Post by: Stand_watie on December 15, 2005, 04:07:29 PM
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?
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on December 15, 2005, 06:23:55 PM
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.
Post by: Dannyboy on December 16, 2005, 05:37:45 AM
Post by: El Tejon on December 16, 2005, 08:25:51 AM
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).
Post by: Glock Glockler on December 16, 2005, 01:12:07 PM
Post by: Azrael256 on December 16, 2005, 03:44:09 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on December 16, 2005, 04:50:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks
It might lead to fewer career politicians.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: jefnvk on December 16, 2005, 05:43:40 PM
Post by: Azrael256 on December 16, 2005, 07:53:17 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: El Tejon on December 17, 2005, 02:29:04 AM