So This Fucking Moron Is On The School Board In Colorado

[Heywood]

Considering that the claim is that the current history curriculum is incorrect, and somehow I doubt that curriculum is itself reinventing history so that the civil war was an international one, I doubt that that's the perspective she was taking, however.

She is upset because she read the framework and the sample test and her concern is an overly negative view of our history and many of our historical figures(those are almost her exact words).

She also said that the United States ended slavery with "great sacrifice". Who really knows what she was talking about because she wasn't specific....however applying the principle of charity lead me to conclude she was talking about an internal civil war and not some economic loss because of ending slavery. So if I had to bet....I bet that she is well aware that there was a civil war played a huge part in ending slavery in this country. But it was an internal conflict and nobody forced us to end slavery. As a country we did ended slavery of our own accord(voluntarily). We did it ourselves(with some of ourselves coming kicking and screaming).

The thing about rawstory is they like to demonize and incite others to hate the people they hate. It saddens me that so many mouth foamers like Minimalist eat the crap spew up

[Chas]

I'm certainly NOT arguing that point. What I'm presenting as my understanding of the historical context is that the Civil War was not started for the purpose of freeing the slaves.

No, civil war was started by those who hitched their wagen to the slavery horse for the purpose of trying to preemptively checkmate any attempts to free slaves by those who weren't even, on average, all that eager to free slaves.

The American Civil War was primarily about states' rights versus federalism. Just look at the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

[Anomalocaris]

No, state's rights was just a pretext for defending slavery. The conflict was about the criminal enterprise of slavery acting out of morbidly fear that it's days would be numbered if it didn't detach itself from the federal government. States rights was just a resonant excuse to guaranty continued enslavement of the negros.

Yes, they believed state's rights was threatened. But how was the state's right threatened? There is a distant danger, not even imminent threat, that slaves might have to be freed. That's the essence. If they happened to have signed onto a constitution in 1788 which explicitly said slavery is not a state's right, so they would have forfeited the state's right justification for perpetuating slavery, would they still risk war to break up the union to prevent the slaves from being freed when the anti-slavery forces in the north were seen to gain ascendency? Absolutely. The "cause" for the south is perpetuation of slavery using any pretext that would serve. For north it was really just the preserverence of the Union at the beginning, only later did it also become to emancipate the negros.

Everything else are just smoke and mirrors to prevent observers from seeing the core of the "cause".

[Mystical]

Heywood,
If half my body doesn't voluntarily move with the other half, then would you say still that I voluntarily took a step forward?
How about taking into account that my other half not only held on to a fencepost for dear life and then started punching the half that tried to take the step forward, but both sides of my body got into a knife fight with the other half, and I had to cut my disobedient to my brains' arm off the damn fence, in order to take that step?

Voluntary, right?

American Civil War

Agriculture was the primary component of the southern economy, of which cotton production towered in importance. Indeed, “King Cotton” accounted for over half of all U.S. exports.

Slaves chiefly provided the labor for working in the cotton fields. The prosperity of the cotton plantations underscored the South’s reliance on the slave trade, which is why most Southerners associated any perceived threat to slavery as a direct challenge to their livelihood and culture.

The North, on the other hand, was heavily industrialized. Immigration was encouraged to provide the labor supply, as slavery was outlawed. Factories and railroads were abundant and businesses desired to expand into recently acquired western territories. Only a small percentage of people living in the North were dedicated abolitionists, but the concern over competing against slave labor in the new territories was widely held.

After decades of industrialization, the northern states became dependent upon an active federal government to oversee the construction of an effective transportation infrastructure, and to pass laws designed to look after their financial interests. The agrarian South was much less interested in a strong influence emanating from Washington, D.C. and believed that the individual states largely owned the right to dictate public policy. What’s more, Southerners feared an overreaching centralized government might abuse its power and meddle with the institution of slavery

Prior to the Civil War, taxes on imported commodities were levied to raise money for governmental operations. These special taxes were called tariffs and were the primary source of revenue for the nation (the Feds hadn’t yet discovered the income tax). The North supported high tariffs, because in addition to raising money for the federal government, they helped protect their goods from foreign markets. The South imported most of their manufactured products, and naturally opposed tariffs and the resultant higher prices.


Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, several southern states seceded from the Union. War finally erupted in April 1861 when the South fired upon the federal position at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

Eh the southernors loved their free worker society, and wanted people to leave them alone. They didn't voluntarily do anything, except finally surrender. They even threw a tantrum when they lost the presidential election and seceded from the union. They even made their own confederate flag and government.
I agree with Min
The Union Army is who freed the slaves, therefore its not voluntary in the least. What I'm posting here is what I was taught in school. It rings true that more than one thing started the war, and only a gun to their head would stop it, because of how dependent upon slaves the southern culture was.

[Heywood]

Eh the southernors loved their free worker society, and wanted people to leave them alone. They didn't voluntarily do anything, except finally surrender. They even threw a tantrum when they lost the presidential election and seceded from the union. They even made their own confederate flag and government.
I agree with Min
The Union Army is who freed the slaves, therefore its not voluntary in the least. What I'm posting here is what I was taught in school. It rings true that more than one thing started the war, and only a gun to their head would stop it, because of how dependent upon slaves the southern culture was.

You have your own perspective...and I don't see anything wrong with your perspective....but yours isn't the only valid perspective. I already gave one perspective that I also think is valid.....but here is another.

Slavery was ended voluntarily in the North. And the South seceded. So technically...Slavery in the United States had ended voluntarily.

The United States then forced another country....the Confederate States....to end slavery. So yeah...Lincoln and the Union Army freed the slaves.....but slaves of another country. When the Southern States were re-admitted to the United States they were now slave free.

There are a lot of ways to look at things....look at Chuck and Chas arguing about the point of the civil war.

Organization like Rawstory and its brainwashed hate zombies like Minimalist don't care about other valid perspectives. They simply want to try to make you hate the same people they hate.

edit: whoops...just remembered that not all slave states seceded...so this other perspective is not historically accurate....sorry.

[Minimalist]

What outside country or actor forced the United States to end slavery? Sure there was a conflict to end slavery....but it was an internal conflict. From a certain perspective she is correct.

Yeah, Woodie. With your head up your ass as usual, that is the only "perspective" for someone to come to such an idiotic conclusion.

No, the timing of the emencipation was after the South had suffered the two defeats that decided its fate.

Lincoln decided on the Proclamation after Antietam in Sept. of 1862 but made it effective on Jan 1, 1863. Thus it was about 2 weeks after Fredericksburg which was a major disaster.

Antietam was, at best, a Pyrrhic victory. Fredericksburg was nearly a catastrophe. And then there was the Mud March. And then they followed that up with Chancellorsville. Finally, you get to Gettysburg.

[Mystical]

Eh the southernors loved their free worker society, and wanted people to leave them alone. They didn't voluntarily do anything, except finally surrender. They even threw a tantrum when they lost the presidential election and seceded from the union. They even made their own confederate flag and government.
I agree with Min
The Union Army is who freed the slaves, therefore its not voluntary in the least. What I'm posting here is what I was taught in school. It rings true that more than one thing started the war, and only a gun to their head would stop it, because of how dependent upon slaves the southern culture was.

You have your own perspective...and I don't see anything wrong with your perspective....but yours isn't the only valid perspective. I already gave one perspective that I also think is valid.....but here is another.

Slavery was ended voluntarily in the North. And the South seceded. So technically...Slavery in the United States had ended voluntarily.

The United States then forced another country....the Confederate States....to end slavery. So yeah...Lincoln and the Union Army freed the slaves.....but slaves of another country. When the Southern States were re-admitted to the United States they were now slave free.

There are a lot of ways to look at things....look at Chuck and Chas arguing about the point of the civil war.

Organization like Rawstory and its brainwashed hate zombies like Minimalist don't care about other valid perspectives. They simply want to try to make you hate the same people they hate.

edit: whoops...just remembered that not all slave states seceded...so this other perspective is not historically accurate....sorry.

I don't feel compelled to hate anybody right now
I do feel compelled to make sure our educators are themselves, educated --and teaching approved curriculum. Its important that the truth of a situation be known, and to not have dissention and here say coming from administrators, when history is already been written a hundred fold, and curriculum is federally unified for a reason.

[Heywood]

I don't feel compelled to hate anybody right now
I do feel compelled to make sure our educators are themselves, educated --and teaching approved curriculum. Its important that the truth of a situation be known, and to not have dissention and here say coming from administrators, when history is already been written a hundred fold, and curriculum is federally unified for a reason.

Do you really want George Bush controlling the nations curriculum? I certainly do not want Obama. Whether you like or not...some body or some party you don't like is going to be in charge for 8, 12, 20 years. The nice thing about having local school boards deciding the curriculum is an entire nation's generation of youth can't be brainwashed because some whack jobs managed to get in power. Local school boards deciding the curriculum spread out the damage that can be done.

[Elskidor]

Kill him too.

[Minimalist]

Do you really want George Bush controlling the nations curriculum? I certainly do not want Obama.

And I sure as fuck don't want a dickhead like you controlling it, Woodie.