Why send your children to private school?

[CaptainHaplo]

Do you guys think I should continue feeding the troll?

While I take offense to being called a troll - I did - mistakenly - accuse you of bias, so I will let it go.

I see now where your coming from - and though I disagree, one statement finally made clear that we have been in dispute over 2 seperate things.

I never said it was a revision to the act wording of the curriculum lol. Merely that the changes to the textbooks, the tools the teachers have to use to teach the kids, the blood that keeps the curriculum alive, will fall back and affect the actual curriculum- as in how effective it is and how these things shall be taught.

Ok this is where we were on different pages. My whole thing was you were complaining about the changes to the curriculum - when in fact your more concerned with the textbooks themselves. Now however is a good time to point out that the "religious nuts" (my term - not yours) that everyone is so upset by that are making these curriculum changes - are not the ones that get to write the textbooks. So until we see the textbooks that are being written to accomodate the curricullum you now admit to not having a problem with - there isn't much point in being concerned. So its pretty much a non-issue.

During the Civil War, nobody living in one of these states owned slaves either. Census records going up to 1860 show that there were escaped slaves living in the Northern states, hence they were listed as "slaves" on it.

First time I have heard that explanation - will check into it.

Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime.

Actually - your in error here. Grant did in fact own one slave that he acquired from Dent. He freed that slave within one year , but he did in fact own one.

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html

How exactly will changing what the name of the trade is called make the study any more in depth than it previously was as you are claiming?

I will let a teacher who deals with the subject explain it better than I can. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1396821&postcount=55

Out of curiosity, what reasons?

My issue with the term "native american" is that words have specific meaning. Native - one born in a location specified. American - the place specified. Thus - a native american is anyone born in america. During the times in question - alot of "non-indian" folks met the technical definition of native american. A large portion of the kids getting taught this stuff meet that definition. Using the term is incorrect - language wise. If they wanted to be specific, then they should keep it as either American Indian - or detail the specific subset of Indians.

And yes - I am one of those real pains when it comes to stuff like that - I even answered the census as marking "other" and writing in Native American. I was born in Georgia, after all!

Or perhaps that I'm not willing to sidetrack from the original topic: that the revisions to the history books they are making are, in the first place, inaccurate

Wait a minute - "they" are not making changes to the history books - they are setting up a curriculum - that you stated you didn't have specific issues with. Yet your complaining about the books that a company (not the people on the Texas Board of Education) is going to write - when we havent even seen what they include - because they are not written yet. So call me confused - but your saying you don't have a problem with what the books are going to be based off of (the curriculum) - and the books aren't written yet - but

these incompetents are not cut out to hold a position of this kind of power in the education system, in which case they should be removed and the changes they've made revoked.

So if you don't have a problem with the curriculum itself - why should they be removed and the changes revoked - unless you want to do it just on the basis that you disagree with their personal philosophy and beliefs.

I mean seriously - if your going to be upset over the books that will be used to teach - shouldn't you at least see the books first before you judge them? Or is that not necessary because you have a preconcieved notion already about what they will contain - even though they are not created by the people you call incompetent (though they were competent enough to get elected - but then again - so was the president... ) and the books are not yet even written.

Seems your worried about a lot of stuff that isn't even real......

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The problem is you jump at the fact that now slavery isn't the ONLY issue discussed, and somehow turn that into it being "minor" - which is not the case.

Exactly what part of "Or even the largest one" did you miss? Maybe I've just had too many years of Southern apologists denying that slavery had anything to do with the war. This certainly looks like a step in that direction.

Again - like with Stealth Hunter - look at the changes made. Show where it now has relegated slavery to be a "minor" issue. It hasn't. The discussion has simply been broadened to include other historical concerns as well.

It most definitely has, and your attempts to hide it are more than a little frightening.

Also you keep harping on the "democracy vs republic" thing, which is very minor. So you have a group of people who in their own documents proclaim that they have to bring the country back to its Christian roots, but the fact that they don't say that in the curriculum plan means they're not really trying to do that. Do you think anyone who feels the need to control people comes right out and says it. The fact that they believe that should be enough to make anyone sit up and take notice. This thing is scary, and you want to justify it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve - that was a repost of our civil war discussion - and I would think that my post above to you makes it clear that I have revised that opinion - in part due to our discussion on the matter.

Slavery was an integral part of the causes of the war. Slavery ties to the economy, which the economic concerns are what propelled the decisions that led to Secession - and thus the war. So its tied in rather heavily, there is no doubt. However, that being said, it does not mean that it was the ONLY issue. There were distinctly other economic issues at work - primarily the north's desire to gain access and ownership of southern resources, the political push of keeping the federal system in place at the costs of states rights (check out the Constitutional Union party), etc. Secession itself - the right to secede - is in fact a states rights issue - and had the states not insisted on exercising that right, the war would not have occured - slavery or not. If they don't try and secede - uhm - who fights who? So to those that claim it was ONLY about slavery, how could the right of a state to secede not been an issue?

Speaking of slavery being made a minor issue:

It most definitely has

Where? I keep hearing all these accusations - but so far no one has actually shown where the changes do all these horrible things people say they do.

So you have a group of people who in their own documents proclaim that they have to bring the country back to its Christian roots, but the fact that they don't say that in the curriculum plan means they're not really trying to do that. Do you think anyone who feels the need to control people comes right out and says it. The fact that they believe that should be enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.

And I get accused of jumping to conclusions/wearing tin foil hats....

This thing is scary, and you want to justify it.

Justify it? I don't have to justify it. They got elected by the people (at least, I assume they did - or are they appointed?) - and they are tasked with a duty. They did that as they saw fit given the positions they hold as public servants. I don't have to justify their actions any more than an Obama supporter has to justify the actions of the president. I don't like alot of his actions - but for those that don't like this - well - better hope your in texas so you can vote these people out if you want - otherwise - you have to accept the fact that they have the legal right to do it - whether you like it or not. Just like the President has the right to go back on his word (yet again) regarding emergency funding requests, among other things. Its the way the system works, and thus it doesn't need justification. I simply was looking to find out where people really had an issue, and so far, it seems to be that they read something in some news article and take it as gospel, instead of looking at the changes and deciding for themselves.

[tater]

The Civil War was not about "State's Rights." It was about the right of States to own human beings. That's the "right" the South wanted to protect. It was not some abstraction.

No slavery —> no secession —> no civil war.

I'm a conservative, I favor distributed power (State's rights), but trying to paint the Civil War as a State's Rights issue at that time is absurd. YOu can make a modern argument that they should have been allowed to quit the US, I'm open to that abstraction, but at the time, the right they were protecting was the right to own people.

USA's Civil War was caused by two issues.
1: Slavery.
2: Tarrifs.
It was the aristicrats of the south that turned it into a "states rights" issue.
Had they not, they would have been unable to raise an army from the ranks of poor southerners. Exploitatable labor importation, then and now, decreases the earning potential of the established poor populations.

The north also had to keep the focus on "preserving the union".
Following Lincoln's Emmancipation Provlamation, which made the abolishment of slavery the main issue, there were draft riots in New York, to which federal troops had to be sent.

It was the same class of people then that imported slaves, as those today that favor mass exploitable immigration. They have no loyalty to anyone or anything, but their own wealth and power. Funny how they turn the word "racist" on anyone who tries to stand in their way.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

2: Tarrifs.

Please show any contemprary documentation that would indicate that tarrifs had anything to do with either secession or the war itself.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh the irony......

Please show any contemprary documentation that would indicate that tarrifs had anything to do with either secession or the war itself.

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:

Where? I keep hearing all these accusations - but so far no one has actually shown where the changes do all these horrible things people say they do.

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782. Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed specifically at them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Southern exporters sometimes had to pay higher amounts for shipping their goods overseas because of the distance from southern ports and sometimes pay unequal tariffs imposed by a foreign country on some of their goods. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.

Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.

As the nation grew in size, so did the opportunities for expansion westward. Many felt that slavery should be allowed in the new territories such as Kansas and Missouri, while others were set against it. This led to "bleeding Kansas", a bitter war that pitted neighbor against neighbor. In 1859, a radical abolitionist from Kansas named John Brown raided the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in the hopes of supplying weapons to an army of slaves that would revolt against their southern masters. A number of people were taken hostage and several killed, among them the mayor of Harpers Ferry. Brown was cornered with several of his followers in a fire engine house, first by Virginia militia and then by Federal troops sent to arrest him and his raiders. These troops, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee, stormed the building and captured Brown and several of his men. Brown was tried for his crimes, found guilty, and hung in Charlestown. Though John Brown's raid had failed, it fueled the passions of northern abolitionists who made him a martyr. It was reported that bells tolled in sympathy to John Brown in northern cities on the day he was executed. This inflamed passions in the South where southern leaders used the incident as another reminder how little the South's interests were represented in Federal law, labeled as sympathetic to runaways and anti-slavery organizations.

The debate became very bitter. Southern politicians outwardly charged that their voices were not being heard in congress. Some Southern states wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves. Emotions reached a fever pitch when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860. He was a member of the Republican Party and vowed to keep the country united and the new western territories free from slavery. Many Southerners, who were Democrats, were afraid that Lincoln was not sympathetic to their way of life and would not treat them fairly. The growing strength of the Republican Party, viewed by many as the party friendly to abolitionists and northern businessmen, and the election of the party's candidate was the last straw. Southern governors and political leaders called for state referendums to consider articles of secession. South Carolina was the first state to officially secede from the United States soon after the election and they were followed by six other Southern states. These states joined together and formed a new nation which they named the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis, a Democratic senator and champion of states rights from Mississippi, as the first president.

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group - you better be sitting down. This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states....

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?

Sure its not detailed - so if you want more info check out the "Tariff of Abomination" and following tariffs - you will find out how much other economic pressure was applied from north to south.

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue - then their could have been no war. If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war. If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war. Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?

@CaptainHaplo
Thanks for the great post.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So until we see the textbooks that are being written to accomodate the curricullum you now admit to not having a problem with - there isn't much point in being concerned. So its pretty much a non-issue.

Not really admitting; I never had an issue with it to begin with. My concern is indeed about the content of the textbooks, and thankfully we've cleared that chapter up. Moving on.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - your in error here. Grant did in fact own one slave that he acquired from Dent. He freed that slave within one year , but he did in fact own one.

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html

Actually no. That was Grant's father-in-law, Colonel Frederick Dent. He worked on the Dent Farm, after he married Julia, in the 1850s for a time- which was located near St. Louis, Missouri, a state where slavery had not officially been abolished by the state legislature (it was a state that was divided about the issue, and indeed about which side to take during the actual coming war). He had only one slave put under his care whilst he worked there, who was later taken back by Colonel Dent when Grant left to go to Illinois to work in a tannery. Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime. He never ever bought any. Grant himself opposed slavery. He openly said he did during the election of 1860. And during the Reconstruction Era, he had an amazing track record for fighting for civil rights for freed slaves given the times.

Originally Posted by Your Article

Following West Point, Grant was stationed as a second lieutenant near St. Louis, Missouri, where he met Julia Dent, a plump eighteen-year-old with a slightly turned eye. Her outgoing and happy demeanor attracted Grant, as well as their shared love of riding horses. Julia had been raised with the pretensions of Southern aristocracy. Her father, who called himself “Colonel” Dent even though he had no military experience, owned twenty slaves -- a lifestyle alien to Grant, who was raised under his father’s stern abolitionist philosophy.

Originally Posted by Your Article

For his part, Dent was not thrilled about his daughter marrying a soldier with so few prospects. When Grant was sent to fight in the Mexican War in 1846, the courtship continued for the next two years through letters. Seven months after the U.S. victory, Colonel Dent finally agreed to their marriage. They were married at the family’s winter home in St. Louis, but without Ulysses’ parents in attendance. “Grant’s father, the abolitionist, really couldn’t forgive his connection to a slave-holding family. So it was a great source of tension,” says Max Byrd, author of Grant: A Novel. Within the year, Ulysses Grant freed the slave he had acquired through his marriage to Julia.

Again, that does nothing but confirm what I was saying. The slave actually belonged to Julia's family. Grant did not purchase him from Colonel Dent or from an auction, nor did he have the legal acquisition of him. It was Julia's slave in the first place, not Ulysses', and was retained as such even after their marriage. Slaves were considered to have been property.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And yes - I am one of those real pains when it comes to stuff like that - I even answered the census as marking "other" and writing in Native American. I was born in Georgia, after all!

Though you have European ancestors lol... the people who colonized the land and pushed the Native Americans/American Indians (the people who were living here before them) out of the way and in some cases to the point of extinction. The people who named Georgia "Georgia"...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wait a minute - "they" are not making changes to the history books - they are setting up a curriculum - that you stated you didn't have specific issues with.

The teacher's curriculum; not the textbook curriculum and content or indeed school-specific curriculum (as in practices and observances that must be made by them). The standards the textbooks will have to meet are what I've been disagreeing with this entire time, because that's what they're changing. The teacher's curriculum is fine to me, hence why I've been saying I have no problems with it. Because the current textbooks do not meet the new content standards, with "outdated" definitions and information ("Atlantic Slave Trade" being changed to be incorporated into "Atlantic Triangular Trade", then the more erroneous changes in information that will be made about the religions of the Founding Fathers and the background on which the country was created- in addition to Jefferson being considered not a leader of the Intellectualism Movement in the Age of Enlightenment and the portrayal of the American Civil War as an "armed rebellion" against the United States government that was entirely about States' Rights and barely slavery), they will have to print new editions. Which is exactly, if you've been keeping up on the news, what they're going to do now. This isn't necessarily new information, either; it's been a well known fact for months that the textbooks would be changed as to what the information inside them contains, reported on by the news and covered by historians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031700560.html

Now, if you want me to be quoting chapter and verse of the textbook revisions they've approved, I'll gladly do so. But you didn't ask me to do that earlier; you just asked me what I disagreed with in the changes. And I told you already, about the Founding Fathers, creation of the country, and the Civil War revisionism. And I explained why I disagreed and why it was inaccurate to make such claims.

As far as the high school books go (I've chosen high school one to compare with my current version that I cited earlier).

(3) The eight strands of the essential knowledge and skills for social studies are intended to be integrated for instructional purposes with the history and geography strands establishing a sense of time and a sense of place. Skills listed in the geography and social studies skills strands in subsection (c) of this section should be incorporated into the teaching of all essential knowledge and skills for social studies. A greater depth of understanding of complex content material can be attained when integrated social studies content from the various disciplines and critical-thinking skills are taught together. and autobiographies,; landmark cases of the U.S. Supreme Court,; novels,; speeches, letters, diaries,; and poetry, songs, and artworks is encouraged. Selections may include a biography of Dwight Eisenhower, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham City Jail. Motivating resources are also available from museums, historical sites, presidential libraries, and local and state preservation societies.

Removal of the biography selection example, novel example, and letter example. This doesn't accomplish anything, other than removing considerations for the students to look into.

(4) Students identify the role of the U.S. free enterprise system within the parameters of this course and understand that this system may also be references as capitalism or the free market system.

Added by an SBOE amendment. This is just incorrect. The term "free enterprise" is not something that "may" refer to Capitalism or a free market economy; it is by definition a tenant of Capitalism, and Capitalism is a part of the free market economic theory.

(6)State and federal laws mandate a variety of celebrations and observances including Celebrate Freedom Week.
(c) Knowledge and skills.
(B) Each school district shall require that, during Celebrate Freedom Week or other week of instruction prescribed under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, students in Grades 3-12 study and recite the following text: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Federal law does not mandate that this observance must be held on Celebrate Freedom Week; Texas state law does not, either. Actually, the only thing either requires is that students be led in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week by the teachers/staff, starting on Monday, and may or may not continue the practice through Friday. The only real laws on the books are state, in which it clarifies that it ENCOURAGES others to "raise public awareness about the founding documents – the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence – and the critical role they play in the freedoms and rights we enjoy", not that they MUST.

(3)
(C) analyze social issues such as the treatment of affecting women, minorities, children, labor, growth of cities, and problems of immigrants, urbanization , and analyze the Social Gospel ,and philanthropy of industrialists.

On the revised version, it only reads:

analyze social issues affecting women, minorities, children, and problems of immigrants, urbanization , the Social Gospel ,and philanthropy of industrialists.

Just women, minorities, children, "problems" of immigrants, urbanization, the Social Gospel, and philanthropy of industrialists. What about the labor struggle that gave us child labor laws and worker's compensation, and the growth of cities which in the first place led to such great levels of urbanization?

History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920.
The student is expected to:
explain why significant events, policies, and individuals, including such as the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism/imperialism , Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Theodore Roosevelt, Samuel Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;

The revised version reads:

History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920.
The student is expected to:
explain why significant events, policies, and individuals, including the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism, Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Theodore Roosevelt, Samuel Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;

Expansionism it was, but it was also the subjugation and subordination of territories and the peoples residing on them. That is, according to the Dictionary of Human Geography, imperialism. The taking of the lands that are Cuba during the Spanish-American War is the first real example of this, but it continues with the Philippine Islands being taken over by military force, Hawaii being overthrown and annexed, American influences spanning clear to the Samoan monarch crisis of that latter half of the century and the political upheavals in China, indeed even the attitudes held by presidents and politicians about Mexico and Canada (Theodore Roosevelt especially). It's not so much imperialism in the sense of the goal being to create an empire as much as implementing it as a means of interventionalist policy- especially in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Several other times in this paragraph, they cut out imperialism and replace it with "expansionism", which really means the same thing.

For whatever reason, later on under this same section, they cut out talking about reasons for the United States entering World War I being related specifically to the subject of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 (which was a result of this naval doctrine- even though the Lusitania was a legitimate target of war since it was carrying ammunition and weapons from New York back to the UK AND the German embassy put out a warning in the newspaper for all travelers to proceed with caution because of this doctrine). At least they want to identify the causes.

It continues for a bit about contributions the American Expeditionary Forces made to the conflict, Black Jack Pershing, technological innovations, isolationism vs. neutrality, and finally cuts off on World War I about the Battle of the Argonne Forest and such similar events. Yet, for whatever reason, it cuts off about teaching about other important historical figures that were military leaders and heroes in the war (Pershing's name is X'd out here, but he's already covered by the previous part where it said that a section was to be dedicated just to discussing his contributions) who had a hand in the war after American involvement was officially declared- at least Wilhelm, Nicholas, George, Umberto and the lot are covered by discussing the causes of the war. This means no Joffre, no Petain, no Hindenburg, no Ludendorff, no Trenchard, no Haig, no Mackensen, no Scheer, no Spee, no Hipper, no Jellicoe, none of this leaders will be studied, even though they were central figures to the war; furthermore, this means no talk of the Lafayette Escadrille, nor any of Rickenbacker, the Richthofen Brothers (and Cousin Wolfram), Mannock, Bishop, Ball, Coppens, Fonck, Nungesser, Wolff, Boelcke, Loewenhardt, Udet, etc. (as well as ground figures like Alvin York and naval figures like John Cornwall).

Under the 5th section here, they have, for whatever reason, removed all mention of Robert La Follette of the Progressive Party, and Article C allows the impacts of such parties to be discussed on the country but removes discussion of their candidates from the learning process such as H. Ross Perot, Eugene Debs, and George Wallace. What sense does that make- omitting learning about individual historical figures?

History. The student understands the domestic and international impact of significant national and international decisions and conflicts from U.S. participation in World War II and the Cold War to the present on the United States. The student is expected to:
(A) identify reasons for U.S. involvement in World War II, including
Italian, German, and Japanese dictatorships, their aggression, especially the growth of dictatorships and the attack on Pearl Harbor;

The "significant national and international decisions and conflicts" part is completely cut out. So is the part about from the Cold War to the present-day United States. And so is the part about the growth of the dictatorships. Why, exactly- especially on the part about Fascist Italy, Nazi-Germany, and the Fascist Empire of Japan? Doesn't it make sense to discuss how these countries came to be as they were to learn about the history leading up to World War II and indeed World War II itself?

In that exact same section, they have chosen to remove learning about how the United States responded to Soviet aggression and ruthlessness in Europe after the war had ended- including learning about the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and NATO. Again, this is leading up to the Cold War. It's very relevant to the interwar period leading up to American interventionalist policies about Communism (and the wars that followed; i.e. Korea and Vietnam). Which, it appears, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam are also out of the question on discussing. They have big bold red font with lines running through them.

Two articles down, the GI Bill is also neglected from discussion (the same bill that gave so many veterans the oh so many benefits they got to enjoy leading up to the Baby Boom and Golden Age of the 1950s), the election of 1948, McCarthyism and the searching for and convictions made towards Communist sympathizers and members of the Communist Party, and the achievement of Sputnik I's launch into orbit. There's a bunch of stuff they decided to add on later about McCarthyism and Cold War tensions, but all the stuff about McCarthyism isn't about the stuff that happened during it itself- it's just about why it made the Soviets so annoyed towards the United States (which is, obviously, because it persecuted Communists... and the Soviets were Communists... lol).

The origins of American domestic and foreign policies and issues that are facing us today are also omitted from study, listed around the part discussing impacts of the Cold War (also removed).

I haven't nor do I intend to cover the Civil Rights Movement changes they've made right now either. This is already a lot of material from just six pages alone.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yet your complaining about the books that a company (not the people on the Texas Board of Education) is going to write - when we havent even seen what they include - because they are not written yet.

But we already know what they're going to include... regardless of what company prints them (Prentice Hall or whoever), the content they will have to meet remains dictated by the textbook curriculum...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So if you don't have a problem with the curriculum itself -

Not the teacher's curriculum, just the textbook standards they're aiming for.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

why should they be removed and the changes revoked - unless you want to do it just on the basis that you disagree with their personal philosophy and beliefs.

Or perhaps because I disagree that personal philosophy and beliefs should enter into this issue of what we should be teaching in school about historical subjects- especially when personal philosophy and beliefs enter into it?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I mean seriously - if your going to be upset over the books that will be used to teach - shouldn't you at least see the books first before you judge them?

Not really. I mean, what the textbook curriculum dictates will dictate what goes into the books. It's really very simple. If the simplest standards on material are not met to the changes made, the books will not be what was commissioned, henceforth not acceptable.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Or is that not necessary because you have a preconcieved notion already about what they will contain -

Again, the textbook curriculum these people decide on and change as they please affects what the content and material covered in the books is like, and how it is presented. If the books don't meet the curriculum, they will not be accepted to educational standards set by the state. Not difficult to understand in the least.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

even though they are not created by the people you call incompetent

Again, textbook curriculum = textbook content. If the textbooks they're calling for don't meet the standards after they're printed, they won't be used for schooling lessons as the curriculum will not have been met and the educational standards they have set will not have been met either. This is where it becomes a legal issue on the issue of what the state says, what the school boards say, and what the textbook publishers print.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

(though they were competent enough to get elected - but then again - so was the president... )

Quite lol. So have all the presidents been in the past too. But we're not talking politics, we're talking education. Please stick to the subject.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Seems your worried about a lot of stuff that isn't even real......

Is anybody else here having difficulty understanding how this process works? Tater and Steve, you guys get it; too few others are posting ATM though.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

ALSO from your source:

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

(Which States' Rights were originally brought up over what? This paragraph doesn't mention why exactly or what exactly brought them to arguing over this, but it's quite simple: slavery. As I previously discussed, the Abolitionist movement in the 1850s from the northern states which had abolished slavery spread to wanting the federal government to abolish it in the southern states. Because the southern states were so dependent economically on slaves, the knew that the abolition of slavery would cripple their financial statuses and completely destroy their labor systems. Hence the issue of States' Rights, brought up over States' Rights on the right to own slaves or not and use them for labor or not. Not difficult to understand. Sources previously cited.)

Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.

Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group -

For someone against people making pre-suppositions, you sure have a bad habit of doing it yourself. You didn't even let Steve respond lol.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

And it's not inaccurate. But it also points out that one of the *most* important issues that led to the war was over slavery, and therein States' Rights.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states...

Hmm... Pennsylvania...

Last time I checked, it is in the Northern half of the United States. And last time I checked, it did indeed join the North/remain part of the Union during the Civil War. And last time I checked, they passed law to gradually abolish slavery in February 1780. Sources:




AND:

http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?

Odd how you have so many gripes against the government here and their accuracy when it comes to statistics and political affairs, yet you have no trouble accepting them as being historically correct... bit of a double standard but they're not wrong. Actually, they really did nothing but confirm how slavery was the issue that started the whole States' Rights argument, which inevitably led to the secessions.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Sure its not detailed - so if you want more info check out the "Tariff of Abomination" and following tariffs - you will find out how much other economic pressure was applied from north to south.

Even though their official reasons for secession, as pointed out by Platapus when you quoted him earlier, was over States' Rights/States' Sovereignty to the federal government, and indeed slavery; tariffs were not even mentioned. There were a lot of tariffs being put on them, that much is true; a lot of tariffs that were cheap. There were just so many to pay that the businessmen and plantation owners of the time complained they were being nickle'd and dime'd to death, even though the fees that they had to pay were really very small. And because other states weren't having to pay them, so they complained about equality being an issue.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1840850

Hell the Tariffs of 1857 were the lowest ones passed since 1816 for the entire country, including the south!

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue -

They were an issue, because the issue of slavery and states' rights to allow slavery/allow their citizens to own and buy and sell slaves were being made an issue in the first place by the Abolitionist Movement of the 1850s. This is what we have been telling you now for two pages.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

then their could have been no war.

Well according to your sentiments derived from the non-equitorial historical statements by the National Park Service, there still would have been over tariffs lol.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war.

Master Of The Obvious. But not everybody did agree. Although, by federal law at that time, it was an act of treason. Did they have the right to leave the Union? No. It was an illegal act punishable by death for the instigators of the secession. Did they try anyway? Yes. Were they stupid to do so? Pretty much, yeah, based off the consequences for them. They could have given up, but they decided not to. Do you really think anyway that the country would be better off if they Confederates had won or if they country was still divided like this to this very day? I'm curious, Haplo, what good could have been gained from this?

The problem facing the CSA was the problem that faced the Founding Fathers when it came to the Articles of Confederation: the states had too much individual power. They were like their own individual countries and could do whatever they wanted to, to each other. Hence, the central committee could get nothing done... which is exactly why the Constitution was drafted to solve the problem. Otherwise the United States would not have been the *United States*, just a random collection of old colonies declaring their independence running around freely. The country would not have survived.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war.

The Framers would have disagreed... since they're the ones who clarified on what should be considered an act of treason against the nation.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?

I'd say you're doing what you do best: stating the obvious lol. Really man you have a gift... a... really unique... gift...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Oh the irony......

You know, it's a lot of fun trying to have a discussion with someone who keeps verbally rolling his eyes and laughing at people rather than calmly discussing the questions.

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:

I've tried to politely point out that it's what they've said elsewhere. People are concerned about their oft-stated agenda. If someone tries to say the Constitution is flexible, are you one of the ones who instantly shouts "Original intent!"? And yet in the First Amendment discussion you want to ignore the intent and stick to the letter of the law. In this case intent is just as important as the words. 'Camels nose', 'slippery slope' and all that. You know the words. You've used them yourself, when the argument warrants it.

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group - you better be sitting down. This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:

Fascinating. All the official statements, even from the "Northern Yankee Government" doesn't make it so. What I asked for was one single contemporary document on the tariffs. I'm waiting.

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states....

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?

Argument by insult is no argument at all. Do I talk down to you?

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue - then their could have been no war. If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war. If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war. Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?

'Uncle Sam', in this case, is a historian somewhere writing his own opinion of what it meant. Does he cite one single source for his statements? No, he tells a story and expects you to believe it. And since it matches your own beliefs and prejudices, you swallow it whole and use it as 'evidence', even 'proof'.

Okay, I'll use your own insistence on letters. Search all the Ordinances of Secession, search all the Declarations of Causes, and show me one single document that contains a discussion of "States Rights". You'll find many mentions of States, and many mentions of rights, but the only time any of them uses the phrase "denying our rights" it a direct reference to slavery.

[Stealth Hunter]

He's responding to us as we speak... WELL- HAVE FUN WITH THAT, HAP.

[CaptainHaplo]

con·tem·po·rar·y

[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] adjective, noun,plural-rar·ies.
–adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

I will assume you mean a document from the time period - and not a modern one.

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel

published in the English Magazine: All the Year Round, December 28, 1861 edition (Dickens/Morley)

Perhaps the relevant portion of the historical speech of one Robert Barnwell Rhett - a US Senator who resigned his seat and spoke at the South Carolina convention will do?

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

How about the Georgia Secession document?

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.

It was Richard Hofstadter who in the 1950's asserted that slavery was the only real issue - up to that time it was accepted that slavery, other economic issues (such as tariffs), states rights, and inequal representation were all real factors. So I am guessing you guys learned your history in the 50's and 60's when his views were predominant? It should be noted that modern historians are now more in agreement with Charles Beard - who in the 1920's asserted that tariffs played a large role in the war starting.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught. I don't fault you for that - and steve, I was not meaning to talk down to you. I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?

[tater]

Slavery was at the root of everything. It's wasn't A major cause, it was THE major cause.

Taxation? The South was less industrial—poor. If the Northern States wanted more taxation on the South to catch up with their newfound industrial wealth (and hence tax load), it was related to... slavery. The South remained agrarian because with the cotton gin, slavery allowed an agrarian economy to trump industrialization.

No matter what you do, slavery is at the very heart of the question, it informed every decision Southern leaders made, even if implicitly, not explicitly.

The argument that it was "state's rights" because otherwise they'd have been allowed to leave is false. It's like saying the cause of a death was blood loss, and neglecting that the patient had been shot.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.

Very good finds. This is probably what UnderseaLCPL was looking for on the other thread.

Just so you understand me, I'm a firm believer in truth. I've always known that the Civil War, like any war, had many causes behind it. My irritation started with the aftermath of the Ken Burns documentary, when a huge number of, as I call them, 'Southern Apologists', started ranting that everyone needed to be educated to the 'fact' that "It wasn't about slavery!" I like a scholarly discussion of reasons and causes, with evidence given, and with this latest post you've done that. I apologize if I've lumped you in with those others, but you have to admit that they are a problem.

As for the reason soldiers signed up to fight, of course Southern soldiers weren't fighting to protect slavery, nor were Northern soldiers fighting to stop it. Soldiers fight for what they are told, and that is always that the enemy is trying to destroy their way of life. That is the only reason anyone joins the rank-and-file army - to protect what's theirs against an evil enemy.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught.

I hope I've relieved you of that opinion. I grew up in California, where I was taught practically no history at all. On the other hand I have a friend who spent one of his high school years in Georgia, where, in his words, "The first week of American History was spent discussing the events leading up to the Civil War. The last week was about everything that's happened since."

He also like to quote his history teacher as an example of what he was told at the time: "Some of you seem to think that I believe Robert E. Lee was the greatest man ever to walk the face of this earth. This is not true. Remember that our Lord Jesus Christ also walked the face of this earth."

I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

And I believed the same about you, based on my experience with the vast majority of people who take the attitude that slavery was less than the most important issue. They, as I have said, mostly seem to want it to not be an issue at all. They will blame everything on Lincoln, and call it "Lincoln's War", even though they started seceeding when the abolitionist party took power.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?

By now you should know that I agree, and I don't need any more. My only beef is with those who say slavery was not the main issue, or not an issue at all. The other problem, though, is identifying who actually believes what, and who is trying to accomplish what. How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go. Before that causes offense, I'll say that I don't believe that. I don't disbelieve it either, just the same as I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. My point in saying that is that I have that exact problem with the original topic of this thread. These people are not to be trusted, no matter what they say.

And just so you know, I feel the same about the liberal factions in this country as well. My bottom line is always "I don't know". But I don't trust people who claim they do, either.

[CaptainHaplo]

I like a scholarly discussion of reasons and causes, with evidence given, and with this latest post you've done that. I apologize if I've lumped you in with those others, but you have to admit that they are a problem.

No apology necessary - you have been civil the whole time, and if I "talked down" to you, I regret it - it was not my conscious intent. If those people that claim that "It wasn't about slavery!" would actually ADD to that statement, they would be right - "It wasn't JUST about slavery". The 40+ years of tariffs that were seen as punitave by the South had created a truly sectional country, and it was the nullification crisis of 1832 that first raised the spectre of secession, states rights and the consideration of the use of Federal force to enforce the authority of the Federal government in a State. To say that the issue of tariffs had created significant and deep "bad blood" between the North and South is historically supported.

How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go.

Every good debate creates a bit of learning. I learned a bit from the last thread on the discussion - and that informs my thinking. I guess the easiest way to describe my view on the issue is this - there was a rather complex history that predates the civil war itself. In essence, that history created a powder keg - filled with the powder created by distrust over tariffs, differences of opinion on States rights, as well as the social and economic reality (and fear of abolition) of slavery. The lighting of the fuse was the final year preceding the election of Lincoln. When Lincoln was president, the fuse hit the powder. At that point, it was too late to stop the explosion. The reality is that the move to start the war however was major idiocy by South Carolina and the pro-slavery political movement (not because the South lost). I will start a new thread on that one if it deserves enough discussion.