5 million Texas Children will receive textbook that whitewashes America's past

[ElFenix]

THESE AREN'T THE SAME PEOPLE.

in texas the conservative democrats didn't bolt for the republican party until the late 80s/early 90s. so, here they are the same people. see: rick perry campaigned for all gore for president.

 

[HumblePie]

This is incorrect. The North was not trying to break the power of the south, because it already had. The south was trying to get more power (rightly) to counter the north, and the north resisted. In terms of the civil war being over states rights, this is correct insofar as it was the right to own slaves. The economic impact of tariffs and other things was already around long before Lincoln and the south did not break away until Lincoln won.

The states wanted to have the right to own slaves. So to say it was states rights and not slavery is wrong, because it was the right to own slaves that was troubling the south. Many states directly listed this as the cause in the letters they sent during succession.

No doubt that the south was unhappy with the north for the economic burden being placed on the south, but they did not leave until slavery was in jeopardy. The fact that CA split the north and south line and the election of Lincoln was a sign that the north would likely try and vote away slavery, and the south would not stand for that. Some may have tried to make it about other issues, but it was mainly about slavery and the right to own slaves.

Any look at history would show how the south was not even close to northern power. Its true that part of that was due to the north taking power away, but the vast majority of that happened long before the civil war.

So, we have the claims of statesmen saying they left because of slavery. We have empirical proof that the north was already vastly more powerful. We know that most of the tariffs were already in place. So why would you argue it was about states rights and keeping southern power?

The south knew that CA not being a slave state gave the north enough votes to ban slavery legally, and the south did not want to give up slavery. They left because they wanted to go to war and try to get their way because they knew they would not get it politically. That was by far the biggest reason for the war. You could add up all other reasons, that they would not equal that single point.

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

The power of the South was not broken when Abe was elected into office, but it was on the downslide. Many northern states in the Union still legalized and wanted slaves. It was the reason even during the war that Lincoln didn't want any of the military from the Union to free slaves from areas that they had captured back from the Confederacy. He was seriously concerned about some of the states that were part of the Union that had legalized slaved from breaking away and going to the Confederacy. Kentucky being one of them.

Nor were slaves immediately freed upon resolution of the civil war, nor were the mechanics to bring about emancipation were the first order of business.

Yes, some of the states the Slavery issue was the main concern and reason they joined the Confederacy. That is not in doubt. That is not the reason for the Confederacy as a whole nor the initial reason for succession.

 

[ElFenix]

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

The power of the South was not broken when Abe was elected into office, but it was on the downslide. Many northern states in the Union still legalized and wanted slaves. It was the reason even during the war that Lincoln didn't want any of the military from the Union to free slaves from areas that they had captured back from the Confederacy. He was seriously concerned about some of the states that were part of the Union that had legalized slaved from breaking away and going to the Confederacy. Kentucky being one of them.

Nor were slaves immediately freed upon resolution of the civil war, nor were the mechanics to bring about emancipation were the first order of business.

Yes, some of the states the Slavery issue was the main concern and reason they joined the Confederacy. That is not in doubt. That is not the reason for the Confederacy as a whole nor the initial reason for succession.

lets see what south carolina had to say the immediate reason for secession were:

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

 

[woolfe9998]

It was more over State Rights than slavery because there were other issues the North was trying to impose upon South states like tariffs and other economic and political tactics to break the power of the South and the power of individual states. The Northern States at the time had a large movement for national unity and in particular to give more power to the federal government in it's role in unity. The South was resolutely against such a change. So no, slavery was not the direct cause of succession by the South to form the Confederacy, but one of many indirect tools imposed by the North to break the South at the time.

Why don't you just read the linked documents? This is getting old. I'm fairly certain that you don't know more about why the southern states seceded than they did at the time.


Maybe you should cite us the sources you are relying upon.

 

[First]

lets see what south carolina had to say the immediate reason for secession were:

Boy, reading that in full sure does make it impossible to claim slavery wasn't at the forefront of the Civil War.

Shameful what this Texas education board has done.

 

[realibrad]

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

The power of the South was not broken when Abe was elected into office, but it was on the downslide.

You are using ambiguous terms here. The north had roughly double the GDP of the south and was far more industrialized. If you are talking power in terms of military then no. If you are talking power in terms of politics then again no. CA was a non-slave state, and that would give the non-slaving owning states a majority which was enough to vote away slavery.

Many northern states in the Union still legalized and wanted slaves.

The south was worried about the north gaining political power and gaining enough to vote away slavery. Its the reason the Missouri Compromise needed to happen. When CA came into play, we needed another Compromise of 1850 to calm down the sides. This worked until Lincoln won the election. The south figured that with 2 states being able to flip on slavery due to popular sovereignty. This would lead to a big debate in Kansas that would lead to the Bleeding Kansas which was a mini civil war of pro and anti slavery groups. If slavery had been as popular in the north as you are claiming, then the fight over CA would not have been as big of an issue as it was. History shows that your view is incorrect, because the US had to be redrawn to make it all even.

It was the reason even during the war that Lincoln didn't want any of the military from the Union to free slaves from areas that they had captured back from the Confederacy. He was seriously concerned about some of the states that were part of the Union that had legalized slaved from breaking away and going to the Confederacy. Kentucky being one of them. Nor were slaves immediately freed upon resolution of the civil war, nor were the mechanics to bring about emancipation were the first order of business.

This is partly true. Lincoln did not free all the slaves in hopes it would show good faith and get the south to come back. He also did not want to piss off the states that stayed. It had little to nothing to do with the north being okay with slavery and everything to do with wanting to end the fighting.

Yes, some of the states the Slavery issue was the main concern and reason they joined the Confederacy. That is not in doubt. That is not the reason for the Confederacy as a whole nor the initial reason for succession.

No, but slavery was by far the biggest reason. The states wanted the right to own slaves, not to play grab ass. Again, the south did not leave until Lincoln won the election. They figured that once someone like him won, he would push for ending slavery. Lincoln knew this, which is why he tried to calm the south by saying he would not end slavery even though we knew he wanted to morally. Everyone knew slavery was a powder keg and it would lead to fighting like it did in Kansas.

Both sides knew slavery was becoming more unpopular every year. The south knew that the north would eventually have enough power to ban slavery and the election of a president that was part of a party that would founded on ending slavery made that pretty clear. They knew that population wise they were losing and thus representation was shifting to the north. The only option they had to save slavery was to break away and hope Europe would help stalemate the north.

 

[woolfe9998]

A simple "find" command indicates that the word "slavery" and all variations thereof appears 83 times in these five state declarations. The word "tariff" = zero times. When it comes down to specifics, they aren't talking about anything else but slavery.

Those who take a different interpretation other than what is quite plain in the linked documents need to link or cite their own sources. Unsupported statements on a discussion forum are evidence of nothing, especially when they've been challenged by primary sources.

 

[norseamd]

When did Southern America ever have a problem with violation of state right when it involved forcing any free state to give back any slave refugees?

 

[realibrad]

When did Southern America ever have a problem with violation of state right when it involved forcing any free state to give back any slave refugees?

Does not count as it was valid legislation that made that the rule.

 

[norseamd]

Does not count as it was valid legislation that made that the rule.

So wait that is not violation of state right yet when there is ever any legislation that has any dealings with any Southern or conservative state it is violating state right fully and fundamentally?

 

[realibrad]

So wait that is not violation of state right yet when there is ever any legislation that has any dealings with any Southern or conservative state it is violating state right fully and fundamentally?

If I understand your question, then you are asking why is it not against the north's rights. That is because many in the north voted for this law as a compromise. It was not that the south forced the law on the north. The states gave up the right, so its not a violation.

The south was forced to only sell goods to the north. They were prohibited from selling their goods to Europe which would have paid more money for their goods. That was forced upon the south. That has a far better argument for taking away states rights. Some of the tariffs were accepted at first due to the squabble with England, but eventually the south felt used by the high tariffs that was making the north very rich.

This was a source of friction, but it was not the main cause of the civil war. But, there is a very valid argument that the southern states were being abused by tariffs.

 

[NesuD]

Because maybe Civil Rights, Jim Crow, and KKK is covered in a different book. Maybe that's in the book for another grade level, or has its own class outright. All I'm saying is you cannot realistically critique a book you haven't even seen and aren't familiar with the content from based upon solely a few paragraphs from the Washington Post. If you can't grasp that for some reason and just want an excuse to complain about Texas then just say so.

This ^^

When I was in High School I was taught about the civil war and its causes in a specific class about that topic and to be honest what they have put forth in the Washington post article is how it was taught to me back in the 70s. There was another class that covered reconstruction and that had material covering the origins of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Then I had another Contemporary American history class that covered the Civil rights movement.

As an aside my High School instructor for the Civil War and Reconstruction classes is now considered one of Academia's top authorities on Civil War History from the Antebellum period through reconstruction. His name is David W. Blight if anyone wants to look him up. He is currently a professor at Yale I believe and has authored a few books about Frederick Douglass and Slavery.

Saying that the Civil war was about Slavery or about States rights are gross oversimplifications. It's immediate cause was certainly States Rights. However you can't separate the institution of slavery from the states rights movement in the antebellum south. Slavery because of its economic impact was a driving force behind the states rights movement in the south. To represent the causes as "States rights and slavery" while an over simplification it is accurate to the extent of describing immediate and contributory causes but you would also have to add economics to that list because of the cotton growing industry that actually was responsible for extending slavery in the south. Without the cotton gin you don't have king cotton hence no need for most of the slaves. You have to have a complete understanding of the antebellum south and the north and their economics. At the time it was literally like 2 different nations. The south had a mostly agrarian cotton based economy that was largely built on slave labor. The north was quite the opposite. While the north did have a large general agrarian economy it also had a robust manufacturing economy based on paid labor. This is why the North won the war. It outlasted the south. The civil war was a war of attrition. There was no way the south could produce enough materials of war to match the north.

The election of The Republicans and Lincoln was just what pushed the south over the brink. The Republicans controlled the government and that was the party that the abolitionists were aligned with. The southern states believed that the states had the right to secede if they felt it was not in their interest to remain in the union. Lincoln and the north felt differently. Believe me the civil war for Lincoln was about preserving the union not slavery. Lincoln demonstrated this with the Emancipation proclamation. At face value it appears he was freeing all the slaves but that in fact is not what the EP did exactly. It only freed the slaves in the states that were in rebellion. There were slaves still legally owned in some places in the north that weren't freed until the passage of the 13th amendment. The EP was done for military advantage.

Slavery was on a road to nowhere by the time of the civil war and would have died on it's own eventually. The south's secession from the union just accelerated the process. Hell if it weren't for Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin in 1793 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Without the cotton gin slavery in the south probably dies out just like it did in most of the north before the civil war.

Washington Post writer should sit through one of Blights old high school civil war classes so at least he has a clue what he is writing about.


If you want to hear an expert lecture on the Civil War and Reconstruction Blight did a series of lectures for an open Yale Course and they are available on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5DD220D6A1282057&feature=plcp

 

[realibrad]

This ^^

When I was in High School I was taught about the civil war and its causes in a specific class about that topic and to be honest what they have put forth in the Washington post article is how it was taught to me back in the 70s. There was another class that covered reconstruction and that had material covering the origins of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Then I had another Contemporary American history class that covered the Civil rights movement.

As an aside my High School instructor for the Civil War and Reconstruction classes is now considered one of Academia's top authorities on Civil War History from the Antebellum period through reconstruction. His name is David W. Blight if anyone wants to look him up. He is currently a professor at Yale I believe and has authored a few books about Frederick Douglass and Slavery.

Saying that the Civil war was about Slavery or about States rights are gross oversimplifications. It's immediate cause was certainly States Rights. However you can't separate the institution of slavery from the states rights movement in the antebellum south. Slavery because of its economic impact was a driving force behind the states rights movement in the south. To represent the causes as "States rights and slavery" while an over simplification it is accurate to the extent of describing immediate and contributory causes but you would also have to add economics to that list because of the cotton growing industry that actually was responsible for extending slavery in the south. Without the cotton gin you don't have king cotton hence no need for most of the slaves. You have to have a complete understanding of the antebellum south and the north and their economics. At the time it was literally like 2 different nations. The south had a mostly agrarian cotton based economy that was largely built on slave labor. The north was quite the opposite. While the north did have a large general agrarian economy it also had a robust manufacturing economy based on paid labor. This is why the North won the war. It outlasted the south. The civil war was a war of attrition. There was no way the south could produce enough materials of war to match the north.

The election of The Republicans and Lincoln was just what pushed the south over the brink. The Republicans controlled the government and that was the party that the abolitionists were aligned with. The southern states believed that the states had the right to secede if they felt it was not in their interest to remain in the union. Lincoln and the north felt differently. Believe me the civil war for Lincoln was about preserving the union not slavery. Lincoln demonstrated this with the Emancipation proclamation. At face value it appears he was freeing all the slaves but that in fact is not what the EP did exactly. It only freed the slaves in the states that were in rebellion. There were slaves still legally owned in some places in the north that weren't freed until the passage of the 13th amendment. The EP was done for military advantage.

Slavery was on a road to nowhere by the time of the civil war and would have died on it's own eventually. The south's secession from the union just accelerated the process. Hell if it weren't for Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin in 1793 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Without the cotton gin slavery in the south probably dies out just like it did in most of the north before the civil war.

Washington Post writer should sit through one of Blights old high school civil war classes so at least he has a clue what he is writing about.

I would contest the claim that saying the civil war was not about slavery. The south had its grievances but slavery was by far the largest. All one needs to do is look at the event of Bleeding Kansas to see what a hot bed issue slavery was. The argument about states rights was the right to own slaves. Every other right was left out of most of the arguments at the time, because slavery was the main issue.

Also, the north did not win because it outlasted the south. The north had far more power and resources. There was some fear that if it over committed Europe would swoop in and take everything. There was also a lack of political will, because people were worried that if they came in too hard on the south, that it would further split the nation. Make no mistake, had the north committed on the south, the war would have been over much sooner. Once it became clear that the south would not back down, and that Europe would not come in, the north did commit and burned down the south.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would contest the claim that saying the civil war was not about slavery. The south had its grievances but slavery was by far the largest.

I thought he was quite clear on this point. You may want to reread what he said.

Nice post NesuD. :thumbsup:

 

[Sonikku]

Wow, never mind the whitewashing in these books. The whitewashing in this thread just boggles the mind. Sometimes I wish the South hadn't gotten their asses kicked and actually got their independence. America really does seem like two countries today rather than one. I would just as soon say let the bible belt have their confederate flags and their "it was about state rights, nothing to do with slavery, etc" white washing bullshit and other shenanigans and let them go their own way. There's no need to send their books and their own backwards ass interpretation of history that leaves out things like JC and KKK onto the rest of us.

 

[realibrad]

I thought he was quite clear on this point. You may want to reread what he said.

Nice post NesuD. :thumbsup:

No, he is saying that foremost it was about states rights and that slavery was one of the rights the states wanted to maintain. The south did not like the economic policies for sure, but the civil war was about slavery.

Saying that the Civil war was about Slavery or about States rights are gross oversimplifications. It's immediate cause was certainly States Rights. However you can't separate the institution of slavery from the states rights movement in the antebellum south.

The south did not want to have slaves because it was neat. The south wanted slaves because it made them money, that is agreed. It was not a moral issue for the south, but an economic issue for why they wanted to keep slavery. That does not diminish the fact that slavery was the biggest issue when talking about the Civil War.

 

[realibrad]

Wow, never mind the whitewashing in these books. The whitewashing in this thread just boggles the mind. Sometimes I wish the South hadn't gotten their asses kicked and actually got their independence. America really does seem like two countries today rather than one. I would just as soon say let the bible belt have their confederate flags and their "it was about state rights, nothing to do with slavery, etc" white washing bullshit and other shenanigans and let them go their own way. There's no need to send their books and their own backwards ass interpretation of history that leaves out things like JC and KKK onto the rest of us.

Can you point me to where someone said slavery was not an issue? I am defending that slavery was the main issue, and at worst I have seen some saying it was not the biggest issue. You complain about whitewashing, but you are simply the other side of the coin because you are not representing what people are saying. You are no better than the people whom try and rewrite history when you are doing the very same thing.

 

[nickqt]

Wow, never mind the whitewashing in these books. The whitewashing in this thread just boggles the mind. Sometimes I wish the South hadn't gotten their asses kicked and actually got their independence. America really does seem like two countries today rather than one. I would just as soon say let the bible belt have their confederate flags and their "it was about state rights, nothing to do with slavery, etc" white washing bullshit and other shenanigans and let them go their own way. There's no need to send their books and their own backwards ass interpretation of history that leaves out things like JC and KKK onto the rest of us.

I feel that way sometimes, but then I remember that at the time, there were millions of human beings who were enslaved against their will that got their freedom. And a bunch of southerners got their throats stomped, which is almost as satisfying historically as freeing the slaves. Especially as a northern transplant in the south. Hell, Sherman is my favorite general, and I pass by historical markers of his badassness every day in the ATL. It's f-ing great!

 

[brycejones]

I feel that way sometimes, but then I remember that at the time, there were millions of human beings who were enslaved against their will that got their freedom. And a bunch of southerners got their throats stomped, which is almost as satisfying historically as freeing the slaves. Especially as a northern transplant in the south. Hell, Sherman is my favorite general, and I pass by historical markers of his badassness every day in the ATL. It's f-ing great!

Man up and get Sherman as your license plate. Make sure its on the biggest, loudest vehicle you can find.

 

[nickqt]

Man up and get Sherman as your license plate. Make sure its on the biggest, loudest vehicle you can find.

I'm not a closeted redneck buffoon. I don't need a big loud vehicle with glamour license plates.

I'll leave the closeted redneck buffoonery to the Rollin' Coal hotshots.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I'm not a closeted redneck buffoon. I don't need a big loud vehicle with glamour license plates.

I'll leave the closeted redneck buffoonery to the Rollin' Coal hotshots.

Racist. :thumbsdown:

 

[glenn1]

Wow, never mind the whitewashing in these books. The whitewashing in this thread just boggles the mind. Sometimes I wish the South hadn't gotten their asses kicked and actually got their independence. America really does seem like two countries today rather than one. I would just as soon say let the bible belt have their confederate flags and their "it was about state rights, nothing to do with slavery, etc" white washing bullshit and other shenanigans and let them go their own way. There's no need to send their books and their own backwards ass interpretation of history that leaves out things like JC and KKK onto the rest of us.

Even the Washington Post article from the OP doesn't claim that the Texas schoolbook said the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. From the article:

“sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery’s secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education

This is a 3-item set we're talking about, slavery isn't being buried within a few thousand pages of text. The idea that schoolkids can't remember beyond 2 items in a list and therefore slavery *must* be listed first is ridiculous. I would have put slavery first, but to make a big deal about it is asinine. That's like saying that you should rearrange the French Revolution slogan 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' else you're somehow conveying that equality is "secondary" to liberty, and brotherhood is two steps down from liberty.

 

[ivwshane]

Even the Washington Post article from the OP doesn't claim that the Texas schoolbook said the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. From the article:



This is a 3-item set we're talking about, slavery isn't being buried within a few thousand pages of text. The idea that schoolkids can't remember beyond 2 items in a list and therefore slavery *must* be listed first is ridiculous. I would have put slavery first, but to make a big deal about it is asinine. That's like saying that you should rearrange the French Revolution slogan 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' else you're somehow conveying that equality is "secondary" to liberty, and brotherhood is two steps down from liberty.

Hence the thread tittle using the term "whitewashing" and not "removes". Stating that slavery wasn't the primary reason for the civil war, despite the states that left stating in their own words that slavery was the primary reason, and highlighting other reasons for the war is indeed whitewashing. And as evidence given to us by the mouth breathers in this very thread, the whitewashing of American history is working perfectly.

 

[Meghan54]

The states' rights and tariff red herrings.

The only states' rights the South was interested in was in maintaining slavery.

South Carolina (remember, this was the state that first threatened secession in 1830 over tariffs and then backed down under threat) was upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.


About the tariff red herrings....these explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.