Reply With Quote
It sure fought to defend the ins ution...
People owned slaves in Massachusetts, too. It was never a slave state though.
It sure fought to defend the ins ution...
Except the only asshole you checked was your own, Cub. And now you got all over your finger.
How's that?
Lol ok
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texa...ican_Civil_War
Take 30 seconds and educate yourself with a google search. Texas specifically published its rationale, which included confirming solidarity with its "sister slave owning states. Therefore one can safely assert Texas was both a slave state and a member of the confederacy. Ive read primary and secondary sources confirming Texas' direct military involvement, which in the first half of the war was considerable.
but I don't remember seeing any Negroes in the old John Wayne movies!
Clearly they were all too busy working the underground railroad to Texas during western times
What exactly do you think you've proven? At a three minute glance (yea, I took more than 30 seconds), I see no official stance by Texas there that they were pro slavery.
You haven't proven anything, dude. We're having a discussion; and you haven't proven a damn thing. What do you think you've proven; that there were racialists in Texas? That wasn't being argued.
Public declaration of solidarity with sister slave owning states, secession into confederacy with 100 percent slave owning states, public declaration of inferior origin and lack of establishing figures that are black.
Holy .
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
...An inferior and dependant race, and in that condition only...
What condition is that, hint, it is related to black people, and usually gets cited as the primary cause of the civil war. Answer: it is the thing you have proven you know all about, slavery in the South.
Already found records of slaves living as such in Texas during the civil war if youd like to continue second grade history.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...ot-5879057.php
Texas applied for statehood just 16 years before the Civil War and was admitted to the Union in 1845 as a slave state.
The term sister slave owning states is su iously not presented in any specific context. It would seem that that term very well could have been used as a matter of fact representation of their designation rather than some sort of outright endorsement of slavery as you are asserting.
As for the quote, you act as though this argument is about whether or not Texans were racialists or not; nay, the argument regarded the Texan stance on slavery. Frankly, there's never been a country in the history of the world that did not favor a dominant race either. Modern America has attempted to defy the natural trend, but that is of little to no bearing on the argument at hand.
And I would not doubt that there were possibly pockets of slavery or isolated occurrences within Texas. But the point again is what their official stance was regarding slavery; they were not out in front advocating on it, as they were not a slave state and there was no significant push for it.
Later renamed "subway" which in turn spawned many sandwich shops. That's why I see so many black people working there. Makes sense.
once a slave state, always a slave state. That culture didn't evaporate in 1865 or 1965.
TX slave holders were most wealthy, slaves were 25%+ of TX population
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/yps01
... buy all y'all kickers keep trying, in your unlimited un-schooled ignorance, to spin TX as some kind of knitter loving paradise.
Also, after Emancipation, TX passed 1000s of state FELONY laws to go after the knitters.
in your opinion, was the attempt to reverse the natural trend desirable, prudent and wholesome?
Where did you get this bilge that Texas was not a slave state and did not identify as such? Are you reciting your Jr High History by heart? Avuncular Texas history from your own family?
I think there are benefits to multiculturalism. Though, I think it's somewhat mythological that we're a melting pot in some respects. We still see great divisions among race lines in this country. And I think genous countries have some inherent advantages. Desirable from that standpoint? No. Prudent? To who? It happens when people who want cheap labor and don't give a sh** about the longterm outlook of a country. Wholesome? It can be. It has been for some. It's healthy for people to look beyond skin color. Not all "cultures" do that though, and therein lays the problems.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 11-27-2016 at 05:54 PM.
N/M
Last edited by Spurtacular; 11-27-2016 at 05:53 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
