Tennessee teacher/baseball coach fired for teaching about anti-racism and white privilege

[aggie08 21434]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It is hindsight. There were slave states that remained in the Union, and they did so not expecting to end up freeing the enslaved people. The emancipation proclamation did not apply to people in these states, and would not have applied to any state that wanted to rejoin the union prior to its implementation. While abolitionists no doubt put Lincoln over the top for the Republican nomination in 1860 they were a minority in the party, and still considered fringe by the larger electorate. A significant portion of the populace in the north was against abolition due to the inevitable increased supply of labor suppressing wages.

And there absolutely was legitimate legal debate about the right of an individual state or group of states to leave the Union.  The civil war occurred less than 100 years after the ratification of the constitution, which was a touch and go process in its own right.  

 

 

I'm speaking to the morality of slavery at the time. That isn't hindsight. By then, it wasn't just "the way things were." America was a straggler in a world that had made it pretty clear which direction they were moving. We were behind the times, fighting hard to remain oppressors for personal gain.

[deadshank 24651]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:33 PM, JimmyJames said:

Fascism does not tolerate dissent from the orthodoxy. 

You left out a lot of other current isms that meet this statement.  

[Sawbonz 27436]

Interestingly Shelby Foote thought even if Douglas had won in 60 it would have only delayed the inevitable bloodshed, though he said it might have been a shorter conflict. Seward and the abolitionists weren’t going away and the fire eaters weren’t going away

[Sawbonz 27436]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I'm speaking to the morality of slavery at the time. That isn't hindsight. By then, it wasn't just "the way things were." America was a straggler in a world that had made it pretty clear which direction they were moving. We were behind the times, fighting hard to remain oppressors for personal gain.

Yes but the whole of the country “we the people” were morally behind the times. Even after fort Sumter slavery remained the law of the land

[hpslugga 4044]

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I can't believe anything else would ever be taught to anyone, but recognize that reality existed/may still exist.

By and large it depends on where you were educated and when, and the same is true of other historic moments of the country.

So take the Texas Revolution. Again, I got the same bullshit story most of you were fed. That Dave Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis, et al were a bunch of noble heroes trying to free these peaceful white settlers from the tyrannical grip of the evil Santa Ana. But if you grew up in San Antonio and the Valley, you get a much different story as I was recently told by my godfather's two children (about my age). 

[hpslugga 4044]

10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

We were behind the times

[Jeff]Seems like a pattern there, Ron[/Foxworthy]

[aggie08 21434]

8 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

[Jeff]Seems like a pattern there, Ron[/Foxworthy]

Always a good sign when the fucking British colonies are looking down on you.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

32 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes he did, and he chose like many did based on things that today are forgotten touchstones (Beyond the issue of slavery).

I grew up in Va. and was never taught anything other than slavery was the cause of the war.  States rights, tariffs, and Slave expansion into the territories were all secondary to the main issue of slavery.

The lost cause as a Romantic notion of the war was never taught in any school I attended, and when it was discussed was taught as the whitewashing of the real cause.

I can't believe anything else would ever be taught to anyone, but recognize that reality existed/may still exist.

Houston, same. Did a book reports on Frederick Douglas.  We were taught it was 99% about slavery. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Always a good sign when the fucking British colonies are looking down on you.

I mean we were founded by religious fanatics, criminals, and slavers. That shit is going to stay with you

[tigol 2383]

On 7/10/2021 at 7:14 AM, aggie08 said:

Dude, did we have the same teacher? Robert E Lee was a brilliant man who would have fought for the Union, but he just couldn't abandon his beloved Virginia.

 

This is what I was taught as well.  Arlington, Texas ~1989.

[Bateshorn 9905]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 

And there absolutely was legitimate legal debate about the right of an individual state or group of states to leave the Union.  The civil war occurred less than 100 years after the ratification of the constitution, which was a touch and go process in its own right.  

 

 

After the Nullification Crisis, there wasn’t really a legitimate legal debate, there was a political/philosophical debate as to whether the south could pull it off.  And tbh, after the New England states nearly left in 1812, it was more a question of logistics than legality.  
 

I wouldn’t call Lee a Genius as much as wildly competent relative to the politically appointed neophytes he faced in the early stages of the war. He was an experienced and dynamic leader who had proven himself during the Mexican-American war. Much of the North’s officer corps at the beginning of the Civil war had little to no military experience because the pre civil war  Army was basically lead by children of the South.  Having said that, his decisions Gettysburg (along with his habit of issuing vague orders) proved to be jaw droppingly stupid. 
 

Because of the south’s inheritance traditions, younger sons often sought careers in the military since they traditionally inherited nothing (a tradition carried over from England), so the office corps was decimated after Sumter as they all left.  

It took two years to compently rebuild the junior officer corps while Lincoln (and in a way Lee) weeded out the dilettantes from the actual leaders in the Senior corps. 
 

It opposite way in the Navy:  it was almost entirely the province of the North, seen as either a career or a stepping stone to private commerce. 
 

I was taught the State’s Rights/Gentle Bobby Lee version of the war in the late 80s at Westlake.  My wife grew up in Montana.  They were taught it was about slavery, cut and dry, and they didn’t linger on the military aspects of it other than Gettysburg and Sumter.

 Otoh, they spent an entire semester on Lewis and Clark.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bateshorn

[deadshank 24651]

25 minutes ago, tigol said:

This is what I was taught as well.  Arlington, Texas ~1989.

What HS in Arlington?

[Bateshorn 9905]

54 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I'm speaking to the morality of slavery at the time. That isn't hindsight. By then, it wasn't just "the way things were." America was a straggler in a world that had made it pretty clear which direction they were moving. We were behind the times, fighting hard to remain oppressors for personal gain.

The South wasn’t just fighting hard to remain oppressors, they were actively attempting to expand slavery across the country and make it a permanent institution.  Lincoln was basically elected on a platform of “Slavery can stay, but we aren’t going to make it worse or grow it”.  The south flipped out over even that moderate position. 

[tigol 2383]

1 minute ago, deadshank said:

What HS in Arlington?

Martin.  But, I think the Lee thing came up in elementary school.

[sidis 9754]

“Varying points of view” about what?

I am not surprised by the superintendent’s decision at all with the way these fucking idiots have begun making school board meetings their new stop the steal outlets but what varying point of view did he want presented?

[deadshank 24651]

8 minutes ago, tigol said:

Martin.  But, I think the Lee thing came up in elementary school.

I got out of AHS In 82.  I don’t recall what they were specifically teaching about state’s rights v. slavery.   
 

If I had to lay a bet I’m sure it was state’s rights but most knew better than that.  
 

I just wanted to get laid.  

Edited July 11, 2021 by deadshank

[Sawbonz 27436]

23 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

After the Nullification Crisis, there wasn’t really a legitimate legal debate, there was a political/philosophical debate as to whether the south could pull it off

Ultimately whether it’s legal or not comes down to whether you have the military might and will to do it. And that was not decided until the Civil War. To say that prominent people didn’t believe that their states could legally secede prior to surrender at Appomattox is just not accurate 

[hpslugga 4044]

15 minutes ago, sidis said:

“Varying points of view” about what?

I am not surprised by the superintendent’s decision at all with the way these fucking idiots have begun making school board meetings their new stop the steal outlets but what varying point of view did he want presented?

They’re just adhering to the post-modernist tradition and value of “everything is an opinion, nothing is moral or immoral, all opinions are equally valid, feelings and emotions, blah blah blah.”

[Bateshorn 9905]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Ultimately whether it’s legal or not comes down to whether you have the military might and will to do it. And that was not decided until the Civil War. To say that prominent people didn’t believe that their states could legally secede prior to surrender at Appomattox is just not accurate 

When I say Legal debate I mean that serious legal minds thought there was no viable path to peaceful succession.  Andrew Jackson definitely put an end to that conversation. 
 

Sure, there were people who thought they should be able to, but it was clear that it was not going to happen through some sort of judicial path. It would require a set of political circumstances where the North let the South go. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bateshorn

[deadshank 24651]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They’re just adhering to the post-modernist tradition and value of “everything is an opinion, nothing is moral or immoral, all opinions are equally valid, feelings and emotions, blah blah blah.”

Well that “tradition” is a problem and a whole different topic.  

[Sawbonz 27436]

29 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The South wasn’t just fighting hard to remain oppressors, they were actively attempting to expand slavery across the country and make it a permanent institution.  Lincoln was basically elected on a platform of “Slavery can stay, but we aren’t going to make it worse or grow it”.  The south flipped out over even that moderate position. 

That’s because they knew slavery was already dead unless they could maintain enough votes in the legislature to keep it legal. In order for slavery to persist the number of slave states entering the union had to keep pace with the free states. That’s why bloody conflict was likely inevitable regardless of who won the election of 1860. Had Douglas one it may have occurred later and might have been shorter, but it was coming

[lmao 178]

 

[sidis 9754]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

They’re just adhering to the post-modernist tradition and value of “everything is an opinion, nothing is moral or immoral, all opinions are equally valid, feelings and emotions, blah blah blah.”

I read the spoken work white privilege poem just now and the notion that there was another point of view to be had and that the language was inappropriate for high schoolers is laughably stupid, if not downright offensive itself. That is ridiculous. The poem is entirely appropriate, accurate, and not really debatable.

I also just read the whole coates article and it has a bit more of a partisan political perspective woven through what is otherwise, a pretty factual recounting of historical behavior exhibited by trump and his bizarre cult of personality…as well as his fairly unapologetic ethos of self-aggrandizing on the backs of so-called sympathetic forgotten white cultural warriors. I can see there being a sliver of opportunity to say there was something of a counterpoint to be offered, but firing him for assigning it in a class called “contemporary issues” is batshit. I would love to point and just say well, Tennessee but we know this trend is ubiquitous, especially in Texas. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

When I say Legal debate I mean that serious legal minds thought there was no viable path to peaceful succession.  Andrew Jackson definitely put an end to that conversation. 
 

Sure, there were people who thought they should be able to, but it was clear that it was not going to happen through some sort of judicial path. It would require a set of political circumstances where the North let the South go. 

I’m pretty sure this point comes up almost exclusively with respect to the beliefs of the generals who left to join the confederacy, Lee preeminent among them. I don’t consider any of them serious legal minds, and to argue  their fealty was not to their states over the country is wrong 

[Bateshorn 9905]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s because they knew slavery was already dead unless they could maintain enough votes in the legislature to keep it legal. In order for slavery to persist the number of slave states entering the union had to keep pace with the free states. That’s why bloody conflict was likely inevitable regardless of who won the election of 1860. Had Douglas one it may have occurred later and might have been shorter, but it was coming

I would argue that the Founders knew this was going to  be a problem almost from the jump.  The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were both efforts to forstall what everyone saw was coming: Succession and War. 
 

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m pretty sure this point comes up almost exclusively with respect to the beliefs of the generals who left to join the confederacy, Lee preeminent among them. I don’t consider any of them serious legal minds, and to argue  their fealty was not to their states over the country is wrong 

There was a serious legal debate about it during the first 40 years of the countries founding. The New England Federalists came *this* close to leaving in 1812, and the Nullification Crisis was an attempt to subvert the primacy of the federal government to states rights through a formal, legal process.  
 

The Traitors who broke their oath and went to the South did so for any number of reasons, but ultimately it was to defend their state’s chattel slavery system.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Bateshorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 7/10/2021 at 9:43 AM, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Just curious but all those people that argue it was about states rights, what exactly is the states right in question other than having slaves?  Did the South go to war because they wanted to grow cotton but the North wouldn’t let them?  Was the North putting a ban on biscuits and gravy and making them eat scrapple for breakfast?  It’s such a bullshit argument but our population is just so stupid they believe it.

I think a big part of it was that the CSA had to sell a bunch of farm boys and laborers to join up and fight for rich plantation owners and their right to own slaves:  not an inherently popular cause.

So they transmogrified it into some "greater cause" in the form of the right of states to secede and determine for themselves various things, to include slavery, and the horror of having the "homeland" invaded by yankees..  That's a notion that is not completely at odds with the Constitution and the way the US was seen at the time.

Nonetheless, it was propaganda and not truth.   But I think its "stickiness" as an idea predated the end of the war and the lost cause mythology.

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

I would argue that the Founders knew this was going to  be a problem almost from the jump.  The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were both efforts to forstall what everyone saw was coming: Succession and War. 
 

 

Definitely, but it truly was a perfect storm in 1960 that led to the size and scope of the bloody conflict that occurred. As industrialization continued, slavery became less economically viable everywhere except the Deep South. There really wasn’t any territory to expand to where slavery made economic sense. So adding a new slave state per free state made no sense politically even if you take morality out of the debate. If Douglas could have won even one term, you may have had fewer states leave. SC was still eventually going to light the fuse but the powder keg may have been smaller and the military response more swift and sure

[Bateshorn 9905]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Definitely, but it truly was a perfect storm in 1960 that led to the size and scope of the bloody conflict that occurred. As industrialization continued, slavery became less economically viable everywhere except the Deep South. There really wasn’t any territory to expand to where slavery made economic sense. So adding a new slave state per free state made no sense politically even if you take morality out of the debate. If Douglas could have won even one term, you may have had fewer states leave. SC was still eventually going to light the fuse but the powder keg may have been smaller and the military response more swift and sure

After the Pierce Administration fucked up an attempt to get Cuba, the writing was on the wall. 
 

If the South Carolinians could have held off attacking Fort Sumter, there is a world where Indiana and Ohio may have not supported military action and the South might have been allowed to leave because Lincoln didn’t have the resources/support to fight a war.  
 

[Sawbonz 27436]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

 

The Traitors who broke their oath and went to the South did so for any number of reasons, but ultimately it was to defend their state’s chattel slavery system.

I certainly haven’t suggested otherwise. Are you referring to another post?

[Bateshorn 9905]

Look, the traditional States Rights argument is an after the fact outgrowth of the Dunning School.  By 1860, no one, outside of the South Carolina delegation, seriously thought states had a peaceful legal right to succeed.  
 

 

[Sawbonz 27436]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Look, the traditional States Rights argument is an after the fact outgrowth of the Dunning School.  By 1860, no one, outside of the South Carolina delegation, seriously thought states had a peaceful legal right to succeed.  
 

 

Well just them if you don’t count Lee and the other generals who left

 

Edit just saw the “peaceful “ qualifier. I honestly don’t think that entered into their calculus. How many peaceful secessions have there been in history prior to WWII

Edited July 11, 2021 by Sawbonz

[hpslugga 4044]

33 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Well that “tradition” is a problem and a whole different topic.  

It's a different topic, but the problem is nonetheless unavoidably attached to the answer to his question.

[Bateshorn 9905]

20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well just them if you don’t count Lee and the other generals who left

 

Edit just saw the “peaceful “ qualifier. I honestly don’t think that entered into their calculus. How many peaceful secessions have there been in history prior to WWII

Prior to the Nullification Crises, it was an open question whether the Feds would enforce a union. 
 

To my knowledge Lee opposed secession, at least as accounted by private conversations with Winfield Scott, but went with Virginia out of sense of loyalty. 

[David Dennison 18661]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Yes but the whole of the country “we the people” were morally behind the times. Even after fort Sumter slavery remained the law of the land

Fun fact: The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

After the Pierce Administration fucked up an attempt to get Cuba, the writing was on the wall. 
 

If the South Carolinians could have held off attacking Fort Sumter, there is a world where Indiana and Ohio may have not supported military action and the South might have been allowed to leave because Lincoln didn’t have the resources/support to fight a war.  
 

This is why the “south could never win so it wasn’t Robert E Lee’s fault”argument ultimately fails.  There was a political path for the south to win they just continually made the wrong decisions on and off the battlefield to reach it. Lincoln being so much better than Davis as a politician is what ultimately doomed the south. Washington was dealt a worse hand against the British than Lee yet somehow he prevailed. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by JimmyJames

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This is why the “south could never winner so it wasn’t Robert E Lee’s fault”argument ultimately fails.  There was a political path for the south to win they just continually made the wrong decisions on and off the battlefield to reach it. Lincoln being so much better than Davis as a politician is what ultimately doomed the south. Washington was dealt a worse hand against the British than Lee yet somehow he prevailed. 

He had some help from the French. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He had some help from the French. 

A lot of course. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He had some help from the French. 

And Spain 

[Sawbonz 27436]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This is why the “south could never win so it wasn’t Robert E Lee’s fault”argument ultimately fails.

Gettysburg was Lee’s fault. I have not read anyone argue otherwise. He had to get there first, and failing that he had to strategically withdraw and try to play keep away until the election in 1964. Instead, he got there late and went all in. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Gettysburg was Lee’s fault. I have not read anyone argue otherwise. He had to get there first, and failing that he had to strategically withdraw and try to play keep away until the election in 1964. Instead, he got there late and went all in. 

A victim of his own (and his men's ) success up to that point IMO.

History is made in seconds, and minutes.  Lees not getting there in time to take the high ground is a good example of that concept.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

A victim of his own (and his men's ) success up to that point IMO.

History is made in seconds, and minutes.  Lees not getting there in time to take the high ground is a good example of that concept.

To be more precise, the course a river takes to find the sea can be made in seconds. But it's gonna happen, the easy way or the hard way.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Gettysburg was Lee’s fault. I have not read anyone argue otherwise. He had to get there first, and failing that he had to strategically withdraw and try to play keep away until the election in 1964. Instead, he got there late and went all in. 

Where did you say you were taught history again? (j/k)

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

44 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

To be more precise, the course a river takes to find the sea can be made in seconds. But it's gonna happen, the easy way or the hard way.

No I don't agree.  There are many different courses ( forks in a river) history can take that would lead to different outcomes.

 Lee getting to high ground before Meades forces wasn't a river flowing toward eventuality. it was a matter of timing, coincidence, a million little incidents along the march north, and orders disobeyed  that precluded it from happening.

The course of history could very well have changed had Lee occupied that ground.

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I don't agree.  There are many different courses ( forks in a river) history can take that would lead to different outcomes.

 Lee getting to high ground before Meades forces wasn't a river flowing toward eventuality. it was a matter of timing, coincidence, a million little incidents along the march north, and orders disobeyed  that precluded it from happening.

The course of history could very well have changed had Lee occupied that ground.

 

Well, and Lee not listening to Longstreet and withdrawing after Early and Ewell dithered, then not standing up forcefully for Longstreet after the war is one of several black marks on Lee’s name that I s often not taught in the traditional “war of state’s rights/gentle Bob Lee” narrative.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

The North did not go to war to free the slaves; they South absolutely provoked the war to keep their slaves. In addition to the Secession Conventions, there's the story of rebel General Patrick Cleburne. After Gettysburg and Vicksburg, he saw the writing on the wall and proposed that the South arm the slaves and give those that served freedom after the war. Davis and Confederate brass were astonished by this proposal; there was talk that Cleburne had lost his mind and/or should be hung for treason. Cleburne, and Irishman who'd served in the British army prior to coming to America, actually believed the pretty talk about states' rights -- he'd come to have Irish Republican sympathies after growing disillusioned serving the Crown. And he said that arming and freeing the slaves would change the moral parameters of the war, but like I said, they wanted to hang him for his troubles, but he was indispensable in the field, and he was killed at Franklin a couple of months later, anyway. Up and down the chain of command, from Davis on down, they all agreed that arming and freeing the slaves would defeat the whole purpose of the war. 

Davis almost successfully suppressed Cleburne's proposal for all time but his aide d'camp -- who was utterly opposed to the proposal -- hung on to a copy and it was discovered among his papers when he died in San Francisco in the 1870s. 

 

6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Ultimately whether it’s legal or not comes down to whether you have the military might and will to do it. And that was not decided until the Civil War. To say that prominent people didn’t believe that their states could legally secede prior to surrender at Appomattox is just not accurate 

Prior to 1865, it was more common to say "the United States are a great country." The war changed the "are" to an "is."

[aggie08 21434]

5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The North did not go to war to free the slaves; they South absolutely provoked the war to keep their slaves.

This. That is one unintentional bi-product about making the Civil War exclusively about slavery...it pats America on the back a little too hard. The notion that half the country banded together to free slaves--even if it meant sacrificing their lives--is giving us a LOT of credit.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I don't agree.  There are many different courses ( forks in a river) history can take that would lead to different outcomes.

 Lee getting to high ground before Meades forces wasn't a river flowing toward eventuality. it was a matter of timing, coincidence, a million little incidents along the march north, and orders disobeyed  that precluded it from happening.

The course of history could very well have changed had Lee occupied that ground.

 

The course, yes. Not the outcome. Darwinism isn't survival of the fittest, it's survival of the most adaptable. And while the river is wild, the arc of history relentlessly veers to Lyrnrd Skynrd sucking donkey dick (except for that one about fishing and Curtis Lowe)

But whatever, take the hard way. 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

 

What is this "Civil War" of which y'all speak? Do you mean perchance "The War of Northern Aggression"?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

As an additional illustration as to how far right this country has swung, imagine Lynyrd fucking Skynyrd running for public office in 2022 on this platform

Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else.
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me.
Mr. Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't good for nothin
But put a man six feet in a hole

Edited July 11, 2021 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand