Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed ...... It would have been bloody pleasure to have had you as a student in me ole American History classroom a few years back !!!
Rare it is mate to have a bloke ere on ole CDF that has even a minimal intellectual grasp on the accurate events of America's magnificent historical accounts !!!
The p.c. history "Pea Brains" have so distorted our great history that it's no bloomin wonder we have a whole boat load of folks dat jest don't have a freekin clue bout da past !!!
Keeps up duh great work thar xiansheng_g ... This motley crew could use a few moe of your good lessons !!!
Thanks A Bunch Ya'll / Old Sgt. Lamar
In high school, for both US and World history I had Mr. Clancy. He had a decidedly different approach. When we talked about the American revolution the weekly debate was should the colonies revolt. You were assigned a point of view and had to look at it from that point of view, and from the pov of the time. It made for a great challenge in learning how to see how other people think.
When we got to the civil war, I remember clearly how the approacy was to look at the 'big picture'. How the overall possibilites were from the start, and how they changed. We didn't just have lectures but small discussion groups. The role of slavery over states rights over the intent to preserve the union was something we read up on (books from the library, not text books) and debated. We had come to see that emancipating the slaves was in part because it sounded like a good idea, but also because it put European nations in a bad light if they recognized a state which used something they themselves had made illegal.
We did have debates and role playing over slavery, including group debates over if it was right to force states to end it. I wish ALL the history teachers in high school were Mr. Clancy's since he had us not just listen and take notes and skim the text book for the multiple guess test.
By the way, he was black. He taught in a predominantly white school and was still frequently one of the favorite teachers of the senior class. He didn't do agendas and didn't tell anyone what they should conclude after doing research if they could sufficently defend it.
His class was about thinking, not rote memorization or believing the current line. We sure need more of him today.
Very articulate and interesting post, but without getting deeply into all the details, I did want to address the above. To wit: I have to respectfully disagree on this one.
Backtracking, this occurance (Texas secession from the Confederacy) is a common one in some "alternative history" books. But I really don't find much empirical support for that position beyond, parodoxically, that the South did lose the War. That is to say, afterwards, things took a different turn in Texas than it did in the other Southern states, it that not only did it (Texas) emerge relatively unscathed by the conflict but, in many ways, via the "cattle boom" it actually -- on some levels prospered (the hardships and vindictiveness of Reconstruction not withstanding).
Also, much of it was still a frontier and there was lots of cheap land and opportunites for pioneers (overwhelmingly from the southeast states) to put the war behind them and get a new start;in a way not possible in the Deep South. Thus, along with later Hollywood "western movies" celebrating the Texas cowboy and gunfighter, the state started to be seen -- on many levels -- as "different" from the other former Confederate States. More "western" than classically "Southern" in a sense (even though it actually doesn't make sense if truly examined apart from that somewhat fictional aspect). So, in a nut-shell, many of these historical alternates seperate Texas from the others -- in seceeding from the Confederacy -- not from examination of the real facts, but just that it fits into that "seperate identity" of Texas, today. And that to make it "believable" for many whose only real image of Texas is the Hollywood western, alternate history themes must play to the myth, not the reality.
As it really was (and Turtledove, in Guns of the South sorta verifies it), Texas was a true "cotton state" (the cowboy and rancher get the ackolades, but the average Texan was far more likely to have been a small farmer whose living depended on King Cotton). It's secession document was one of the most "pro-Confederate", and if not for Gov. Houston (a Southern Unionist) deliberately refusing to call the Texas Legislature into special secession to consider the issue, Texas might easily have been the second state to secede.
The record of Texas troops on the battlefield was second to none, the wartime governors were strongly pro-Confederate...and after the War, it was the second-to-last state to be "re-admitted" to the Union, as -- for one thing -- the Texas legislature (rightfully in my opinion!), flatly refused to declare secession null and void ad initio (i.e. from the beginning). The furthest they would go would admit it was null and void as a result of the war itself. And there are many other reasons too lengthy to get into here...
So -- and I know I can be very long-winded! LOL -- if the South had won, I firmly believe Texas would have remained a Confederate State. Hell, for one thing, it would have been Texas where -- even more so than happened in losing -- southeasterners wanting to prosper would have flooded into the state and probably shaped its basic character -- historically and culturally -- even more so than it did otherwise. Which, again, was always the dominating force in Texas history, culture, politics, religion, etc...
*sighs* More SSD blather with no substance nor empirical backing at all.
Actually, I would like to engage in 'empirical evidence' with you. And I will engage in my best Nebraska gentlemanly way. My problem is that my evidence is mostly in a fairly large collection of works on African-American history and course work on the topic at the University of California-San Diego. That doesn't lend itself well to short quotes. I am familiar with all your views and have been for 30 years. I've explored the SCV website and many others and I always read the links you provide. Perhaps you could post a short statement or premise or question and I could respond as briefly and precisely as possible. I'm not calling you out or anything like that. I don't know if C-D would find it to be too tedious or not. I lived and worked in Dallas in the middle '60s and was there during the assassinations in 1968 so I do know something about Texas in that period. It's up to you.
Actually, I would like to engage in 'empirical evidence' with you. And I will engage in my best Nebraska gentlemanly way. My problem is that my evidence is mostly in a fairly large collection of works on African-American history and course work on the topic at the University of California-San Diego. That doesn't lend itself well to short quotes. I am familiar with all your views and have been for 30 years. I've explored the SCV website and many others and I always read the links you provide. Perhaps you could post a short statement or premise or question and I could respond as briefly and precisely as possible. I'm not calling you out or anything like that. I don't know if C-D would find it to be too tedious or not. I lived and worked in Dallas in the middle '60s and was there during the assassinations in 1968 so I do know something about Texas in that period. It's up to you.
I appreciate this post, Stan. Actually, I never had any really personal issue with you. On the contrary, you always struck me as one that I could actually sit down with face to face over a few beers and find out we we discuss things in a generally congenial manner.
No, my only issue with you is NOT that you disagree with me. Not in the least. Rather, that you seemingly do not accept that the same facts of history can be translated differently as to interpretation. That's it in a nut-shell.
The classic example of ours (meaning me and you) is Ft. Sumter. You take the viewpoint that the South had no right to secede to begin with. So, naturally, it is completely understandable that you would say it was the South that started the War by firing on the fort. I have no problem with that.
On the other hand, it seems to me you won't at least entertain the thought that others (including myself) see it in a totally different light. That is, the Confederacy was a soveriegn nation and had every right to act in their own defence. And that a fort occupied by armed troops of a foriegn nation with CSA territorial waters, was rightfully viewed as a threat. Same as would have been by the American forces during the Revolutionary War if the British were in Boston Harbor.
But anyway, yes, I would welcome a discussion with you. Like you say, of course, it might be too tedious on C-D for us to keep it up between ourselves, so I am welcome to making this a DM thing, if you want. Just let me know.
TexReb is a nice fella. I don't agree with him on this issue but our discussions have been civil and even good natured.
That friendly good ol boy stuff is just an act. In reality, TexReb is part of a cabal which, inspired by the Harry Turtledove novel, is financing the construction of a time machine to take them back to 1863 where they will equip the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47's, mortars, RPG's and walkie talkies. They expect to return to a modern day which features a still independent Confederacy, albeit one which includes Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Cuba. As part of the deal that they made with the Confederate government to supply them with the modern arms, the CSA had to pledge that it will not free the slaves before the year 2750.
The cabal is concerned that the CSA might not keep their word on that. As a safeguard, it has been agreed that one member of the time traveling group will remain in the past to watch over things. He is to marry, raise children and pass the job along to them and so forth down through the generations. All of them want to be that person, but it hasn't been decided yet. So if one day TexReb suddenly vanishes from these forums, we'll know how it came out.
That friendly good ol boy stuff is just an act. In reality, TexReb is part of a cabal which, inspired by the Harry Turtledove novel, is financing the construction of a time machine to take them back to 1863 where they will equip the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47's, mortars, RPG's and walkie talkies. They expect to return to a modern day which features a still independent Confederacy, albeit one which includes Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Cuba. As part of the deal that they made with the Confederate government to supply them with the modern arms, the CSA had to pledge that it will not free the slaves before the year 2750.
The cabal is concerned that the CSA might not keep their word on that. As a safeguard, it has been agreed that one member of the time traveling group will remain in the past to watch over things. He is to marry, raise children and pass the job along to them and so forth down through the generations. All of them want to be that person, but it hasn't been decided yet. So if one day TexReb suddenly vanishes from these forums, we'll know how it came out.
LOL I gotta hand it to you, Grandstander. That was a good one! I didn't realize our cabal had become so lax in its security. I will have to address this one at our next meeting!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sigh...
can't we all get along?
