4 ms·
They already learned that slavery played a central role. They new changes are going to have it listed as the only cause, rather than one of three causes.
by GhostVII 8y ago
They already learned that slavery played a central role. They new changes are going to have it listed as the only cause, rather than one of three causes.
- gameswithgo 8y agoDo you have a source for your claim? Slavery was the first order cause, so it would be correct to present slavery as having a central role. source: Texas Declaration of Secession: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp
- jjeaff 8y agoWow, I had no idea they were so blatant about it. I thought it was all caped in "state's rights" at the time. But right near the top: "maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
- thechao 8y agoTexan here who was educated in the "state's rights" regime and had to learn about the slavery 'angle' in college... As opposed to most wars, where history was written by the victors, in the US Civil War was mostly written about by the losers. They immediately went about reinventing the war in order to ease their conscience. I mean, the South deliberate started the war to defend an absolutely evil act (slavery), and in the ensuing conflict brought utter ruin on their society. The North was complicit in this rewriting because their main interest was in reintegration and reunification of the country. Unfortunately, fast forward 100+ years, and now we have people talking about state's rights, and not about slavery. Counterrevisionism, in this case, is more than justified.
- kodablah 8y agoAlso Texan, we learned slavery was the primary motivation and the discussion concerning states rights was based on the outcome dovetailing into a pattern of federalism henceforth.
- cannonedhamster 8y agoWeird, married a Texan and have a Texan teacher as a mother in law. They both know about Texas dancing around the slavery issue defining it entirely as a states rights issue, while also glossing over the fact that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Seems rather inconsistent in Texas.
- krapp 8y ago>Wow, I had no idea they were so blatant about it. I thought it was all caped in "state's rights" at the time. As far as Southern states were concerned, slavery was perfectly legal, culturally acceptable and morally correct, so they wouldn't see a need to mince words. It's only in the modern context of historical revisionism that such whitewashing is necessary.
- GhostVII 8y agoI agree slavery has a central role, I was just saying that it was also presented as a central role previously, just not as the only role. The headline implies, at least to me, that slavery wasn't being taught as having a role at all. From the article: "The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order."
- mannykannot 8y ago"The state's previous social studies standards listed three causes for the Civil War: sectionalism, states' rights and slavery, in that order." I have emphasized the part that shows how, while that position avoids being formally completely wrong, it fundamentally misrepresents the situation. The reality is that the only significant issues (significant enough to lead to secession), with regard to the first two causes stated here, were over slavery. We don't have to guess about motives here, because the leaders were not shy about stating clearly, on the record, what their issues were.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]