korea, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia – all for Spain. Spain claimed all islands in the Caribbean although they did not settle all of them and didn’t even know how many were there. Many of Spain’s land claims were meaningless. It was inevitable that Spain/Mexico’s “Manifest Destiny” would come into conflict with America’s more limited expansion. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it – land they had a difficult time putting people on – the US was rapidly expanding based on a growing population.

——————————————————————-

Page 286 – Annexation of Texas

“After winning independence from Mexico in 1836, many Texans assumed that the United States would quickly absorb their new republic. Americans were far from united on the question of annexing Texas, however. Southerners and supporters of slavery were eager to carve one or more slave states out of the Texas
territory. Northerners feared that the addition of even one slave state would shift the balance of power in
Congress and the Electoral College to the South. Many people in both the North and South worried that
annexation would lead to war with Mexico.”

“When Democrat James K. Polk, running on an expansionist platform, won the presidency later that year, the tide began to shift. In February 1845, before Polk even took the oath of office, Congress approved
annexation. After Texas voters added their approval in December of that year, Texas became the twenty-eighth state in the Union.”

CORRECTIONS:
The authors ignore important details of the Texas rebellion that are necessary to understand the issues that caused the Mexican American War in 1846. The Mexican government invited Americans to settle in Texas and the first group of 300 arrived in 1825. By 1834, Texas had a population of 37,800 with 30,000 being Americans.[A] In 1835, Mexican General Santa Anna attempted to establish a dictatorship and three Mexican states rebelled – Coahuila, Texas and Zacatecas. Santa Anna violently crushed the rebellion in Zacatecas and intimidated Coahuila into surrendering.

Mexico attacked Texas on Oct. 1835. On April 21, 1836, San Houston’s Army of 750 men defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto River. Over 700 Mexicans were killed and 730 captured. The arrogant Santa Anna, who boasted he was the “Napoleon of the West” fled, disguised as a common soldier, but was captured the next day. On May 14, 1836, Santa Anna signed the Treaties of Velasco which ended the War, made Texas an independent nation and the Rio Grande River became the southern border.

When Santa Anna got back to Mexico he declared he had signed the treaties under duress as a prisoner of war. While this was certainly true, he could have refused to sign. What Santa Anna’s fate would have been had he not signed a peace deal will never be known. At any rate, throughout history, the winner in a war dictates the terms to the loser. The Mexico government refused to ratify the treaty and vowed never ending war on Texas.

Mexico claimed that the Texas revolution occurred because of Anglo settlers. This claim conveniently ignores the fact that many states in Mexico rebelled against the central government in Mexico City and these states had few if any Americans.

Only two years after Mexico’s independence – five states in Central America declared themselves independent from Mexico – Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Central Americans chafed at Mexican rule, and there were several battles with Mexican forces. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established in Guatemala City. Constant infighting resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five states became independent nations without any interference from Mexico or threats of perpetual war. WHY?? Is it because they were fellow Spanish?

A. Recovering History, Constructing Race: (2001) Manchaca, Martha pp. 172, 201

————————————————————————-

Pages 286-288 – The War with Mexico

“Years before the United States annexed Texas, the steady influx of Americans into Mexico’s northern
territories had led to growing friction between the two nations. When Congress approved annexation in early 1845, Mexico immediately broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. Continuing disagreements about the southern border of Texas signaled further trouble ahead.”(1)

“President Polk and other southern Democrats wanted much more from Mexico than Texas. Polk had dreams of acquiring the entire territory stretching from Texas to the Pacific.(2) In a final attempt to avoid war, he sent Ambassador John Slidell to Mexico City in November 1845 with an offer to buy California and New Mexico for $30 million. But the Mexican government refused even to receive Slidell, let alone consider his offer.”(3)

CORRECTIONS:
(1) Texas joined the U.S. for it’s own protection from Mexico’s constant threats of invasion. Mexico launched two attacks on Texas in 1842, capturing San Antonio twice and plundering the city. Texas wanted to join the U.S. since 1836, but Congress was against admission of Texas to the Union because it was a slave state and didn’t want to provoke Mexico. So Texas began negotiations with Britain for protection from Mexico and trade deals. It was now or never for Congress to admit Texas and become the 28th state.

(2) Wanting to buy something is not proof you intend to start a war over it. The U.S. had every reason to
believe Mexico would sell this land as they were on the verge of bankruptcy with a staggering national debt, had scarcely any citizens on the land and in fact had very little control over the area. Only one percent of Mexico’s population lived north of the Rio Grande River. Had Mexico not started a war with the US, Mexico wouldn’t have lost the southwest US, or if they did, there could be no denying that the U.S. stole it.

(3) This is NOT true. The Mexican president, Jose Herrera was a man who wanted peace. He REQUESTED that the US send a representative (John Slidell) to Mexico City in the hopes that all the differences between the two countries could be resolved. Slidell arrived in Mexico City on 6 December but the Herrera government was about to be overthrown, and in a futile attempt to save itself, refused to meet with Slidell.(A)

On January 4th, 1846, General Mariano Paredes took the oath of office as the new president. Paredes claimed all of Texas to the Sabine River – which separates Texas from Louisiana. (B)

Slidell summed up his experiences with Mexico: “We shall never be able to treat with her on fair terms
until she has been taught to respect us… here all amicable advances are considered as indicative either of weakness or treachery.”(C)

Polk had every reason to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico. The last time the U.S. Army faced off against a regular Army was the War of 1812, when they were routed by the British. Why would Polk fight a country with an untried army far from home over unfamiliar territory? He risked blundering into a costly stalemate. Yet Mexico’s perpetual threats could no longer be ignored. The situation had to be resolved.

——————————————————————–

Pages 286-288 – The War with Mexico – continued:

“Determined to have his way, the aggressive Polk sent two thousand American troops under General Zachary
Taylor into southern Texas to support the American claim that the Rio Grande was the official American-Mexican border. Since the Mexican government claimed that the Nueces River, located quite a few miles
further north, was the border, it considered Taylor’s movements an invasion of Mexican territory.(4) Tensions between the two nations escalated rapidly. Meanwhile, an American expedition under the command of Captain John C. Fremont moved into California, probably under orders from the President to stir up trouble.”(5)

“When Mexican troops engaged in a skirmish with Taylor’s forces in early May 1846, Polk had the excuse for which he had long been waiting. Expressing outrage at the loss of “American blood on American soil,” the President pushed for an immediate declaration of war. Despite some opposition, Congress gave it to him on May 13, 1846.”(6)

CORRECTIONS: (4) Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam.(D) If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the U.S. and negotiate a deal. The obvious truth was that Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico. Mexico intended to conquer all of Texas.

Mexico was confident they would defeat the US. Many Mexicans believed their army was nearly invincible. The Spanish Minister in Washington, Calderon de la Barca, said “There are no better troops in the world, nor better drilled and armed, than the Mexicans.”(E) The Mexican correspondent to the London Times stated in 1845 that Mexican soldiers “are superior to those of the United States.”(E) Juan Almonte, a military man, assured his government that it was “certain” that Mexico would defeat the U.S.(F)

On Jan 12, 1846, Polk received word from Slidell that negotiations had failed. Polk realized that war with
Mexico was inevitable. On Jan. 13, 1846, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move his army from Corpus Christi to the north side of the Rio Grande River. Taylor received these orders on Feb. 3.

Before leaving Corpus Christi, General Taylor wrote a proclamation to the Mexican people of Matamoros in which he alerted them to his march and promised that his intentions were peaceful. He also vowed to pay market value for any goods purchased.(G) This turned out to be an embarrassment for Mexico. Mexican officials were enraged when Mexicans eagerly sold food and horses to the American Army which paid in cash.(H) Locals refused to sell supplies to their own army because they were “paid” in promisory notes – which were worthless.

When Taylor moved south of the Neuces to the Rio Grande, this was the perfect excuse Paredes was looking for to start a war with the US while claiming he was defending Mexico. In his war proclamation of Apr 23, 1846, Paredes stated: “. . . From this day defensive war begins, and every point of our territory which may be invaded or attacked shall be defended by force.”(I)

Critics claim the US intended to provoke a war with Mexico by stationing troops on the north side of the Rio Grande River. This ignores facts. Who was provoking who? How could the US be responsible for starting a war with a country that had repeatedly called for war with the US, refused to negotiate, put an invasion force on the border and declared repeatedly they would conquer Texas? Taylor was on the Rio Grande to protect Texas and force a decision. That this display of force caused Mexico to start the war does not prove the U.S. provoked the war. It proves Mexico chose war over negotiations.

(5) Irresponsible writing by the authors. Mexico wanted a war with U.S. over Texas. Polk wanted to nurture the good will of the Californios in case of war and win them over peacefully. Many northern Californios favored union with the U.S. Fremont got to California in Dec. 1845 and caused problems for the Mexicans. In March 1846(J) the Mexican government kicked Fremont’s party out of California.

On Oct 17, 1845, Sec. of State James Buchanan sent a letter to the U.S. consul in California, Thomas Larken, ordering him to “conciliate the feelings of the Californians in favor of the United States” and avoid giving
Mexico “just cause of complaint.”(K) The letter did not reach California until April, 1846(L). Larken ordered a copy sent to Fremont and he received his letter on May 9, 1846. John D. Sloat, commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Squadron, received similar instructions from Navy Sec. Bancroft.(M)

Fremont returned to California in May 1846 and despite these clear orders, Fremont started the Bear Flag Revolt on June 10, 1846. Incredibly, Fremont took General Vallejo and other pro American Californios
prisoner, took control of Sonoma and declared the Republic of California.

On May 31, 1846, John D. Sloat, commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Squadron, was informed that war had begun on April 25, 1846. Sloat waited until July 7 to act, landing his men and claiming northern California for the U.S. Later, Fremont met Sloat aboard the Navy ship Savannah and Sloat demanded to see his orders that authorized Fremont to launch the Bear Flag Revolt. Learning Fremont had no such orders, Sloat unleashed a blistering tirade against the startled Fremont.(N) On July 29, Sloat ordered Vallejo and other prisoners released. (O)

(6) This attack by Mexico was NOT a skirmish. On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. This battle was a legitimate reason to declare war on Mexico. In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista: “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.”(P)

Sources:
A. The Story of the Mexican War by Robert Selph Henry, pub 1950, p25,26,30,31
B. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.100
B. Story of the Mexican War – Robert Henry p 31, 399.
C. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.135
D. The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, by George Lockhart Rives, pg. 325
E. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.106
F. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.116
G. 75. Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 33
G. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.146
G. Story of the Mexican War – Robert Henry p 41 H. 82. Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 38
I. The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, by George Lockhart Rives, pg. 141,142
J. Fremont, Pathmarker of the West by Allan Nevins p 230,231
K. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 73,91,92
L. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 73
M. Fremont, Pathmarker of the West by Allan Nevins p 240
N. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 86, 161
O. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 162
P. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.155

—————————————————————————

Page 347 – “The Lasting Impact of the Siege of Vicksburg.”

“Americans Wage Total War. American troops in the twentieth century would repeatedly find themselves in
situations similar to the siege of Vicksburg. In later wars, too, their mission would be to bring the superior
numbers and resources of the United States to bear on a well-entrenched enemy. These wars included World War II (1941-1945), the War in Vietnam (1965-1973) and the Persian Gulf War (1991). The United States and other nations would find new technologies for this purpose that would make the horror of Grant’s cannons and gunboats seem puny. And more often than not, this warfare would leave in its wake a massive loss of civilian life and destruction of property.”

“The purpose of this destruction was to persuade the enemy that the struggle was simply not worth the cost. After Vicksburg, civilians were as much a part of war as soldiers, starvation as much of a weapon as the rifle; and victory required not just the surrender of a few troops but the complete demoralization and destruction of vast civilian populations.”

CORRECTIONS:
First, the authors claim that Total War is a recent occurrence is NOT true. Laying siege to a city and starving them into surrender was a common tactic in the ancient world. The Old Testament in the Bible has many
accounts of armies starving a city into surrendering. The Roman Empire destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War in 146 BC and sold 50,000 civilians into slavery.

World War Two was total war. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 established rules limiting the barbarity of war. These rules protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).

Second, this book’s claim that U.S. warfare causes ‘massive loss of civilian life’ is NOT true. The U.S. and other Western nations have gone to great effort to limit civilian casualties since World War Two. As the precision of U.S. weapons has improved, there are fewer civilian casualties.

On the other hand, Russia, Communist China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Islamic terrorists, the Hezbollah terrorist organization and others ignore these laws and inflict mass murder on civilians. Russia is by far the greatest violator of the Geneva Convention.

Third, the authors do not distinguish between Just Wars and Unjust Wars. Some examples of countries
engaged in unjust, imperialistic wars of aggression would be Japan in World War 2, Germany in World Wars 1 and 2 and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and in the 1930s. Russia’s attack on Ukraine is another unjust war. The United States went to war to defeat countries fighting unjust, immoral wars.

Fourth, the authors don’t differentiate between civilians being accidently killed in the course of defeating
an unjust aggressor nation in order to win a war and bring about peace versus an army which is intent on brutalizing the conquered population just because they can. For instance, once the Civil War ended, civilians returned to their usual life. Once Japan and Germany surrendered, their civilian populations were respected and in fact the US spent billions to rebuild what they had destroyed.

Brutalizing the civilian population of a defeated country was common throughout ancient times as well as modern times. During World War Two the Japanese were extremely brutal in the countries they conquered. Nazi extermination of millions of Jews and other civilians is another example. The Soviet Union committed genocide in Ukraine in the 1930s and then enslaved the people in the countries of eastern Europe after World War two is another example. Muslim terrorists deliberately target civilians all around the world.

In recent times, evil rulers have put military installations in civilian areas, hoping to get as many civilians as possible killed so they can claim war crimes were committed. In reality, the war crimes were committed by the nation’s leader who put his people in harms way. Saddam Hussein did this. The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations does this.

This picture below, from pages 346, 347 in this textbook is misleading because it places the aggressor
nations and the defender nations on the same moral level. The authors ignore the fact that in all these wars
depicted below, US forces were the good guys out to defeat the bad guys.

———————————————————————————-

Page 666 – The German Empire Grows.

“German aggression continued as the decade of the 1930s drew to a close. Early in 1938 Hitler annexed
Austria. Later that year, he demanded possession of the Sudetenland, a section of Czechoslovakia inhabited
by an ethnic German population. The League of Nations, which had been organized after World War I to try to
maintain international peace, proved powerless to resist German aggression. England and France, reluctant to
become involved in another conflict after the devastation of World War I, adopted a policy know as appeasement. To appease means to “keep the peace by giving in to someone’s demands.” Over and over England and France allowed Hitler toseize control of European territories, on the assumption that he finally would be satisfied.”

“Their assumption was wrong. Hitler’s appetite proved insatiable, and he moved relentlessly to take over all of Czechoslovakia. Then, in September 1939, after signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union so he would not have to fear a Soviet assault, Germany invaded Poland. Two days after this attack, leaders in England and France decided they would appease Hitler no longer. Angry and frustrated over his steady encroachment on the European continent, they finally declared war on Germany.”

CORRECTIONS:
NOT true. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany BOTH were imperialist nations conquering their neighbors. In August 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a ten year non-aggression pact that included the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This Pact was an agreement by Germany and the Soviet Union on conquering and dividing
up Eastern Europe.

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland from the west and on September 17, the Soviets invaded Poland from the east. Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland in half.

——————————————————————

CORRECTION:
‘Propaganda’ is giving partial or misleading information or outright lies to people with the intend of
brainwashing people into believing a lie.

This poster is NOT propaganda. This is legitimate information reminding Americans not to forget the terrible attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

On page 719, however, the authors show a 1943 Hollywood poster supporting Soviet troops fighting the
Germans at Stalingrad, but donʼt call it propaganda.

————————————————————————–

Page 684 – MAKING CONNECTIONS.

Do you think Truman would have been more reluctant to use the atomic bomb on Germany or Italy, if they had not yet surrendered in August 1945, then he was to use it on Japan? Why or why not?

CORRECTIONS:
Why is this question even being asked? This is a deliberate attempt to make school kids believe the US was more interested in killing Japanese then Nazis and discredit the US war effort. The US decided to make the atomic bomb after learning Hitler was trying to build one. The purpose of building the atomic bomb was to use it on any enemy still fighting after the Bomb was completed. If Hitler got a nuclear bomb first, Nazi
Germany would likely have won the war. The US goal, from Pearl Harbor on, was to destroy Germany and Japan as fast as possible and win the war. The allies – in effect – nuked Dresden, Germany in February 1945, by firebombing the city, causing 25,000 casualties. The atomic bomb wasn’t ready until July, 1945, after
Germany had surrendered. The Japanese were reluctant to surrender until after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The answer is Truman would have used the Bomb on whoever hadn’t
surrendered by July 1945.

—————————————————————————–

P 709 – Native Americans and the War at Home

“Thousands of Native Americans who left reservations to take military or industrial jobs had to adapt quickly to white culture. At the end of the war, Native Americans who had served abroad or worked in industrial centers in the United States were less likely to return home. for some Native Americans, the cultural transition brough a sense of alienation and rootlessness that left lasting scars.”

CORRECTIONS:
One of the themes in this biased textbook is the constant bashing of White Americans and white culture. About 80 million people have immigrated to America since 1790, so white culture is a positive thing.

———————————————————————

P 709 – The Japanese American Internment.

“Anti-Japanese sentiment grew stronger after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Rumors of sabotage on
the West Coast spread quickly. One report that reached President Roosevelt’s desk, while noting that the japanese Americans there were almost all loyal citizens, went on to say that “there are still Japanese in the United States who will tie dynamite around their waist and make a human bomb out of themselves.”

CORRECTIONS:
America haters – like the author of this textbook – love to make America look bad so they exaggerate and leave out important information on this issue. Here is the WHOLE story on the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two.

The attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a bizarre incident on the Hawaiian Island of Niihau. A Japanese fighter plane, damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, crash landed on Niihau. There were only about 130 people on the island, 3 of Japanese descent. All three eventually sided with the Japanese fighter pilot and tried to take the islanders prisoner. During the confrontation, the Japanese pilot was killed and one of the ethnic Japanese committed suicide.(A)

After the ordeal, the Hawaiians were troubled by “the rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot’s cause. The more pessimistic among them cited the Niihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient.”[B]
In the official Navy report on the Niihau incident, dated January 26, 1942, its author, Navy Lieutenant C. B. Baldwin, wrote, “The fact that the two Niihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japanese domination of the island seemed possible, indicate[s] [the] likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful.”(C)

Thanks to American ingenuity, we broke the Japanese code in late 1940. Intercepts indicated the possible existence of a Japanese spy ring on the west coast of the U.S.(D)

The Niihau incident, combined with the intercepts (E) had a profound effect on FDR, who issued Executive Order 9066 in February 19, 1942. This Order allowed local military commanders to designate “military areas” as “exclusion zones”, from which “any or all persons may be excluded.”

Ironically, just four days later, at sunset on Feb 23, a Japanese sub shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara, California causing light damage. Some witnesses claimed seeing “signal lights” from the sub – apparently to spies on shore.

After the sub attack, the Tokyo newspaper Kokumin said the attack showed that “occupation of the United States mainland no longer is in the realm of dreams.” The only real accomplishment of the Japanese attack was to give further justification to FDR’s relocation order and hasten the internment of Japanese.(F)

This information is not intended to justify FDR’s Relocation Order – rather give us greater understanding why the Order was issued. Many people blame racism for the internment and racism was a factor – but there were legitimate reasons to be suspicious. We can only speculate if FDR’s Relocation Order would have been issued if the three islanders of Japanese descent on Niihau had fought the Japanese pilot instead of siding with him.

Removing the Japanese from the West Coast eliminated the possibility of local Japanese helping Japan in the event of an invasion, or more likely, Japanese subs landing sabotage teams along the West Coast. Nazi subs landed two sabotage teams along the east coast – in Florida and New York in June 1942.  All 8 men were captured with six being executed. (G)

While the internment of the Japanese Americans was somewhat controversial, it was mostly ignored as the country united in an all out effort to defeat Japan, Italy and Germany. After the war, many felt the country had over reacted, but in 1942, the Allies were losing the war and Americans were not taking any chances.

The U.S. Government also interned approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans – nearly all non-citizens and 1,880 ethnic Italians. On October 12, 1942, restrictions were lifted for all Italian non-citizens who were long-term residents of the U.S. After Italy surrendered to the Allies on September 8, 1943, most Italian nationals were released by the end of the year.

In the fall of 1943. Another incident that shook Americans occurred. Three Japanese American women interned at Granada Camp in eastern Colorado, helped two German prisoners of war escape from their nearby POW camp. They gave the prisoners civilian clothing, some maps, and a nighttime lift south toward Mexico.(H)

On Dec. 17, 1944, with Japan’s defeat in sight, U.S. General Henry Pratt issued Public Proclamation
No. 21, declaring that Japanese American “evacuees” from the West Coast could return to their homes,
effective January 2, 1945.(I) The problem was that some had no home to go back to.

Source:
A. http://internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00211&search_id=49022&pagenum=47 p 474,475
B. December 7, 1941: The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor by Prange, Gordon W. McGraw Hill. p 377
C. The Niihau Incident by Beekman, Allan. Honolulu, HI: Heritage Press of Pacific. ISBN 0-9609132-0-3. p 112
D. http://internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00211&search_id=49022&pagenum=3 (Page 430 to 440)
E. Magic: The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents by David D. Lowman
F. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-01/local/me-5256_1_japanese-submarine
G. http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-german-saboteurs-invade-america-in-1942.htm
H. https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Prosecution_of_the_Shitara_Sisters/
I. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-approves-end-to-internment-of-japanese-americans J. https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=111378

————————————————————

Page – 733 to 737 The Cold War in the United States. (This Textbook spends 5 pages devoted to McCarthyism in the US and makes many false statements.)

page 733 –

“The political left is made up of people who generally want to see the political system changed – sometimes radically – to benefit the common person.(1) The political right is composed of people who generally wish to preserve the current system. . . . The government’s loyalty program removed the left from power while effectively silencing any real political debate in the United States.”(2)

page 734 –

“Singer Judy Garland urged Americans to “write your Congressman a letter” denouncing the
campaign.(3)

page 736 –

“The Hunt for Witches and Communists. Between June and September of 1692, fourteen women and five men were hanged in Salem, Massachusetts, as witches(4). . . . Historians today compare Salem in 1692 to the United States in the 1950s.”(5)

“In 1954, after being condemned by the Senate for his activities, McCarthy’s reign of terror ended.”(6)

CORRECTIONS:
1. An incredibly misleading statement. Left wing economic programs have proven to be very corrupting to society not to mention they result in high taxes, economic decline and national bankruptcy. Communism killed millions of innocent people. Democracy has not.

2. Not true. No one was silenced. No newspapers were shut down. No writers were arrested and thrown in jail. No politician with leftwing beliefs was forcibly removed from their office.

3. How is this possible? This book tells me political debate in the United States was silenced on the preceding page.

4. Comparing heated political debate where no one was killed with people being hanged is the ultimate in
irresponsible writing.

5. Who are the supposed historians who compare a political debate with hangings?

6. Not true. There was NO “reign of terror.” A “reign of terror” happened in the Soviet Union under Communism where millions were executed or deliberately starved to death to achieve Stalin’s political aims. No one was executed or starved to death in the US to achieve political ends.

———————————————————————

page 730 – “The Early War in Vietnam.”

“Although Ho was sympathetic to the principles of communism, he was really more of a Vietnamese nationalist than a Soviet sympathizer. In his battle for Vietnamese independence, he used the American Revolutionary War as his model for independence.”(1)
“Ho Chi Minh sent this urgent telegram to President Truman in October 1945 asking for United States support of Vietnamese independence. Not wanting to jeopardize relations with France, Truman ignored Ho’s plea.”(2)

CORRECTIONS:
1. None of this is factual. Ho was NOT a freedom fighter. Ho Chi Minh
combined nationalism with communism. Ho was a dedicated communist dictatorship fighter. Communist Ho Chi Minh wanted to overthrow French colonial rule so he could establish his own brutal dictatorship. Ho gave lip service to believing in the principles of the American revolution. It was all a scam. Ho, like other communist “freedom fighters” used lofty rhetoric to brainwash people (like the authors of this textbook) into believing they wanted to free the people from oppression, when in reality, all communist dictators wanted to do was impose their own dictatorship on the people.

Ho studied revolutionary tactics in the Soviet Union and attended the Fifth Communist International Congress (Comintern) in June 1924. In November, 1924 Ho Chi Minh went to China to organize a Communist movement in Southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh’s goals were: 1) Drive the French colonial rulers out of IndoChina. 2) Eliminate all Vietnamese who opposed Communism, even though they were also fighting against the French and 3) Eliminate all Communists who challenged his authority.

With the end of World War Two, on 14 August 1945, Ho launched an offensive against French troops and his political opponents. In the Hanoi area alone about 10,000 political opponents were killed.(A) The number of executions in the rest of Vietnam is unknown. After Ho killed a personal friend, he proclaimed: “Anyone who does not follow the line determined by me will be smashed.”(B)

On Sep. 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnamese Independence and became undisputed leader of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh held elections on 6 Jan 1946 so he could claim he was the “duly elected” leader of Vietnam. This election was fraudulent. The anti communist nationalists complained they had little time to find candidates, because so many of their people had been killed by Ho Chi Minh’s forces. The candidates they did put up were not allowed on the ballot because Ho Chi Minh charged them with anti government activities. As a result, most of Ho Chi Minh’s candidates ran unopposed.

Most importantly, the vote was not secret. Voters had to tell Ho’s henchmen who they were voting for and election officials would mark the ballot accordingly. Saying you were not voting for Ho Chi Minh was a death sentence. Voting totals were also inflated. The population of Hanoi in 1946 was about 119,000 but Ho
received 169,222 votes. Not surprisingly, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh party won a landslide victory.(C)

During the war against France from 1946 to 1954, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh Army assassinated between 100,000 and 150,000 opponents of communism.(D) Although 98% of farmers in North Vietnam owned their own land, Ho Chi Minh undertook “land reform” in the mid 1950s. Anyone who was not sufficiently
supportive of Communism was classified a “landlord” and executed or imprisoned and their property
confiscated. About 50,000 farmers were killed. In addition, about 300,000 wives, children and sometimes parents of those executed were now homeless and perished from starvation or sickness. Communist
authorities forbid anyone from helping them.(E)

After Ho Chi Minh defeated French forces in 1954, the parties met in Geneva to work out a final solution for Indochina. Vietnam was divided in half, with the north being communist and the south being free. Contrary to popular belief, it was Ho Chi Minh’s representative to the Geneva Talks that wanted Vietnam divided in half.(F) The Geneva agreement was signed on 20 July 1954 by only two countries: France and Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh violated the agreement immediately. Under this agreement, anyone was permitted to leave North Vietnam and move to South Vietnam and vice versa. One MILLION people fled to South Vietnam and up to two million more would have left had they not been stopped by Ho Chi Minh’s army.(G)

Vietnam was supposed to be reunited by an election in 1956. The US, Britain and free Vietnam wanted
the UN to oversee the election but the Soviet Union rejected this idea.(H) Communist Vietnam wanted the elections to be “locally supervised”(I) which meant the elections in communist controlled areas would be rigged like the last elections run by Ho Chi Minh in 1946. So President Eisenhower cancelled the election.

2. The telegram was received by Truman on Feb. 28, 1946. The telegram makes it appear the US supported French colonialism and had we supported Ho, we could have avoided the Vietnam War two decades later. The US supported Ho during WW2 when Japan occupied Indo China.

On September 12, 1946, George M. Abbott, from the Department of State met with Ho Chi Minh for an hour in Paris. In the letter Abbott sent to US officials, Abbott declared that Ho Chi Minh denied being connected to communists. “Ho Chi-minh pointed out that there are no Communist ministers in his government and that the Viet-Nam constitution opens with a guarantee of personal liberties and the so-called rights of man and also guarantees the right to personal property. He admits that there are Communists in Annam but claims that the Communist Party as such dissolved itself several months ago.” Ho Chi Minh also demanded the French give in to his demands for freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the release of political prisoners.(J)

EVERYTHING Ho Chi Minh told George Abbott was a LIE. The communist Constitution of N. Vietnam – like the
Constitutions of other communist countries – wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Ho Chi Minh gave lip service to believing in the principles of freedom but it was all a scam. Harry Truman knew Ho was a master liar and a mass

Source:
A. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 44
B. Ngo, Van (November 2, 2010). In The Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary. Oakland,CA:
AK Press. p. 163.
Also: Lind, Michael (18 October 1999). Vietnam: The Necessary War. New York: Free Press. p. 141.
C. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 45-48
D. Dommen, Arthur J. (2001), The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans, Indiana U Press, p 252
E. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 142 -143
F. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 92
G. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 102-103
H.http://www.nytimes.com/1955/07/07/archives/saigon-backs-unity-vote-but-only-through-unguided-ballot-foreign.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesmachine.nytimes.com%2Ftimesmachine%2F1955%2F07%2F07%2F80775556.html
I. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 97-98,100
J. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/hochiminh/
Scroll down to “Memorandum of Discussion with Ho Chi Minh, September 12, 1946”

————————————————————————-

page 831 – Ethnic Minorities Seek Equallity – The Latino Population.

“Spanish-speaking Americans, or Latinos, come from many places, although they share the same language and some elements of culture. But whether they come from Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico or other parts of the Americas, Latinos often have been seen as outsiders and denied equal opportunities in many aspects of life, including employment, education, and housing.”

CORRECTIONS:
The primary issue is the refusal or inability by some to learn English. Some insist that everyone else learn Spanish to communicate with them. Everyone knows before they come here that the U.S. speaks English. Historically, the first generation has had a hard time with English, but the children become fluent and translate. It is just common sense to recognize that we must all speak English or we will be a country divided by language. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 – “Out of many, one.” For over 200 years, everything was done in English and this system worked brilliantly.

The U.S. must stop catering to immigrants in their native language. If you need an interpreter, you need to get one. In 1790, about a third of Pennsylvania’s population spoke German. Over time, they learned English.These Germans didn’t demand government forms in German or ‘push 2 for German.’ Some of today’s immigrants think they are better than previous immigrants and we should cater to them in their native language. These immigrants don’t belong in America.

Being ‘Americanized’ does NOT and NEVER HAS meant losing your cultural identity! Being ‘Americanized’ is a positive concept and introduces immigrants to the highest form of self rule here in the U.S. Being ‘Americanized’ means teaching immigrants the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and Judeo-Christian ethics – which many of our laws are based on. Immigrants must profess loyalty to America. Since most immigrants came from dysfunctional countries, they should be anxious to be Americanized. If you are a good worker, you will get hired.

————————————————————————–

page 831 – Mexican American Protests

“Mexican Americans, often known as Chicanos, always have been the most numerous Latinos in the United States. In the 1960s, they began to organize against discrimination in education, jobs, and the legal
system, leading to el Movimiento Chicano – the Chicano movement.”

CORRECTIONS:
This textbook justifies radical hate-America Mexican groups and individuals. The people involved in the Chicano movement and other hate groups are thugs – NOT civil rights leaders. The underlying issue is their fraudulent belief that the south west U,S, is stolen Mexican land.Cesar Chavez efforts to unionize farm workers was legitimate and overdue. Two Mexican American groups, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC – established in 1929) and the American GI Forum (AGIF – established in 1948) worked on civil rights issues. These groups embraced Americanism but as the decades passed, both groups moved to the political left.

The Chicano movement is based on ethnic superiority and preaches a fraudulent history of the U.S. The Chicano Movement was based on many fraudulent beliefs:

1. Mexican Americans must be separated from the ‘white’ designation and considered a different ethnicity. Assimilation and Americanism was rejected in favor of extreme nationalism and ethnic superiority based on being mixed blood – Spanish and Indian – called Mestizo.

2. Some Mexicans consider themselves Mexicans living in America rather than Americans of Mexican descent. These anti-American Mexicans show extreme ‘pride’ in all things Mexican and are critical of the U.S. So why are Mexicans here? Mexico has a poor economy, a poor educational system, a poor health care system and a history of constant wars and revolutions. Mexicans are here for jobs and to take over political institutions.

3. The Chicano Movement claims the southwest US is historically Mexican land. The truth is this land historically belonged to the Indians. The Spanish took this land from the Indians and then lost this land to the US when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War. They want the southwest US (Aztlan) to become part of Mexico or a Mexican state within the US. (A)

4. Chicanos claim the Spanish language is suppressed. What they really mean is everyone should talk to them in Spanish. That’s not how it works. Everyone knows before they come here the U.S. in English speaking. It is just common sense to recognize that we must all speak English or we will be a country divided by language. English is the language that binds America into one nation.

This doesn’t mean you must forget Spanish. Being bilingual is an asset but everyone should learn English. Historically, the first generation has had a hard time with English, so the children translate. Millions of
people from Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway and many other countries have come to America, learned
English, and did not feel “oppressed” or “Culturally deprived” learning English. No other ethnic group has made these bogus claims.

5. Chicano’s claim they are culturally oppressed. This is not true. Every ethnicity practices their own culture – most commonly food, sports and religion.

6. Chicanos blame the Mexican American War on American aggression brought on by a belief in ‘Manifest Destiny.’ This is not true. Mexico provoked Texas and two other states to revolt in 1836. Only the Texas revolt was successful. Mexico then attacked the U.S. in 1846 to start the Mexican American War. Mexico lost the southwest U.S. as a result of the Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.

Most people don’t realize that the Spanish had their own ‘Manifest Destiny’ – and it was extremely imperialistic. Claiming all of the New World for Spain (except for Brazil) wasn’t enough. Spain wanted more. In 1513, Vasco Balboa crossed Panama and was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from the west coast of the New World. With a wave of his arm, Balboa claimed the entire Pacific Ocean and all lands adjoining it for Spain.

Although Balboa didn’t know it, he claimed modern day United States, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Japan, Korea, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia – all for Spain. Spain claimed all islands in the Caribbean although they did not settle all of them and didn’t even know how many were there. Most of Spain’s land claims were meaningless. It was inevitable that Spain/Mexico’s “Manifest Destiny” would come into conflict with America’s more limited expansion. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it – land they had a difficult time putting people on – the US was rapidly expanding base on a growing population.

As unbelievable as it sounds, some Mexican supremacist want more then just the southwest US – they want Most of the U.S. based on the Treaty of Tordesillas from 1494!! The Treaty of Tordesillas was signed by Spain and Portugal which gave Brazil to Portugal and Spain got the rest of the New World. No other country signed this treaty and it was ignored by all the other European powers.

Reies Tijerina, a very influential Mexican American racist from the 1950s til his death in 2015, referenced the Treaty of Tordesillas to justify forcing all Anglos to move back to Europe – not just leave the southwest US. Tijerina wrote a book about “the land that belonged to my people since the signing of the Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494.”(B)

The Treaty of Paris in 1783 ended the Revolutionary War with Britain. The western boundary became the Mississippi River. Spain claimed land west of the Mississippi River and Florida.

In 1803, the US bought a huge amount of land from France that became known as the Louisiana Purchase. This land had been under Spanish rule from 1763 until October 1, 1800, when Napoleon persuaded a reluctant King Charles IV of Spain to cede Louisiana back to France.

The Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 resolved long standing disputes with the US on Spanish claims in North America. Spain gave up all claims north of the 42nd parallel north (northern boundary of present day California), gave Florida to the US and the Sabine River became the boundary between Texas (then a province of Spain) and Louisiana.