Isn't he dead?
Didn't he denounce his past?
Aren't Republicans today trying to hold onto that past?
So at what point did KKK leader Byrd switch parties?
He didn't.
:|
I never tried to equate today's Democrats with Democrats during the civil rights movement. NEVER. This is just one more example of how completely irrational you've become and the extent of your disconnection with reality. I have nothing to say to you that you want to hear.
Democrats opposed the 1964 Equal Rights Amendment and started the Klu Klux Klan.
To funny!! A Texas apologist!! Now that is classic!!All textbooks require decisions about what to include or emphasize and what to exclude or only mention in passing. For example, if they had reduced the amount of material devoted to the KKK to include more about the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and 60s that might be reasonable. But don't let lack of clear understanding about the complete contents of the textbook stop you from commenting about how terrible it is or how it's trying to "whitewash" history. We can decide that based on sheer heuristics based on the fact that Texas is involved and a couple paragraphs from an article whose writer likely has an axe to grind. And this story may be completely true in all regards, but I'm not going to accept it uncritically without any thought whatsoever.
Please show me where I did this or publicly admit that you're a complete idiot with zero reading comprehension skills."Who, me?!?!?"
Yeah. most of us grew up with the non texas version tooToo many people forget that when this country was formed, our constitution allowed and protected slavery, like it or not. The Civil War was primarily fought over slavery. The Northern politicians and people wanted to phase out slavery in the South.
Please show me where I did this or publicly admit that you're a complete idiot with zero reading comprehension skills.
The Southern states seceded for one reason, Northern states population was growing and they could no longer control Congress, dictating the laws that control the USA. In other words throwing a hissy fit for no longer getting their own way all the time.
Perhaps, but in terms of specifics, the main reason the southern states themselves gave was the disagreement over slavery.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/h...fcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
In the face of primary source documents such as these, it's difficult to understand how anyone can argue that slavery was not central to the rationale of the seceding states.
But what about the native indians...no one talks about them anymore:|..no, only the blacks suffered and whitey is to blame. That's all many people and the media seem to take from history.
In a thread about texas schools (and by extension a lot of schools in the US) white washing history text books, it shouldn't be to understand where people are coming up with this shit
Perhaps, but in terms of specifics, the main reason the southern states themselves gave was the disagreement over slavery.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/h...fcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
In the face of primary source documents such as these, it's difficult to understand how anyone can argue that slavery was not central to the rationale of the seceding states.
"Sectionalism, state's rights, and slavery" - ridiculous. "Sectionalism" just means placing the interests of a specific geographic region over that of the country. That could mean anything in particular about the nature of the dispute. "State's rights" is fine so long as it is clear that the southern states didn't want interference from the federal government, principally with respect to the issue of slavery. While the dispute over slavery was sometimes framed as a "state's rights" issue by the south, it was always principally about slavery. The "state's rights" issue has been seized upon by modern revisionists to suggest that something which was nothing more than a some time rhetorical framework for describing the south's position on slavery was in fact the principle issue, when it isn't a "different" issue from slavery at all. Other concerns brought up under the rubric of state's rights were secondary.
This text book formulation puts forth a false dilemma among three factors which are not mutually exclusive because the third factor falls under the heading of the other two. It's a deceptive way of suggesting that slavery was a secondary factor without overtly coming out and saying so.
Thank you.I'm a complete idiot with zero reading comprehension skills.
The main reasons for the start of the civil war were indirectly related to slavery. It was the political and economic power that slavery game the southern states of the northern states that many in the north resented and wanted to break. It wasn't from a moral standpoint for many in the north that brought about the desire to end slavery in the south, but mostly economics and political. Yes there were some that saw it as a moral anathema the should be abolished everywhere, but that was a very small minority view in all parts of the country at the time. Even then, the end of slavery for many had zero bearing on racist views held by all at the time. Even Abe Lincoln still saw black slaves as inferior to white people. That is pure racism.
When people say the civil war was over states rights and Constitutionality, they aren't mistaken. For many years prior to the embargo of African importation of slaves, the northern states made a LOT of money with the slave trade and selling those slaves to the south. The south, who's populations were mostly made of slaves to work large tracts of land in their much larger states, fought hard to get better representation by getting the 3/5ths law put into the Constitution which gave legal legitimacy to slave ownership. As well as a few other laws like making the federal government help resolve slave revolts should they happen. Once the north lost the slave trade they lost a lot of political and economic power. They saw the end of slavery as one of many tools to end the power of the South who were looking to expand into western territories.
The actual reason for the civil war was economic and political division of which slavery was the indirect reason. It was not something simple as the North wanted to end slavery from a moral standpoint and the South was a bunch of racist black haters that wanted only to keep slavery around.
So long as that info about the Civil War is still in the history books I am fine. I am a bit upset though if the History of Jim Crow laws were removed. The removal of the KKK from the history books is moot. They are a fringe group that had some political power once, but even then it wasn't a huge amount. They committed many atrocities, but so have other groups that don't get near the same focus in the books.
Just a side issue of a power struggle, white wash for the real cause of the Civil War, Southern loss of political control of the Nation. Abolitionists crying Anti-Slavery was a great recruitment slogan, but as in many wars not the true cause. Dig deeper and it is all about power and control.
None of which is materially different from anything I wrote. You're just expanding on it. I never said the north started a civil war to free slaves or because they were anti-racist, nor did I say that economics was not critical to the institution of slavery itself. I said, quite simply, that the southern states seceded principally over disagreements about slavery and indeed, according to the governments of the southern states themselves, this is correct. The notion that they seceded over state's right rather than slavery is a false dilemma. The two were intertwined.
The entire argument trying to debunk the notion that Lincoln started a civil war to end slavery (in fact, he started it to preserve the union which had been torn apart over slavery) is a straw man. When I took US history in high school and college, that's not how it was taught. The statements of Lincoln indicating that he too was racist - though perhaps to a lesser degree than some at the time - were never suppressed, not in the courses I took.
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.