Texas confederacy - 4th grade Texas state education on the topic

[Stand_watie]

I thought this schoolwork of my daughter's was a little less politically correct than I'd expect 4th grade schoolwork to be these days.

What think you?

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

North Central Texas was full of Republicans in the 1850's and 1860's, and there were other pockets of Abolitionists throughout the state. Henderson, in Rusk county, for one.

In fact, it's pretty well hashed over by a book written by one of my friends and instructors, David Stroud, (USMC, Ret'd) in  his book Flames and Vengeance: The East Texas Fires and The Presidential Election of 1860.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1890704067/qid=1134706577/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3334413-2034451?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

In the space of a few days, several towns in East Texas experienced catastophic fires that destroyed large portions of the towns, and was blamed on Abolitionists.

The Dallas area was well known as  Republican territory at that time, and the Abolitionist movement was remarkably strong there, in spite of the vast cotton production in the area. It was in no small measure that Dallas was considered 'Indian Territory' for the Democrats even a hundred years later, which nearly prevented Kennedy from making a trip in November of 1963.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Dannyboy]

Question #2 is surprising.  States' rights normally doesn't make it into that conversation.  It's usually just slavery.

[El Tejon]

Dannyboy, well, it was the states' right to sanction slavery.

SA, as well as the heavily German Hill Country that opposed secession.  I would also recommend the book "Look Away!" that deals with slavery as the driving force behind the CSA and discusses pockets of Southern hostility to slavery (e.g. Hill Country, Knoxville, Western Virginia, inter alia).

[Glock Glockler]

But, Tejon, slavery was already legal in the US (Dred Scott), why go through all the trouble to get what you already have?

[Azrael256]

why go through all the trouble to get what you already have

Eh, sorta.  No doubt that slavery was legal, but Dred Scott didn't esablish it.  It wasn't a question of legality, it was a question of re-enslaving a slave who had lived in a free state.  It was a tacit agreement from SCOTUS on slavery, but not a direct endorsement.

The problem was and wasn't slavery.  It should be differentiated into necessary and sufficient causes.  The necessary cause was that whole generation being a bunch of bungling morons with too much free time.  The sufficient cause was slavery.  No doubt that slavery was a horrible thing, and it was the catalyst for everything, but when you have members of congress smacking the hell out of each other with sticks, you don't really need a specific, identified cause.  They'll find one on their own.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I rather enjoy the idea of Congressmen smacking each other with sticks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks

It might lead to fewer career politicians.


Regards,
Rabbit.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[jefnvk]

Looks like about what I learned in grade school.  Even remember we had one day devoted to 'The South did not succeed only because of slavery'

[Azrael256]

I rather enjoy the idea of Congressmen smacking each other with sticks.

Yes.  Perhaps Brooks was the only politician in history with any sense at all.  Well, I suppose Hamilton and Burr had some, too.  Ken Burns's series mentioned that representatives started carrying pistols and knives onto the floor after that happened.  Brooks's supporters started sending him canes after that incident, so maybe we should start some kind of "clubs for reps" program.  Let 'em duke it out like men on the steps of the capitol.  It's a huge stairway, so you could probably have ten or fifteen fistfights at a time, and the reflecting pool would make a good place for the headlining duel of the day.  You'd get a very satisfying splash when one of them gets knocked down.

[El Tejon]

The first rule of Congressional fight club is that no one talks about Congressional fight club.