What's wrong with Texas?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not sure what the context of this is but slavery was actually, in fact, more of a secondary issue for causing the civil war. The chief issues were economic issues and states' rights. Most people believe the civil war was totally over the moral issue of slavery.

See, for example:

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/..._civil_war.htm

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetect...the-civil-war/

Your second link doesn't support your thesis. From the link:

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

That's the reason the states' rights argument is so dumb. They wanted to preserve the right to own slaves!

And sure you can find plenty of links supporting the states' rights argument. They are all wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ong/?tid=sm_fb

Perhaps most perniciously, neo-Confederates now claim that the South seceded for states’ rights. When each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration Of The Causes Which Impel The State Of Texas To Secede From The Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended them: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa. These states had in fact exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some also no longer let slaveowners “transit” through their states with their slaves.…
Teaching or implying that the Confederate states seceded for states’ rights is not accurate history. It is white, Confederate-apologist history. It bends — even breaks — the facts of what happened.

Across the country, removing slavery from its central role in prompting the Civil War marginalizes African Americans and makes us all stupid. De-Confederatizing the United States won’t end white supremacy, but it will be a momentous step in that direction.

[Uncle Ted]

This Fall, Texas schools will teach students that Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution...

What the fuck?

OK, here is what the textbook apparently states about Moses "inspiring the constitution":

“Moses helped establish a legal system, including the Ten Commandments, to govern his people. Similarly, the founders of the United States wrote the Constitution and established a system of laws to govern Americans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...stitution.html

It doesn't say anything about Moses inspiring the constitution. Where do you get this bullsh*t news from?

It could be worse... I saw lots of sh*t for news articles claiming that the textbook said that Moses was actually an author of the constitution while searching for some news article that actually stated was was written.

[Uncle Ted]

Your second link doesn't support your thesis. From the link:



That's the reason the states' rights argument is so dumb. They wanted to preserve the right to own slaves!

And sure you can find plenty of links supporting the states' rights argument. They are all wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ong/?tid=sm_fb

Both the North and South knew that slavery was morally wrong. It is just like most know that using drones to drop bombs on children is morally wrong (but the United States under even Obama's command continues to do it any way). The South was economically dependent on slavery at the time. The North's economy had very little, if any, dependence on slavery. If the North's economy depended on slavery I am sure their opinion would have changed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, here is what the textbook apparently states about Moses "inspiring the constitution":


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...stitution.html

It doesn't say anything about Moses inspiring the constitution. Where do you get this bullsh*t news from?

It could be worse... I saw lots of sh*t for news articles claiming that the textbook said that Moses was actually an author of the constitution while searching for some news article that actually stated was was written.

You are nitpicking over wording in an attempt to create a red herring. The objective of that red herring of course is to avoid the main topic of the essay: whitewashing the primary cause of the civil war.

The Texas Board of Education has always been nutty.

[TripletDaddy]

seems like the board has seen a wave of federalism arguments over the past couple of weeks, none of which have been persuasive

[Uncle Ted]

You are nitpicking over wording in an attempt to create a red herring. The objective of that red herring of course is to avoid the main topic of the essay: whitewashing the primary cause of the civil war.

The Texas Board of Education has always been nutty.

The article claims that "Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in starting the Civil War" when the actual textbook doesn't even state that Moses inspired anything. It doesn't give any quotes from the textbook to back that claim. The article is clearly poorly written.

I think most boards of education look nutty given all the pressure they get from the real nuts, the parents. Nutty parents exist in every state.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The article claims that "Moses played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in starting the Civil War" when the actual textbook doesn't even state that Moses inspired anything. It doesn't give any quotes from the textbook to back that claim. The article is clearly poorly written.

Here you go, buddy. An even more detailed article and not a single mention of that Moses red herring. Enjoy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ce1_story.html

I think most boards of education look nutty given all the pressure they get from the real nuts, the parents. Nutty parents exist in every state.

Come on. Now you are being flat out disingenuous. Anyone who knows anything about Texas knows about the infamous Texas Board of Education and the impact they have on US textbooks. From the above article:

Texas’s social studies standards are more politicized than any other state, said Jeremy A. Stern, a historian who reviewed state standards for the conservative-leaning Thomas B. Fordham Institute in 2011. He gave Texas’s standards a D and wrote that the board was “molding the telling of the past to justify its current views.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is funny/kind of scary. A shocking number of Texas Tech college students do not know who won the Civil War.

[Uncle Ted]

Here you go, buddy. An even more detailed article and not a single mention of that Moses red herring. Enjoy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ce1_story.html

No actual text from the textbook?!?

It is hard to find anything about what the actual textbook says or doesn't say. Here is an article about a textbook that was being used in Massachusetts... Apparently it was "whitewashing" slavery as well:

Massachusetts textbook removed for downplaying slavery
[...]
The 2003 edition of “Harcourt Horizons: United States History” contains this line: “Slaves were treated well or cruelly, depending on their owners. Some planters took pride in being fair and kind to their slaves.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mass-text...laying-slavery

We all know that slave owners always raped and beat their slaves every day including these SoBs...

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.


Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.


Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.


Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.


The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).


The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877).


So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No actual text from the textbook?!?

It is hard to find anything about what the actual textbook says or doesn't say. Here is an article about a textbook that was being used in Massachusetts... Apparently it was "whitewashing" slavery as well:


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mass-text...laying-slavery

We all know that slave owners always raped and beat their slaves every day including these SoBs...

Aha... The old "tu quoque" logical fallacy.

By the way, the article you linked contained this quote:

And this year in Texas, textbooks have come under fire for suggesting Jim Crow era segregation wasn’t all that bad, while editorializing about the tax code.

Earlier this month, 43 textbooks manufactured in Texas were subject to review by the state’s Board of Education. According to many impartial observers, the books were riddled with errors and overtly Christian rhetoric.


“Unfortunately, if that’s what’s students are going to be learning in Texas, students around the country will be learning it soon enough,” said one critic of the textbooks, Dan Quinn of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network (TFN).

I suppose it would be tough to find an article about bad textbooks that didn't mention Texas. Heh.

[Uncle Ted]

This is funny/kind of scary. A shocking number of Texas Tech college students do not know who won the Civil War.

LOL. Texas Tech. Reminds me of Ms. Utah... telling us we need to "create education better":

[Moliere]

This is funny/kind of scary. A shocking number of Texas Tech college students do not know who won the Civil War.

Shocking!!

[PaloAltoCougar]

I am not sure what the context of this is but slavery was actually, in fact, more of a secondary issue for causing the civil war. The chief issues were economic issues and states' rights. Most people believe the civil war was totally over the moral issue of slavery.

See, for example:

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/..._civil_war.htm

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetect...the-civil-war/



What the fuck?

I've been reading several books on the Civil War in preparation for a trip later this month and it's evident slavery wasn't the primary reason, at least not in the eyes of most Northerners, but rather preservation of the Union. But I'm still trying to figure out the "states rights" argument for the South. I know that was stated to be the purpose from the Southern perspective, but what "rights" were they fighting for other than slavery? That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I've been reading several books on the Civil War in preparation for a trip later this month and it's evident slavery wasn't the primary reason, at least not in the eyes of most Northerners, but rather preservation of the Union. But I'm still trying to figure out the "states rights" argument for the South. I know that was stated to be the purpose from the Southern perspective, but what "rights" were they fighting for other than slavery? That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know.

From the Northern perspective, it was more a series of reactions than proactive decisions. When the southern states seceded, the government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the rebellion. (Secession was driven largely by the wealthy slaveholders in the south. Popular support came after shots were fired, but support for secession was sketchy at first.) The question then arose regarding federal military assets in the south. The south ordered them to leave and they refused and then shots were fired at Sumter. Even at that point, nobody on either side ever imagined the scale of loss (blood and treasure) coming in the next four years. After Sumter and before the Battle of Bull Run, politicians in the North predicted that the war would be over in days or weeks and you would be able to wipe up all of the blood that would be shed with a single handkerchief. In other wards, the war started as a series of escalating events and the North was reacting for the most part. By the end of the war, ending slavery was used a justification for the war in the North and that was partly because the cost was so great that they needed a noble cause to keep people engaged, but it wasn’t universally viewed that way at the start.

From the Southern perspective, you need to separate secession from the war. Secession led to the war, so the real question is why did they secede? If you read the articles of secession for each state, there is no question it was about slavery. The term “states rights” was primarily invented after the war by confederate apologists. It is code for "the right to own and enslave blacks”.

[Uncle Ted]

From the Northern perspective, it was more a series of reactions than proactive decisions. When the southern states seceded, the government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the rebellion. (Secession was driven largely by the wealthy slaveholders in the south. Popular support came after shots were fired, but support for secession was sketchy at first.) The question then arose regarding federal military assets in the south. The south ordered them to leave and they refused and then shots were fired at Sumter. Even at that point, nobody on either side ever imagined the scale of loss (blood and treasure) coming in the next four years. After Sumter and before the Battle of Bull Run, politicians in the North predicted that the war would be over in days or weeks and you would be able to wipe up all of the blood that would be shed with a single handkerchief. In other wards, the war started as a series of escalating events and the North was reacting for the most part. By the end of the war, ending slavery was used a justification for the war in the North and that was partly because the cost was so great that they needed a noble cause to keep people engaged, but it wasn’t universally viewed that way at the start.

From the Southern perspective, you need to separate secession from the war. Secession led to the war, so the real question is why did they secede? If you read the articles of secession for each state, there is no question it was about slavery. The term “states rights” was primarily invented after the war by confederate apologists. It is code for "the right to own and enslave blacks”.

I wonder if Moses inspired the states' articles of secession as well given the big role he played in things.