Stealth Hunter.
You are bound and determined to NOT address the issues.
Show me - and everyone else - where in the actual curriculum it makes the claims your stating. Then we can deal with them on the question of accuracy or not. But instead - you continue to not go to the actual documents.
The issue of the Civil War and its causes. Slavery was a huge factor - I have said so before. However, it was NOT the only cause - States Rights issues were in fact a significant cause as well. To claim it was ONLY about slavery ignores historical fact. Let me quote myself when this issue has come up previously:
Quote:
If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?
"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.
The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. "The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war - and in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.
The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?
|
Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue. But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one. Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact? *If you doubt its fact - look at the following, which I will quote from my friend Platypus:
Quote:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. " - Abraham Lincoln
http://www.abfition.com/abraham-linc...es-slavery.htm
As to whether the South considered Slavery the cause of the civil way, we can reference the individual declarations of the states.
If you read "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" you will see that in South Carolina, secession was based on slavery as well as State Sovereignty.
“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” mentions slavery but puts more emphasis on State Sovereignty.
As does “Georgia Declaration of Secession”
As does “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union
Florida, Alabama,Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky all had declarations of independence that did not mention slavery at all, but listed State Sovereignty.
Virginia, always being different, makes an oblique reference of solidarity with the other Southern States concerning Slavery but also stated State Sovereignty as one of the justifications of its secession.
So to tally up the score
5 states list slavery as one of the justifications of secession
8 states do not list slavery as one of the justifications of secession.
However all of them mention State Sovereignty as one of the justifications for secession.
So just by reading the individual state’s declarations of independence, it seems that the primary justification for secession was State Sovereignty
|
According to you - the states referenced State Sovereignty should NOT be taught - even though a review of history shows it was an issue. So your arguing AGAINST teaching fact now. Why? Given that the "trianglular trade" is going to allow an even further in depth study of slavery and its economic impact (which is why it was an issue for the Civil War) - you seem unhappy that any other data except one thing be taught. And here I was basing my discussion with you on the premise that you wanted fact to be taught - not a biased viewpoint you hold. I still say let the kids have the facts and let them determine their own views from them.
Also - you have YET to show anywhere in the changes that the curriculum now states that the country was founded by a bunch Bible thumping believers - yet you claim it does so. Instead of going "Look what they want to teach the kids", you continue to go to outside sources which are not what the kids are being taught. Maybe you just want to pull down anything on the internet you disagree with - after all - the kids might see it, right? I mean - if you can't deal with the curriculum itself - and point out IN IT where there are flaws - but instead want to rant about what other people's beliefs on websites... .well... I guess you just want to "protect" the children.
Quote:
|
Though the textbook changes are reflecting upon public school textbooks about history.
|
Yea buddy - you really know what your talking about don't you Stealth Hunter? Lets look at the actual documents shall we? Since your statement proves you have not done so.
Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter A, Elementary
Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter B, Middle School
Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter C, High Schooland
19 TAC Chapter 118, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits,
Subchapter A, High School
Funny - I see "Social Studies" in each one of those titles. Social Studies and history go hand in hand - and it does deal with standards on BOTH - but the fact you have not looked at the actual documents (as made apparent in your claim) show that you continue to take other sources at their word without actually looking at this for yourself.
See I can say that in the elementary changes I might have an issue with one set of changes - and point to them like this:
Section 113.15
Continual references to "Native American" are replaced with "American Indian".
I see some reasoning for making this change, but also see reasons against it. That is what I am talking about - locating an issue within the documents themselves and bringing them up. You can't - or won't. Its either because you can't find the things your griping about - or the reality that the changes reflect history is unacceptable to you - in which case history is unacceptable and you would choose to rewrite it. Given you can't be chuffed enough to actually read the documents (its all about history - yea buddy!) and your continuation of using anything but said documents, demonstrate that it is likely a conglomeration of the two factors.