What's wrong with Texas?

[byu71]

Or they duped them into thinking they would someday inherit their dad's slaves or plantation and therefore would need slaves. Or maybe some of that 67% were children. Were women allowed to own property? Maybe some of that 67% are female.

The 33% is a number representing families that owned slaves. So most children and female's would be part of the figure and not just a figure for men.

Maybe the times were different and the rich and powerful could force people to sacrifice for the sake of the rich or powerful. I thought the Southern Army was volunteer though but I could be totally wrong about that.

Edit: Initially volunteer and later conscription

[Jeff Lebowski]

Or they duped them into thinking they would someday inherit their dad's slaves or plantation and therefore would need slaves. Or maybe some of that 67% were children. Were women allowed to own property? Maybe some of that 67% are female.

Or maybe they just declared war and then sent out the home guard to enforce enlistment for those who didn't want to fight.

[BlueK]

67% of the Southerners paid a pretty heavy price to fight and die for the right of 33% to own slaves. The 33% must have duped the 67% into thinking they were fighting for something else.

Or they duped them into thinking they would someday inherit their dad's slaves or plantation and therefore would need slaves. Or maybe some of that 67% were children. Were women allowed to own property? Maybe some of that 67% are female.

[byu71]

67% of the Southerners paid a pretty heavy price to fight and die for the right of 33% to own slaves. The 33% must have duped the 67% into thinking they were fighting for something else.

[Uncle Ted]

This wasn't a violation of states' rights. It was a violation of federal law. In other words, the Southern states objected to the Northern states disregarding federal law and exercising states' rights in this instance.

Recall that Southern States viewed slaves as property.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Southern States most likely felt like their rights were violated from everything surrounding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court but, surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled and ruled the law constitutional. When the Northern states refused to return their "property" then the Southern States most likely viewed this as a violation of their state rights.

This wasn't a violation of states' rights. It was a violation of federal law. In other words, the Southern states objected to the Northern states disregarding federal law and exercising states' rights in this instance.

The question is if there was no Fugitive Slave Act or if the US Supreme Court ruled the other way would there have been a civil war? I don't know but maybe things would not have escalated so quickly and just run their natural course to the abolishment of slavery without such a war. Was the civil war caused by economics, states' rights issues, or slavery? The answer is yes (to all of the above).

Economics related to slavery? Yes.
States' rights related to slavery? Yes.

The problem is when people promote the false idea that secession and the war were over economics and/or states' rights rather than slavery.

[Uncle Ted]

The sentence in question is from the Texas BOE guidelines. And textbook companies have responded by incorrectly listing states' rights and other issues as the primary cause. And you are misreading that clarification (deliberately, I suspect). Go back and read page 28.

The Southern States most likely felt like their rights were violated from everything surrounding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court but, surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled and ruled the law constitutional. When the Northern states refused to return their "property" then the Southern States most likely viewed this as a violation of their state rights. The question is if there was no Fugitive Slave Act or if the US Supreme Court ruled the other way would there have been a civil war? I don't know but maybe things would not have escalated so quickly and just run their natural course to the abolishment of slavery without such a war. Was the civil war caused by economics, states' rights issues, or slavery? The answer is yes (to all of the above).

But you are probably right, Ted. Texas never does anything wrong and anybody who dares claim otherwise is a commie liberal.

That's right! The part about "probably right" is answered in my signature.

[Jeff Lebowski]

every state's HS textbooks, including northern states, have been wrong on the causes of the civil war for a long time. It's not just a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's more because of a push in the early 20th century to rewrite the causes of the civil war, and no matter where one lived back then, a much higher proportion of residents in any state would be considered racist by today's standards. Take the Kansas abolitionist John Brown, for example. If you read this book, this author presents what was written about him by his contemporaries and shows the vast difference to what later historians said about him. In his time, and for a few decades following, he was considered to be a Christian abolitionist who was a little overzealous perhaps. Certainly not insane. He just had strong principles regarding the evils of slavery and tried to do something about it. By the early 20th century and most likely in your HS textbook he had become a clinically insane monster. It's not just southern state textbooks that do this with the civil war. It was a national thing starting in the early 1900s that stuck and has lasted and been since perpetuated even by very liberal textbook authors since.

And yes, you can read what the leaders of the confederate states actually said and wrote when they seceded. It was very much about slavery for them at that moment. Obviously the economic benefits of slavery had a lot to do with it, but so did good old fashioned racism. IMO, a lot of the other arguments are early 20th century post-reconstruction era additions meant to make the south not look not so bad.

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Teacher-T...eacher+told+me

Hack!

[BlueK]

This was a blockbuster movie hit where the hero of the show is the KKK. It was from the same era that textbooks and historians across the nation were rewriting the causes of the civil war. The problem is that it later became "established" history and wasn't challenged much for the rest of the 20th century, even after the civil rights period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

[BlueK]

every state's HS textbooks, including northern states, have been wrong on the causes of the civil war for a long time. It's not just a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's more because of a push in the early 20th century to rewrite the causes of the civil war, and no matter where one lived back then, a much higher proportion of residents in any state would be considered racist by today's standards. Take the Kansas abolitionist John Brown, for example. If you read this book, this author presents what was written about him by his contemporaries and shows the vast difference to what later historians said about him. In his time, and for a few decades following, he was considered to be a Christian abolitionist who was a little overzealous perhaps. Certainly not insane. He just had strong principles regarding the evils of slavery and tried to do something about it. By the early 20th century and most likely in your HS textbook he had become a clinically insane monster. It's not just southern state textbooks that do this with the civil war. It was a national thing starting in the early 1900s that stuck and has lasted and been since perpetuated even by very liberal textbook authors since.

And yes, you can read what the leaders of the confederate states actually said and wrote when they seceded. It was very much about slavery for them at that moment. Obviously the economic benefits of slavery had a lot to do with it, but so did good old fashioned racism. IMO, a lot of the other arguments are early 20th century post-reconstruction era additions meant to make the south not look not so bad.

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Teacher-T...eacher+told+me

[Jeff Lebowski]

To borrow another phrase you like to use... Oh brother.

Because slavery is listed last it makes it "misleading - and even inaccurate -"? Slavery wasn't excluded as a cause. In fact, the sentences before this explain that the textbook(s) provided "thorough and accurate coverage of slavery" and how it led up to the civil war. Seems like yet another example of a lot of nitpicking over [the order of] words by someone that has a bone to pick.

The sentence in question is from the Texas BOE guidelines. And textbook companies have responded by incorrectly listing states' rights and other issues as the primary cause. And you are misreading that clarification (deliberately, I suspect). Go back and read page 28.

But you are probably right, Ted. Texas never does anything wrong and anybody who dares claim otherwise is a commie liberal.

[Uncle Ted]

Yes, the textbooks don't deny that slavery existed. They just incorrectly present the root cause for the Civil War. From the next two paragraphs:

However, the requirement in the curriculum standards that compels coverage of “sectionalism, states’ rights, and slavery” (in that order) as causes of the war leads publishers to these sort of misleading – and even inaccurate – passages.

Swish.

To borrow another phrase you like to use... Oh brother.

Because slavery is listed last it makes it "misleading - and even inaccurate -"? Slavery wasn't excluded as a cause. In fact, the sentences before this explain that the textbook(s) provided "thorough and accurate coverage of slavery" and how it led up to the civil war. Seems like yet another example of a lot of nitpicking over [the order of] words by someone that has a bone to pick.

[byu71]

lol. Yeah sure. Some random hypothetical future event.

Your backpedaling is worse than Uncle Ted's!

You don't think the three amigo's will not be clashing with Cowboy and Ted at some point in the future. OK

[Jeff Lebowski]

LOL at you. I didn't say anything about this thread. I said a fight breaks out. If you were as smart as you think you are you would realize I was talking about the future, not current. It is like an if or suppose question. You dissapoint me. I thought you were as smart as you think you are.

lol. Yeah sure. Some random hypothetical future event.

Your backpedaling is worse than Uncle Ted's!

[byu71]

Ha. Neither cowboy nor Tex have even posted in this thread, you dummy. DDD was making a joke about another thread.

LOL at you. I didn't say anything about this thread. I said a fight breaks out. If you were as smart as you think you are you would realize I was talking about the future, not current. It is like an if or suppose question. You dissapoint me. I thought you were as smart as you think you are.

However, I much appreciate you answering my question on slaveowners. Much higher than I would have guessed.