How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

[joelbc1]

No Child Left Behind had overwhelming support from both parties. Unfortunately it was written by politicians and the law of unintended consequences came into play and it became teach to the test.

Not all teachers struggle with it and my wife had a great 1st grade class this year that had most of the kids doing 3rd grade work by the end of the year.

And the teachers loved it too. All it does is encourage teacher's to teach to the test and discourages teachers from being teachers. My Texas information is based on conversation with my ex who has taught school (elementary and "talented/gifted") in a suburban Houston SD since 1983. I know teachers in Iowa who really feel "No Child Left Behind" is a slap in the face of educators and students in Iowa. But hellsbells, I am sure they don't know what they are talkin' about and its the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Some question the real reason behind "NCLB"....Is it to educate or is it to critique teachers/educational system?

 

[TexMichFan]

And the teachers loved it too. All it does is encourage teacher's to teach to the test and discourages teachers from being teachers. My Texas information is based on conversation with my ex who has taught school (elementary and "talented/gifted") in a suburban Houston SD since 1983. I know teachers in Iowa who really feel "No Child Left Behind" is a slap in the face of educators and students in Iowa. But hellsbells, I am sure they don't know what they are talkin' about and its the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Some question the real reason behind "NCLB"....Is it to educate or is it to critique teachers/educational system?

Joel, I think we are on the same page here.

My wife nor any teacher she knows is a fan of NCLB. It eats up a large amount of time and effort not only for the test but since they have practice tests before they get to real test.

My wife was elementary teacher for the year for her district and competed against teachers from each school in the district. Each teacher had to submit a short essay and have an interview with selected teachers and administrators from the district. The last question they asked her was if she could change one thing in education what would it be. Without hesitating she said the testing part of NCLB. She went into detail on the amount of time spent on testing and prep and how that does not benefit students because they don't learn the same way or at the same pace. She said that by the time she finished her answer all the teachers were nodding there heads in agreement.

 

[Johnny Polo]

He's not making it up. He's even providing proof and citing quotes.

That point out how epically stupid his argument is.

Try reading it again and see if you have the intelligence to understand.

 

[strummingram]

You mean the guy that freed every slave in the entire country and is regarded as a hero by blacks to this very day?

He offered all of these Lincoln quotes:


“Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , Vol. II, p. 256).
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 405).

“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 521).

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I . . . am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (Collected Works Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 145-146).

“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 146).

“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (Collected Works, Vol. II p. 281).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right . . . to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 409).

“The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all black people] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 373-374).

“I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 130).

“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 460).

 

[strummingram]

That point out how epically stupid his argument is.

Try reading it again and see if you have the intelligence to understand.

I do agree that Jim Crow segregation became the norm after Union occupation. But, Abe Lincoln was not an abolitionist. His quotes sound more like David Duke.

 

[naturalmwa]

He offered all of these Lincoln quotes:


“Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , Vol. II, p. 256).
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 405).

“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 521).

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I . . . am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (Collected Works Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, pp. 145-146).

“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 146).

“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (Collected Works, Vol. II p. 281).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right . . . to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 409).

“The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all black people] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 373-374).

“I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.” (Collected Works, Vol. II, p. 130).

“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 460).

It's so interesting the way your moral relativism works. On most issues you distrust politician's words and look at their deeds. But here you pick the opposite stance to better maintain your argument.

 

[TexMichFan]

It's so interesting the way your moral relativism works. On most issues you distrust politician's words and look at their deeds. But here you pick the opposite stance to better maintain your argument.

Natural, do you think it is possible Lincoln's actions in free the slaves had more to do with preserving the Union than ending the slavery.

We will never know but I think the quotes they have put in this thread at least raise the idea that Lincoln wouldn't have ended slavery if the south had not seceded.

 

[naturalmwa]

Natural, do you think it is possible Lincoln's actions in free the slaves had more to do with preserving the Union than ending the slavery.

We will never know but I think the quotes they have put in this thread at least raise the idea that Lincoln wouldn't have ended slavery if the south had not seceded.

I think that's absolutely true. My point is psychology doesn't matter. Only deeds and policy matters. If you free the slaves because you think it's right or just to screw over the south it doesn't matter. The slaves are still free, the policy is still correct and correct action gets praise.

 

[TJ8869]

Based on his House Divided speech, I'd say Lincoln was of the opinion that the United States needed to either allow slavery nationwide or ban it nationwide. I don't know whether he would have banned slavery absent the Civil War, but I think Civil War almost became inevitable after the battles that took place in Kansas and Missouri over popular sovereignty.

 

[DanL53]

Lincoln made it clear he would free no slave. He was however opposed to the expansion of slavery outside of the states where it already existed.

By the time he was inaugurated, I believe seven states had already seceded. So from his first day in office his task was to preserve the Union. In that process, freeing the slaves in states in revolt became the pragmatic thing to do. By the end of the Civil War, the rebellious South had made itself so politically weak (as happens when rebels lose a war) that freeing all the slaves was inevitable. Lincoln of course was dead by then.

Measuring Lincoln, one should be aware of the times in which he lead this Country. Clearly many of his comments made during the Lincoln/Douglas debates would not endure him to us if he suddenly appeared and made them today. But something important to understand, Lincoln was a politician and in those debates held in Southern Illinois he made more pro-slavery comments than he did in debates occurring in Northern Illinois. Hint, Politician.

As to the legality of secession, in my laymen's view I think the South had a strong case. Too bad for them that they behaved like rebels and not statesmen or they might have succeeded. A quick glance, and the United States was putting down rebellions of various causes long before the South finally made good on their many threats to leave. Shay's Rebellion, which occurred EVEN BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. A rebellion to which one Samuel Adams saw cause to aid in the writing of a RIOT ACT which suspended habeas corpus (imprisonment without trial). He even supported a legal distinction, that persons in revolt against a republic, as opposed to those in revolt against a monarchy, should be put to death!

That's just one example. There is also the Whiskey Rebellion which drew our First President, George Washington, out of his office and found him at the head of an army of around 12,900 men prepared to put the rebellion down. (This is the only time in our history a sitting President commanded troops in the field.) He soon turned over command to General Henry Lee and went back to the Capital. And yes, State Militia now Federalized put down a rebellion.

There are other examples. But the key I think is that the IDEA that the South could wave a finger and leave the United States was folly. Look to the New England Federalists and their threats to secede during the War of 1812! Better still, look to the response of Southerners who at the time called the Federalist traitors.

Anyone who felt the South should have been surprised or baffled at Lincoln's determination to put down insurrection, large though it was, needs to look beyond the quotes of a few men, at when those quotes were made, and why. For example:

A famous Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The rest of it? "It is its natural manure." That was about Shay's Revolt, which he did not support. Not everything the Central Government did was wrong. Not every state nor citizen who felt put upon was right.

And Lincolns actions and words need to be measured in context with history.

 

[KitingHigh]

Lincoln made it clear he would free no slave. He was however opposed to the expansion of slavery outside of the states where it already existed.

By the time he was inaugurated, I believe seven states had already seceded. So from his first day in office his task was to preserve the Union. In that process, freeing the slaves in states in revolt became the pragmatic thing to do. By the end of the Civil War, the rebellious South had made itself so politically weak (as happens when rebels lose a war) that freeing all the slaves was inevitable. Lincoln of course was dead by then.

Measuring Lincoln, one should be aware of the times in which he lead this Country. Clearly many of his comments made during the Lincoln/Douglas debates would not endure him to us if he suddenly appeared and made them today. But something important to understand, Lincoln was a politician and in those debates held in Southern Illinois he made more pro-slavery comments than he did in debates occurring in Northern Illinois. Hint, Politician.

As to the legality of secession, in my laymen's view I think the South had a strong case. Too bad for them that they behaved like rebels and not statesmen or they might have succeeded. A quick glance, and the United States was putting down rebellions of various causes long before the South finally made good on their many threats to leave. Shay's Rebellion, which occurred EVEN BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. A rebellion to which one Samuel Adams saw cause to aid in the writing of a RIOT ACT which suspended habeas corpus (imprisonment without trial). He even supported a legal distinction, that persons in revolt against a republic, as opposed to those in revolt against a monarchy, should be put to death!

That's just one example. There is also the Whiskey Rebellion which drew our First President, George Washington, out of his office and found him at the head of an army of around 12,900 men prepared to put the rebellion down. (This is the only time in our history a sitting President commanded troops in the field.) He soon turned over command to General Henry Lee and went back to the Capital. And yes, State Militia now Federalized put down a rebellion.

There are other examples. But the key I think is that the IDEA that the South could wave a finger and leave the United States was folly. Look to the New England Federalists and their threats to secede during the War of 1812! Better still, look to the response of Southerners who at the time called the Federalist traitors.

Anyone who felt the South should have been surprised or baffled at Lincoln's determination to put down insurrection, large though it was, needs to look beyond the quotes of a few men, at when those quotes were made, and why. For example:

A famous Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The rest of it? "It is its natural manure." That was about Shay's Revolt, which he did not support. Not everything the Central Government did was wrong. Not every state nor citizen who felt put upon was right.

And Lincolns actions and words need to be measured in context with history.

you know manure in that context means fertilizer right?

 

[DanL53]

Do you know Jefferson Davis was prepared to end slavery as well? Two Emmisaries were sent to

you know manure in that context means fertilizer right?

I'm from Iowa. I know how crops are grown. But if that is what you got out of my post I wasted my time.

 

[KitingHigh]

I'm from Iowa. I know how crops are grown. But if that is what you got out of my post I wasted my time.

You kinda rambled on. I wasn't sure about your intention in using that quote. It wasn't real clear.

 

[DanL53]

You kinda rambled on. I wasn't sure about your intention in using that quote. It wasn't real clear.

Look to the rebellion that caused him to say what he did. He in no way was supporting the cause. And it's fairly presumptuous to believe he would have supported the Southern Cause either.

 

[strummingram]

It's so interesting the way your moral relativism works. On most issues you distrust politician's words and look at their deeds. But here you pick the opposite stance to better maintain your argument.

I definitely don't trust their words. Do you think Lincoln was lying and pandering with those statements?

 

[naturalmwa]

I definitely don't trust their words. Do you think Lincoln was lying and pandering with those statements?

Probably.

 

[strummingram]

Probably.

To better maintain YOUR argument.

 

[naturalmwa]

To better maintain YOUR argument.

It used to be your argument too, but not now. Weird. I know my Lincoln. I know those quotes. I know he was political, not some nice earthy charmer from the great plains. And I know he made the world a more just place by freeing the slaves and I appreciate that policy shift.

 

[strummingram]

It used to be your argument too, but not now. Weird. I know my Lincoln. I know those quotes. I know he was political, not some nice earthy charmer from the great plains. And I know he made the world a more just place by freeing the slaves and I appreciate that policy shift.

Lincoln didn't really free the slaves. Abolitionists did all the work (as well as dead soldiers) and he got all the credit... while verbalizing the opposite intent and attitude publicly and privately. Sounds like a charmer to me. Give credit to the Abolitionists.

 

[naturalmwa]

Lincoln didn't really free the slaves. Abolitionists did all the work (as well as dead soldiers) and he got all the credit... while verbalizing the opposite intent and attitude publicly and privately. Sounds like a charmer to me. Give credit to the Abolitionists.

I would certainly include them in the praise worthy circle, but you're just being obtuse and petulant not to credit the people who actually signed the laws that freed them.

 

[strummingram]

I would certainly include them in the praise worthy circle, but you're just being obtuse and petulant not to credit the people who actually signed the laws that freed them.

I call it not glorifying a pandering politician who takes credit and does little of the work. Government would be great of it weren't filled with politicians. People who are basically paid to lie are hardly people I want in charge.

 

[naturalmwa]

I call it not glorifying a pandering politician who takes credit and does little of the work. Government would be great of it weren't filled with politicians. People who are basically paid to lie are hardly people I want in charge.

Yes, tyrants are so preferable. Do you ever think through these positions of yours? You want politicians because they can be controlled and are thus preferable to the alternative. You want to praise pandering, because that's part of how you control them. Would you not praise your child who pandered to you by doing something you wanted? Well politicians are just grown children and want to be patted on their head too. Now be a good American and admit Lincoln did a good thing.

 

[strummingram]

Yes, tyrants are so preferable. Do you ever think through these positions of yours? You want politicians because they can be controlled and are thus preferable to the alternative. You want to praise pandering, because that's part of how you control them. Would you not praise your child who pandered to you by doing something you wanted? Well politicians are just grown children and want to be patted on their head too. Now be a good American and admit Lincoln did a good thing.

So, by pandering to you and telling you what you want to HEAR, they're trustworthy? At least you're back on the "I prefer words to actions" team. You're not controlling them if they're fooling you with their words.

pander
verb pan·der \ˈpan-dər\
: to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable

Forgive me for not praising pandering.

We disagree again... big shock.

 

[KitingHigh]

Yes, tyrants are so preferable. Do you ever think through these positions of yours? You want politicians because they can be controlled and are thus preferable to the alternative. You want to praise pandering, because that's part of how you control them. Would you not praise your child who pandered to you by doing something you wanted? Well politicians are just grown children and want to be patted on their head too. Now be a good American and admit Lincoln did a good thing.

Hitler did some good things too. Should he get a pat on the head?

 

[strummingram]

Hitler did some good things too. Should he get a pat on the head?

Tyrants are in the eyes of the beholder. Some people could easily really LOVE the idea of a dictator, if the dictator reflects everything you endorse instinctively. Especially if they're a really good charmer. Hitler and Lincoln were exceptional charmers. Hitler's team lost it's war and Lincoln's team won theirs. Favor falls on the victor each time.

I will openly and fervently praise the abolition of Slavery that Lincoln made official. But, it took little courage or effort on his part. Obama didn't create the ACA, but he gets credit for it. He endorsed it, too. His actions were expected. Of course he was going to sign it.

 

[naturalmwa]

So, by pandering to you and telling you what you want to HEAR, they're trustworthy? At least you're back on the "I prefer words to actions" team. You're not controlling them if they're fooling you with their words.

pander
verb pan·der \ˈpan-dər\
: to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable

Forgive me for not praising pandering.

We disagree again... big shock.

You have such a problem with definitions. Pander is to take desired actions. Yes that should be praised. Now if you want to argue that freeing the slaves is unreasonable, thats your cross to carry. You really should be embarrassed by these arguments.

 

[strummingram]

You have such a problem with definitions. Pander is to take desired actions. Yes that should be praised. Now if you want to argue that freeing the slaves is unreasonable, thats your cross to carry. You really should be embarrassed by these arguments.

I was just quoting Merriam Webster. I thought that was always your source of proper language and how we define terms/words, etc.. I'll take your advice and disregard it, or at least make exceptions for certain contexts, from now on. Thanks.

 

[KitingHigh]

You have such a problem with definitions. Pander is to take desired actions. Yes that should be praised. Now if you want to argue that freeing the slaves is unreasonable, thats your cross to carry. You really should be embarrassed by these arguments.

He was using an official definition. Here is another one:

pan·der
ˈpandər/
verb

1. 1.
   gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).
   "newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts"
   synonyms: indulge, gratify, satisfy, cater to, give in to, accommodate, comply with
   "David was always there to pander to her every whim"

 

[naturalmwa]

I was just quoting Merriam Webster. I thought that was always your source of proper language and how we define terms/words, etc.. I'll take your advice from now on. Thanks.

You're reading comprehension has failed you again. You said I was after words while your definition clearly says its actions. Are you sure English is your native tongue?

 

[naturalmwa]

He was using an official definition. Here is another one:

pan·der
ˈpandər/
verb

1. 1.
   gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).
   "newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts"
   synonyms: indulge, gratify, satisfy, cater to, give in to, accommodate, comply with
   "David was always there to pander to her every whim"

Yes, I know what it means and he is using that term in the context of freeing slaves which means he is calling emancipating millions from bondage an immoral or distasteful desire, need. Sit on that context.

 

[strummingram]

You're reading comprehension has failed you again. You said I was after words while your definition clearly says its actions. Are you sure English is your native tongue?

Yes, just as Bullsh*t is yours.

 

[strummingram]

Yes, I know what it means and he is using that term in the context of freeing slaves which means he is calling emancipating millions from bondage an immoral or distasteful desire, need. Sit on that context.

You MUST be a lawyer.

 

[naturalmwa]

You MUST be a lawyer.

Nope, I just know how to use a dictionary. I appreciate that you attempted to demonstrate that skill. Even in failure that's progress on your usual self defined notions of the moment. Don't give up, I'll try to help you when I can. Here's a tip. When your source says one thing, it's helpful not to contradict that in your commentary.

 

[strummingram]

Nope, I just know how to use a dictionary. I appreciate that you attempted to demonstrate that skill. Even in failure that's progress on your usual self defined notions of the moment. Don't give up, I'll try to help you when I can. Here's a tip. When your source says one thing, it's helpful not to contradict that in your commentary.

Here's an even better tip: When you know someone's intent, stop dragging it in the other direction because you think it makes you look cute on an internet message board. I don't see Lincoln's actions of "freeing the slaves" as pandering. I've never condemned that act. I've praised it. You've not helped me with anything except seeing your true nature. It's the opposite of the altruist you like to paint yourself as being.

 

[naturalmwa]

Here's an even better tip: When you know someone's intent, stop dragging it in the other direction because you think it makes you look cute on an internet message board. I don't see Lincoln's actions of "freeing the slaves" as pandering. I've never condemned that act. I've praised it. You've not helped me with anything except seeing your true nature. It's the opposite of the altruist you like to paint yourself as being.

So now it's my fault you can't communicate? The subject was freeing the slaves. You said Lincoln didn't do that, the abolitionists did. I replied that the guy signing the law deserved credit too. You called that rewarding pandering. If your intent wasn't to call that pandering, you did a piss poor job of representing your views.

 

[Nat Algren]

It's so interesting the way your moral relativism works. On most issues you distrust politician's words and look at their deeds. But here you pick the opposite stance to better maintain your argument.

There's a simple answer to that. It will probably go over your head anyway. Politicians should never be trusted. When they say something nice, it's a matter of political expediency...boob bait for the Bubba's, as Sen. Moynihan would say. But, why? why would anyone say anything as reprehensible as what was muttered out of Lincoln's supremacist mouth? Surely, not out of expediency.

 

[Nat Algren]

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been welcomed in 1776: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But that was Lincoln’s 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

 

[DanL53]

There's a simple answer to that. It will probably go over your head anyway. Politicians should never be trusted. When they say something nice, it's a matter of political expediency...boob bait for the Bubba's, as Sen. Moynihan would say. But, why? why would anyone say anything as reprehensible as what was muttered out of Lincoln's supremacist mouth? Surely, not out of expediency.

Yuh huh! (Meaning yes it was expedient) Going down to Little Egypt meant entering some very Southern sympathetic counties in Illinois.

 

[Nat Algren]

He was a filthy racist.

Abraham Lincoln's direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners' right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no…legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Sewardsaid, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.

 

[naturalmwa]

There's a simple answer to that. It will probably go over your head anyway. Politicians should never be trusted. When they say something nice, it's a matter of political expediency...boob bait for the Bubba's, as Sen. Moynihan would say. But, why? why would anyone say anything as reprehensible as what was muttered out of Lincoln's supremacist mouth? Surely, not out of expediency.

Why would you think that people voting didn't want to hear that message? But if the rule is don't trust words, aren't you supporting my position that we should only trust deeds? It's weird that you both want to make this your Waterloo (that's for strumm) as my argument should fit your world view. I suspect you both are just flummoxed by the obvious reasonableness and truth of my position. Take your time. Soak in my wisdom.