What's wrong with Texas?

[SeattleUte]

Ha. That's funny, Uncle Ted. You searched and found a letter to the editor written by a confederate apologist. Some creative writing there, with a remarkable closing statement:



Yowza.

Since this is a thread about Texas, how about if we make this very simple and just look at the Texas declaration of secession? It isn't very long. Here is a link:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt.../2feb1861.html

A few excerpts. First of all, Texas objects to several Northern states not obeying federal law relative to the Fugitive Slave Act:



Ha. Texas secedes because it is tired of Northern states exercising states' rights! (can we get an irony ruling?)

And those damned yankees don't like slavery - a divine and beneficent institution!



Closing argument based on an appeal to white supremacy:



In other words, pretty much the entire document references slavery as the reason for secession. Not a single reference to tariffs.

It was about slavery. Did you read the article in the WA Post about all the mythology about the Confederacy that still persists? I agree with the author that we need to rename all the streets and highways named after racist traitors like Lee and Davis. There shouldn't be any federal money to maintain Confederate monuments.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...tion-secession

Ha. That's funny, Uncle Ted. You searched and found a letter to the editor written by a confederate apologist. Some creative writing there, with a remarkable closing statement:

... no Gettysburg visitor should ever be led to believe that the Civil War objective of the U.S. was anything other than preservation of its protective tariff in the Old South.

Yowza.

Since this is a thread about Texas, how about if we make this very simple and just look at the Texas declaration of secession? It isn't very long. Here is a link:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt.../2feb1861.html

A few excerpts. First of all, Texas objects to several Northern states not obeying federal law relative to the Fugitive Slave Act:

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

...

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

Ha. Texas secedes because it is tired of Northern states exercising states' rights! (can we get an irony ruling?)

And those damned yankees don't like slavery - a divine and beneficent institution!

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

Closing argument based on an appeal to white supremacy:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

In other words, pretty much the entire document references slavery as the reason for secession. Not a single reference to tariffs.

[Uncle Ted]

Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American Civil War

Arthur Hirsch's recent article about the Battle of Gettysburg reveals a disturbing ignorance of the political dynamics that brought this nation to a war that 150 years later remains the most cataclysmic event in our history ("A defining day relived," July 2).


It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.

The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession, which occurred despite the undeniable fact that the slave states could not have hoped for better protection of slavery than that afforded by the U. S. Constitution — provided they remained in the Union.


Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.


Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.


The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.
[...]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...tion-secession

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[Moliere]

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

Shocking!!

[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":

[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]

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]

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

[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.”

[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.

[TripletDaddy]

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

[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.