Books don’t whitewash Civil War, scholars say

Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War
November 16, 20185:38 PM ET

Camille Phillips

"Texas' Board of Education voted Friday to change the way its students learn about the Civil War. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, students will be taught that slavery played a "central role" in the war.
The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order. In September, the board's Democrats proposed listing slavery as the only cause.
"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz, from San Antonio, said at a Tuesday board meeting..."

Full article can be found here - https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/6685...lavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war
3976

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War
November 16, 20185:38 PM ET

Camille Phillips

"Texas' Board of Education voted Friday to change the way its students learn about the Civil War. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, students will be taught that slavery played a "central role" in the war.
The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order. In September, the board's Democrats proposed listing slavery as the only cause.
"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz, from San Antonio, said at a Tuesday board meeting..."

Full article can be found here - https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/6685...lavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war
3976

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Wow. Just wow.
 
I grew up thanking slavery was the main cause of the civil war cause of history in school it wasnt until i looked up facts about the civil war that i learned the truth and then after i did my ancestry and found out about my ancestors and that they didnt own slaves and fought for the south. Slavery was one of the casues but lincoln wanted a war and he got it


Lincoln wanted the war? Actions before Secession by southern states:


In 1859–60, the Secretary of War, John Floyd, shipped 115,000 muskets and rifled muskets to southern armories so that they would be ready to hand. When he attempted to ship gun tubes (unmounted cannon), a clerk in the War Department complained, and Floyd quickly resigned and rode into his native Virginia. On December 31 of 1860, South Carolina forces seized the US arsenal, post office and the customs house in Charleston. In many southern states, the contents of armories were seized in the first week of January 1861, by so-called state troops. Also seized were Post offices, Custom Houses, money, and fortifications.

On January 3 of 1861, Georgia seized Fort Pulaski, near Savannah.

On January 4, 1861, troops of the Alabama state militia took possession of the arsenal on the orders of Alabama governor Andrew B. Moore, forcing the (peaceful and bloodless) surrender of the small US Army force, commanded by Captain Jesse Reno.

On Jan 5, Alabama forces took Forts Morgan and Gaines, protecting Mobile Bay.

On Jan 6th of 1861, Florida state troops seized the Apalachicola arsenal near the town of Chattahoochee. This was four days before Florida seceded.

On Jan 10th. On Jan 7th, still, 3 days before secession, Florida forces took Fort Marion in St Augustine.

I suggest that even before secession, some in southern states wanted the war and got what they wanted
 
… In 1859–60, the Secretary of War, John Floyd, shipped 115,000 muskets and rifled muskets to southern armories so that they would be ready to hand. When he attempted to ship gun tubes (unmounted cannon), a clerk in the War Department complained, and Floyd quickly resigned and rode into his native Virginia. On December 31 of 1860, South Carolina forces seized the US arsenal, post office and the customs house in Charleston. In many southern states, the contents of armories were seized in the first week of January 1861, by so-called state troops. Also seized were Post offices, Custom Houses, money, and fortifications...
I don't know why you call them "so-called state troops", other than because it sounds like a prejudicial term - since at the time there was as yet NO Confederacy, what else could they be except state troops?
 
Texas Students Will Soon Learn Slavery Played A Central Role In The Civil War
November 16, 20185:38 PM ET

Camille Phillips

"Texas' Board of Education voted Friday to change the way its students learn about the Civil War. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, students will be taught that slavery played a "central role" in the war.
The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order. In September, the board's Democrats proposed listing slavery as the only cause.
"What the use of 'states' rights' is doing is essentially blanketing, or skirting, the real foundational issue, which is slavery," Democratic board member Marisa Perez-Diaz, from San Antonio, said at a Tuesday board meeting..."

Full article can be found here - https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/6685...lavery-played-a-central-role-in-the-civil-war
3976

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
But not the only thing.
 
If it makes anyone feel any better, the kids don't pay attention to the textbooks.

I think the Moses thing...I mean I don't know if this is what they meant, but the idea of covenant is an OT concept. By the time it gets to the Constitution, it has been filtered through centuries of English practice and classical ideas of the Romans and Greeks(as understood by western Europeans).

But probably it was just a sop to the Texas version of the God Squad.
 
I have explained 100's times on this forum how it was only one of dozens of factors. Slavery as the main cause was the Northern narrative of the War.
Slavery was the reason there was almost no United States; slavery was the reason the South felt the need to control the US government; the perceived loss of control of the government was the reason the South left the US. The fig leaf of States' Rights was used to cover the desire to have the states protect slavery. The war was to protect slavery (ask those who wrote the secession documents) and its expansion to the west.

Those who fought the war for the South did so to protect their "way of life" which was based totally on racial slavery.

No one went to the front to die in order to reduce tariffs -- they went to protect their social system, which was slavery-based.

We constantly have those who want to bash their heads against the wall of facts, but they will never change the fact that the war was about slavery and only slavery.

After the war, the South practiced semi-slavery until the 1960's. I was born in the South and grew up under that system -- it was a continuation of slavery as far as the political world could make it.
 
I have explained 100's times on this forum how it was only one of dozens of factors. Slavery as the main cause was the Northern narrative of the War.

No matter how many times it's claimed, phony history remains phony history, and the truth is still slavery is the main cause of the war.
 
Slavery was the reason there was almost no United States; slavery was the reason the South felt the need to control the US government; the perceived loss of control of the government was the reason the South left the US. The fig leaf of States' Rights was used to cover the desire to have the states protect slavery. The war was to protect slavery (ask those who wrote the secession documents) and its expansion to the west.

Those who fought the war for the South did so to protect their "way of life" which was based totally on racial slavery.

No one went to the front to die in order to reduce tariffs -- they went to protect their social system, which was slavery-based.

We constantly have those who want to bash their heads against the wall of facts, but they will never change the fact that the war was about slavery and only slavery.

After the war, the South practiced semi-slavery until the 1960's. I was born in the South and grew up under that system -- it was a continuation of slavery as far as the political world could make it.
The South did control the North by selling them all that cotton to get rich on.
The South just wanted to be left alone.
The South did not need to protect slavery, it was already legal in America.
So it was more than just slavery? Now you say to protect their social system. And slavery was not illegal. Yet.

Your last line is large on untruths. Semi-slavery as you call it, just happened to be A United States of America problem. You just can’t blame the South for a American problem. If you are interested learning perhaps do a little research on Reconstruction and you will see who hurt the South the most up until he 60s.
 
The South did control the North by selling them all that cotton to get rich on.
The South just wanted to be left alone.
The South did not need to protect slavery, it was already legal in America.
So it was more than just slavery? Now you say to protect their social system. And slavery was not illegal. Yet.

Your last line is large on untruths. Semi-slavery as you call it, just happened to be A United States of America problem. You just can’t blame the South for a American problem. If you are interested learning perhaps do a little research on Reconstruction and you will see who hurt the South the most up until he 60s.
9,000 posts and you still refuse to accept the facts.
 
My opinion is, on the contrary, that this history must be written by an American and a Northerner, and from the Northern point of view--because an American best understands Americans, after all; because the victorious party can be and will be more liberal, generous, and sympathetic than the vanquished; and My opinion is, on the contrary, that this history must be written by an American and a Northerner, and from the Northern point of view. It will not improve matters to concede that the South had right and the North might, or, even, that both were equally right and equally wrong. Such a doctrine can only work injury to both, and more injury to the South than to the North. Chewing the bitter cud of fancied wrong produces both spiritual misery and material adversity, and tempts to foolish and reckless action for righting the imagined injustice. Moreover, any such doctrine is false, and acquiescence in it, however kindly meant, is weak, and can have no other effect than the perpetuation of error and misunderstanding. The time has come when the men of the South should acknowledge that they were in error in their attempt to destroy the Union, and it is unmanly in them not to do so. When they appealed the great question from the decision at the ballot box to the "trial by battle," their leaders declared, over and over again, in calling their followers to arms, that the "God of battles" would surely give the victory to the right. In the great movements of the world's history, this is certainly a sound philosophy, and they should have held to it after their defeat. Their recourse to the crude notion that they had succumbed only to might was thus not only a bitter, false, and dangerous consolation, but it was a stultification of themselves when at their best as men and heroes.

While, therefore, great care has been taken, in the following pages, to attribute to the Southern leaders and the Southern people sincerity of purpose in their views and their acts, while their ideas and their reasoning have been, I think, duly appreciated, and patiently explained, while the right has been willingly acknowledged to them and honor accorded them whenever and wherever they have had the right and have merited honor, and while unbounded sympathy for personal suffering and misfortune has been expressed, still not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat in regard to these things, and that, too, not with lip service, but from the brain and the heart and the manly will, before any real concord in thought and feeling, any real national brotherhood, can be established. This is not too much to demand, simply because it is right, and nothing can be settled, as Mr. Lincoln said until it is settled right. Any interpretation of this period of American history which does not demonstrate to the South its error will be worthless, simply because it will not be true; and unless we are men enough to hear and accept and stand upon the truth, it is useless to endeavor to find a bond of real union between us. In a word, the conviction of the South of its error in secession and rebellion is absolutely indispensable to the establishment of national cordiality; and the history of this period which fails to do this will fail in accomplishing one of the highest works of history, the reconciliation of men to the plans of Providence for their perfection.

The Middle Period, 1817-1858 by JOHN W. BURGESS
 
...not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat in regard to these things, and that, too, not with lip service, but from the brain and the heart and the manly will, before any real concord in thought and feeling, any real national brotherhood, can be established. This is not too much to demand, simply because it is right, and nothing can be settled, as Mr. Lincoln said until it is settled right. Any interpretation of this period of American history which does not demonstrate to the South its error will be worthless, simply because it will not be true; and unless we are men enough to hear and accept and stand upon the truth, it is useless to endeavor to find a bond of real union between us. In a word, the conviction of the South of its error in secession and rebellion is absolutely indispensable to the establishment of national cordiality; and the history of this period which fails to do this will fail in accomplishing one of the highest works of history, the reconciliation of men to the plans of Providence for their perfection.

The Middle Period, 1817-1858 by JOHN W. BURGESS

Can not find much to disagree with there, other than studying the motivations for for the denial and distractions from the actual causes of the war are certainly worthwhile for us today. Burgess, a Tenn. slaveholder's son by birth, seemed to be more interested in the acceptance of responsibility, in that moment of time, rather than the excuses that laid behind its avoidance. Burgess had bigger fish to fry, he was a nationalist with imperialist tendencies.
 
Back
Top