7th grade VA history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason for the civil war was politics as well. You think you are smarter than you are.

All wars are political. They may have economic causes, but ultimately, they are political. The Civil War also had economic causes (slavery was a part of that), but, of course, politics were involved. No one said otherwise.

[Anonymous]

The other thing people like OP (who may also be the 11:07 and 12:21) do is they say other's statements are false without pointing to actual facts that make other's statements false ("Revisionist history, It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true - just opinions with no factual backup), they call names or talk down to people (You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts, Please go read some real history - these are just put downs), and they also see things as separate entities, purely political is the example in this case. Nothing is purely anything. How do people like this graduate from high school? Have they ever initiated a pro and con argument before on a topic that discusses an item thoroughly with no complete right or wrong conclusion? Notice that OP also has never responded as to whether it was also taught that Lee had some un-respected parts of his legacy. In her mind it seems Lee must come across as purely evil to fit her agenda. God forbid anything good about him is mentioned as well and he comes across nuanced and human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason for the civil war was politics as well. You think you are smarter than you are.

All wars are political. They may have economic causes, but ultimately, they are political. The Civil War also had economic causes (slavery was a part of that), but, of course, politics were involved. No one said otherwise.

You stated that 3/5 person was not racist, just political. However the south seceding for slavery was racist. They are both racist and they are both political. You are not making any point that is coherent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thing people like OP (who may also be the 11:07 and 12:21) do is they say other's statements are false without pointing to actual facts that make other's statements false ("Revisionist history, It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true - just opinions with no factual backup), they call names or talk down to people (You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts, Please go read some real history - these are just put downs), and they also see things as separate entities, purely political is the example in this case. Nothing is purely anything. How do people like this graduate from high school? Have they ever initiated a pro and con argument before on a topic that discusses an item thoroughly with no complete right or wrong conclusion? Notice that OP also has never responded as to whether it was also taught that Lee had some un-respected parts of his legacy. In her mind it seems Lee must come across as purely evil to fit her agenda. God forbid anything good about him is mentioned as well and he comes across nuanced and human.

12:21 here. I am not the OP. No, I'm not going to engage with someone who says the civil war was about cotton or the economy and not slavery. I'm not going to cite facts or sources. If you want to, go for it. If you are 12:17, feel free to continue spouting whatever nonsense makes you happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing people like OP (who may also be the 11:07 and 12:21) do is they say other's statements are false without pointing to actual facts that make other's statements false ("Revisionist history, It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true - just opinions with no factual backup), they call names or talk down to people (You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts, Please go read some real history - these are just put downs), and they also see things as separate entities, purely political is the example in this case. Nothing is purely anything. How do people like this graduate from high school? Have they ever initiated a pro and con argument before on a topic that discusses an item thoroughly with no complete right or wrong conclusion? Notice that OP also has never responded as to whether it was also taught that Lee had some un-respected parts of his legacy. In her mind it seems Lee must come across as purely evil to fit her agenda. God forbid anything good about him is mentioned as well and he comes across nuanced and human.

12:21 here. I am not the OP. No, I'm not going to engage with someone who says the civil war was about cotton or the economy and not slavery. I'm not going to cite facts or sources. If you want to, go for it. If you are 12:17, feel free to continue spouting whatever nonsense makes you happy.

This is not the first time you've quoted me saying my words incorrectly. You didn't notice my words "founding fathers" and quoted me incorrectly there and you also didn't notice these sentences which clearly show the relationship of slavery to cotton. You have an agenda which seems to be prohibiting you from reading with an open mind.

"While the common thinking of liberals today is that the civil war was over slavery. It is more nuanced. It was over cotton's prosperity to which the south thought slavery and states rights was essential for keeping that prosperity. The south kept wanting more states rights but then contradicted themselves with the Dred Scott case when they asked for federal government intervention. While the south put slavery into their declarations of seceding, this was partly their belief and partly because of political and economic reasons over cotton"

[Anonymous]

12:21 here. I am not the OP. No, I'm not going to engage with someone who says the civil war was about cotton or the economy and not slavery. I'm not going to cite facts or sources. If you want to, go for it. If you are 12:17, feel free to continue spouting whatever nonsense makes you happy.

You do not understand history. Of course, it was about slavery--because cotton and the economy were a part of that. No excuse for slavery--but that is why. Do you really think they had slaves just for fun? It was horrible--but, there were other elements that made slavery attractive to plantation owners. It's the economy. Almost, always. As Carville told Clinton: "It's the economy, Stupid."
If you cannot understand all the nuances that go into this, you are deceiving yourself.

[Anonymous]

13:10 again. BTW I'm not 13:11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

12:21 here. I am not the OP. No, I'm not going to engage with someone who says the civil war was about cotton or the economy and not slavery. I'm not going to cite facts or sources. If you want to, go for it. If you are 12:17, feel free to continue spouting whatever nonsense makes you happy.

You do not understand history. Of course, it was about slavery--because cotton and the economy were a part of that. No excuse for slavery--but that is why. Do you really think they had slaves just for fun? It was horrible--but, there were other elements that made slavery attractive to plantation owners. It's the economy. Almost, always. As Carville told Clinton: "It's the economy, Stupid."
If you cannot understand all the nuances that go into this, you are deceiving yourself.

An economy based on slavery. At least you didn't say states' rights, I'll grant you that.

[Anonymous]

13:15 The North also had an economy based on slavery indirectly. They took the cotton from the south and made textile fabric. They needed the wealth of the south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it troubling that my child's 7th grade history class is being taught that Robert E Lee's legacy was that he opposed slavery -(even though he had slaves and fought against the union in the civil war)?

Yikes. That's disconcerting. Is this curriculum pushed down from Richmond? Bunch of racist rednecks down there so not too surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are the revisionist sweetie. Everything I mentioned is covered in the history books. Ask any black person whether a decision to make blacks 3/5 of a person is a racist law or not and let me know if they say no.

You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts.

The reason, in this instance, was politics.

There is plenty of evidence of racism without throwing this in. It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true.

The gas-lighting in this thread is astounding.

I feel for black people. It's got to be jarring to see how much people will go out of their way from every admitting the horrors black people have gone through for so, so long in this country.

[Anonymous]

More on Robert E Lee (who I am not going to call a general, because he was only a general in the Traitor States of America, and don't even try with the "they were declared legally not to be traitors")

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are the revisionist sweetie. Everything I mentioned is covered in the history books. Ask any black person whether a decision to make blacks 3/5 of a person is a racist law or not and let me know if they say no.

You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts.

The reason, in this instance, was politics.

There is plenty of evidence of racism without throwing this in. It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true.

The gas-lighting in this thread is astounding.

I feel for black people. It's got to be jarring to see how much people will go out of their way from every admitting the horrors black people have gone through for so, so long in this country.

Again. Prove what is gaslighting. Prove what statements are false. There is nothing stated on here that is false. The south can still be blamed for carrying on slavery while the north is also recognized for not being so clean themselves. There is no fully just side. It's obvious there are no black people on this thread because they just see everyone as white. Blacks are fully aware there was racism in the north prior, during, and after the civil war that continues today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are the revisionist sweetie. Everything I mentioned is covered in the history books. Ask any black person whether a decision to make blacks 3/5 of a person is a racist law or not and let me know if they say no.

You need to learn the difference between emotion and facts.

The reason, in this instance, was politics.

There is plenty of evidence of racism without throwing this in. It's been bandied about incorrectly for so long that you believe it to be true.

The gas-lighting in this thread is astounding.

I feel for black people. It's got to be jarring to see how much people will go out of their way from every admitting the horrors black people have gone through for so, so long in this country.

Again. Prove what is gaslighting. Prove what statements are false. There is nothing stated on here that is false. The south can still be blamed for carrying on slavery while the north is also recognized for not being so clean themselves. There is no fully just side. It's obvious there are no black people on this thread because they just see everyone as white. Blacks are fully aware there was racism in the north prior, during, and after the civil war that continues today.

Prove slavery happened! Prove segregation happened! Prove red lining had an impact on the black family!

It's all made up! Lies, all of them. The ills of black America are entirely of their own doing because they are lesser people.

/There, I fixed it, PP.

No one should have to prove this stuff. It's like asking a Jewish person to "prove" that the Holocaust happened.

[Anonymous]

Prove slavery happened! Prove segregation happened! Prove red lining had an impact on the black family!

There is absolutely no one stating these things didn't happen or aren't happening now. You are projecting based on false accusations.