I tend to think Lincoln is a bit overrated like most icons but this is a goood quote

Carp said:
This is false, or at the very least misleading. The "order" from Montgomery came after SC had already demanded that the Union turnover the fort.
Click to expand...

Not misleading at all. You said and I quote "South Carolina was 1 state acting alone at Ft. Sumter."

After deliberations in the Confederate capital of Montgomery, Alabama over President Lincoln's stated intention to reinforce Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Walker ordered General Beauregard to "at once demand (the fort's) evacuation and, if this is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine to reduce it." Beauregard telegraphed immediately that he would make the demand for evacuation the next day.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/35890

That's not South Carolina acting on their own, that's direct orders or at the very least support from the confederate capital. Shocked you don't understand that. But whatever, par for the course of a civil war discussion with you.
 
Hawk said:
They exhausted every peaceable avenue available before resorting to an attack, which was really more than one might have expected given that Sumter was an enemy base smack dab in the middle of Confederate territory.

Plus, no one died.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the South had not right to do what they did, but what they did was a declaration of war. It's really a simple point. You're seemingly arguing that because of this "enemy base" in the middle of "Confederate territory" thatthey could attack it with no reprise. Again if a country attacked an army base in their country, wouldn't we view that as a declaration of war?
 
Runnin said:
I believe the early slave ships came from England and were largely manned by Brits. A lot of people got rich off the slave trade.

Anybody watching The Book of Negroes?
Click to expand...

Banks bought and sold bonds that were backed by slaves. Insurance companies sold slave insurance policies. There were a thousand ways that people who never saw a slave could have profited from the slave economy.

OT—the institutions that did this were about as morally and ethically sound then as they are today. Nobody is surprised when they manipulate the LIBOR or bet against the mortgage-backed securities that they're selling as AAA.

Hawk, I think it's useful to try to look at things in context and to push around the edges of conventional wisdom. It does strike me as odd, though, that you think that deposing Saddam Hussein was an appropriate use of American military force, yet when confronted with an insurrection by a body whose primary motivation was the preservation of the right to own other human beings, you'd seem to prefer a president who took a more measured approach. ;-)
 
zitothebrave said:
Not misleading at all. You said and I quote "South Carolina was 1 state acting alone at Ft. Sumter."

After deliberations in the Confederate capital of Montgomery, Alabama over President Lincoln's stated intention to reinforce Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Walker ordered General Beauregard to "at once demand (the fort's) evacuation and, if this is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine to reduce it." Beauregard telegraphed immediately that he would make the demand for evacuation the next day.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/35890

That's not South Carolina acting on their own, that's direct orders or at the very least support from the confederate capital. Shocked you don't understand that. But whatever, par for the course of a civil war discussion with you.
Click to expand...

The orders from Montgomery to seize all Union strong holds did not come down til Feb 15. South Carolina started blockading and demanded Union forces to abandon Fort Sumter back in January.
 
Carp said:
The orders from Montgomery to seize all Union strong holds did not come down til Feb 15. South Carolina started blockading and demanded Union forces to abandon Fort Sumter back in January.
Click to expand...

Again you said they acted alone. Their "government" supported them in fact they encouraged them in no fewer words to attack.

If South Carolina was acting alone, they wouldn't have consulted the government of the confederacy, knowing that they were doing would be an act of war. Why didn't they start the bombardment earlier?
 
goldfly said:
maybe these people are from Oklahoma

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/why-oklahoma-lawmakers-want-to-ban-ap-us-history.html
Click to expand...

I saw something like this close-up when Minnesota developed very specific social studies standards in 2004. If it wouldn't have been a serious issue, it would have been comic. Both the folks on the far Left and far Right--the only interest groups who were vocal from the beginning until the end of the discussion--insisted that their version of history be included in the standards. It led to about 120 pages of extremely specific items (ironically, no mention of the need for civics education) that each student was expected to--if not know--be exposed to. The state department of education came back a couple of years ago with a request to scale back the specific items and give teachers more leeway in developing local standards. To me, the moral of the story is that you really can't argue about math standards because 2 + 2 is going to equal 4. Outside of the evolution/intelligent design debate, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom equals a molecule of water so there isn't a whole lot to argue about in the science curriculum. But social studies, and to a lesser extent language arts, aren't as cut-and-dried and fodder for big-time debate.
 
50PoundHead said:
I saw something like this close-up when Minnesota developed very specific social studies standards in 2004. If it wouldn't have been a serious issue, it would have been comic. Both the folks on the far Left and far Right--the only interest groups who were vocal from the beginning until the end of the discussion--insisted that their version of history be included in the standards. It led to about 120 pages of extremely specific items (ironically, no mention of the need for civics education) that each student was expected to--if not know--be exposed to. The state department of education came back a couple of years ago with a request to scale back the specific items and give teachers more leeway in developing local standards. To me, the moral of the story is that you really can't argue about math standards because 2 + 2 is going to equal 4. Outside of the evolution/intelligent design debate, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom equals a molecule of water so there isn't a whole lot to argue about in the science curriculum. But social studies, and to a lesser extent language arts, aren't as cut-and-dried and fodder for big-time debate.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the big stink they had in Texas a few years back when they decided their textbooks were "a bit too revisionist" in nature and set about to make them more accurate and realistic and they did so by removing or greatly limiting the historical contributions of minorities like Cesar Chavez, and even cut way back on how much Jefferson they wanted to cover, yet they found room to increase the contributions of people like Ronald Reagan. Certainly no "revision" going on there, huh? Isn't the biggest problem of all that when a person looks at something like a textbook they see things the same way they see everything else, "don't try to tell me something I didn't already know or believe" and if you do, you're trying to make stuff up and lie to me.
 
I don't agree with what they're doing in OK, but I do remember my AP history passing off Howard Zinn's book as the class textbook, so I can see why there's concern.

As for "making room for Reagan," I would say that a flaw in every American history class I've taken (middle school, HS, college) is that they universally all run out of class time somewhere around Vietnam. The mid-70's to present day doesn't get the attention it deserves.

The reason I don't get too worked up about this stuff is because I did (still do) readings outside the classroom. It's the liberals I feel sorry for, not the non-liberal students. They're the ones who go through their educations without their views/perspectives being challenged.
 
acesfull86 said:
I don't agree with what they're doing in OK, but I do remember my AP history passing off Howard Zinn's book as the class textbook, so I can see why there's concern.

As for "making room for Reagan," I would say that a flaw in every American history class I've taken (middle school, HS, college) is that they universally all run out of class time somewhere around Vietnam. The mid-70's to present day doesn't get the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's prone to happen.
 
acesfull86 said:
I don't agree with what they're doing in OK, but I do remember my AP history passing off Howard Zinn's book as the class textbook, so I can see why there's concern.

As for "making room for Reagan," I would say that a flaw in every American history class I've taken (middle school, HS, college) is that they universally all run out of class time somewhere around Vietnam. The mid-70's to present day doesn't get the attention it deserves.

The reason I don't get too worked up about this stuff is because I did (still do) readings outside the classroom. It's the liberals I feel sorry for, not the non-liberal students. They're the ones who go through their educations without their views/perspectives being challenged.
Click to expand...

As a teacher (and no I never taught AP courses) I know a little about the overall makeup of AP courses, and they're much more about the students regurgitating the opinions of the people who train the teachers at the local school level in how to grade the AP exams (not all but way too many) than allowing students to use higher order thinking skills, etc., Again very few people want to hear about or learn about anything they didn't already believe.

And look into the Texas thing sometime, they didn't want a "little bit of information over Reagan, a former president and significant leader of his time" they wanted a LOT of stuff about anyone considered "old school Repub friendly" and to conveniently forget anyone not fitting neatly into that paradigm.
 
Just a recap of what my coworker says they talk about at the Confederacy meetings monthly:

  • Lincoln was a hypocrite because the emancipation only freed slaves in the south not the north.
  • Do not refer to it as the civil war but War of Northern Aggression or War for Southern Independence.
  • War was not about slavery but states rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top