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.
The fact that history textbooks in general are marketed and approved by politicians should at the very least teach you to be a skeptic of everything a state feeds you in general.
American history books in general are biased. Do you think a British or Canadian textbook is going to recollect the American Revolution the same way ours does?
Skepticism is not to be confused with indifference to reality, historical or otherwise.
School text books are constantly being adapted to the times. What did the text books in Ohio in the 1950s tell us about the Indian Wars in the later half of the 19th century?... what did the text books in California in the 1970s tell us about the annexation of Hawaii in the mid 20th century.. and what did text books written in the South at the turn of the 20th century tell us about the Civil War... Seriously - Text books are written by folks with an agenda... I realize this topic is specific to the Souths view of the Civil War but just to remind folks that the entire country has a history of bias that doesn't care which side of the mason dixon you reside.
School text books are constantly being adapted to the times. What did the text books in Ohio in the 1950s tell us about the Indian Wars in the later half of the 19th century?... what did the text books in California in the 1970s tell us about the annexation of Hawaii in the mid 20th century.. and what did text books written in the South at the turn of the 20th century tell us about the Civil War... Seriously - Text books are written by folks with an agenda... I realize this topic is specific to the Souths view of the Civil War but just to remind folks that the entire country has a history of bias that doesn't care which side of the mason dixon you reside.
The issue isn't what the textbooks say as much as how they report historical events and eras compared to the overwhelming consensus of professional historians who analyze history using primary and secondary sources.
For my taste, there's way too much tolerance and even support for historical interpretations in this forum, especially regarding the Civil War, that are divorced from primary documents and the work of professional historians.
The issue isn't what the textbooks say as much as how they report historical events and eras compared to the overwhelming consensus of professional historians who analyze history using primary and secondary sources.
For my taste, there's way too much tolerance and even support for historical interpretations in this forum, especially regarding the Civil War, that are divorced from primary documents and the work of professional historians.
Says the man who thinks the North was on a humanitarian mission.
That's thing. Nobody is defending the south. That's an assumption people jump to whenever you explain state's rights.
Go ahead and tell us what "state rights" have to do with The South
Because The South seceded because the North passed state laws that went against federal pro-slavery laws.
Go ahead and tell us what "state rights" have to do with The South
Because The South seceded because the North passed state laws that went against federal pro-slavery laws.
It would be much more efficient if you just started back at page 1 and read this thread over again.
Go ahead and tell us what "state rights" have to do with The South
Because The South seceded because the North passed state laws that went against federal pro-slavery laws.
I've been hoping somebody would mention this. If the South was truly advocating for "States' Rights," the would have been applauding the northern states for exercising their "States' Rights" by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. They would have said "See there? Even little old Vermont has shown the Federal Government that States' Rights rule supreme!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
It would be much more efficient if you just started back at page 1 and read this thread over again.
Actually Dopo's post put the whole silliness about the South's "States' Rights" issue in a valid perspective that hasn't been mentioned yet. When the northern states exercised their "States' Rights," the South suddenly wanted a strong Federal government to intervene.
Have you got any sources citing the Southern states' governors praising the states who defied the Fugitive Slave Law based on "States' Rights?"
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.
