1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kondor19780726 [428]
2 years ago
14

Write two paragraphs describing the different points of view in the following scenarios:

History
1 answer:
solmaris [256]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:No secession ball will mark the day. Nor, it appears, are any other commemorative events planned by Texas, which would rather boast of its time as an independent country. But 150 years ago today, shortly after 11 a.m. on Feb. 1, 1861, a state convention voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Union.

In Austin, on the second floor of the old Texas statehouse just south of the current Capitol building (near the present-day Alamo and Texas Rangers monuments), cheering delegates to the special convention approved a short document declaring that the federal government was becoming "a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States." Texas, they stated, was henceforth a "separate Sovereign state ... absolved from all allegiance to the United States." (An even more explicit "declaration of causes" followed a day later; it's well worth a read.)

For one aging veteran in the hall, this was the blackest of days. Sam Houston, the 67-year-old governor of Texas (who had twice served as president of the Republic of Texas), had for years almost single-handedly kept secessionist sentiment in the state at bay, despite being a slaveholder himself. Nearly three decades earlier, Houston had fought for Texan independence from Mexico and guided the fledgling Republic into the Union. He did not want to lose his life's work. "Mark me, the day that produces a dissolution of this [Union] will be written in the blood of humanity," Houston, then a U.S. senator, told Congress in 1854 as he defied Southern predilections to vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Of himself, he had said: "I wish no prouder epitaph to mark the board or slab that may lie on my tomb than this: 'He loved his country, he was a patriot; he was devoted to the Union.'"

As secessionist fever swept Texas, Houston was denounced as a "traitor-knave" for his Unionist views. Always, though, when the grand old man — who still hobbled from a wound sustained at San Jacinto in 1836 — took the stage, he had been able to quell his rivals. But as the year 1860 drew to a close, with Abraham Lincoln's election causing South Carolina to secede and other states to teeter on the brink, Houston, despite being governor, could no longer hold back the tide.

He tried. When secessionists began clamoring for a special legislative session in anticipation of secession, Houston stalled. Soon, however, a secession convention at the end of January 1861 appeared inevitable. Houston convened a special session of the Legislature just before the convention, hoping that he could somehow persuade lawmakers to rein in the proceedings.

It was not to be. The delegates — chosen in a hastily organized election in early January — convened in Austin on Jan. 28, 1861, and quickly penned a document that would sever Texas' ties to the federal government. Houston was invited to the roll call on Feb. 1. He sat "grim and motionless," writes his biographer M.K. Wisehart. One man called him a traitor to his face, though Houston's allies swiftly demanded (and received) an apology. The delegates approved the secession ordinance, 166-8.

The governor won a few concessions, however. He had said he would swallow secession if the people ratified it — so it was put to a vote on Feb. 23, 1861, and the people affirmed it, 44,317 to 13,020. Houston tried to argue that Texas voters had merely approved secession, rather than latching onto the Confederacy. This was technically true, but the governor, who preferred that Texas should return to its old status as an independent country, had lost his sway. In March, Texas became the last state to join the Confederacy in the "first wave," before hostilities broke out at Fort Sumter.

A defiant Houston would swear no oath to the Confederacy, and he was finished as governor. "Fellow citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath," he declared on March 16, 1861. "In the name of the nationality of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. …" Nor would he live to see the end of the war he tried so hard to avert; he died in 1863, a year after the Battle of Shiloh, in which his son, Sam Jr., a Confederate soldier, was wounded and held prisoner for months. Texas, in fact, would become the site of the last battle of the Civil War, in May 1865. It was also the last rebel state readmitted to the Union, on March 30, 1870, subject to several conditions.

There is another peculiar post-script to the secessionist drama of 1861.

Oddly enough, one Robert E. Lee was living in Texas at that time. Lee had been stationed in Texas on and off for several years, commanding the Second United States Cavalry in frontier skirmishes against Comanches and Mexicans. He didn't seem too fond of the frontier life; he wrote to his wife of living of a "desert of dullness."

You might be interested in
What did the War Powers Act state?
ValentinkaMS [17]
Search it up on google sorry can’t help
8 0
3 years ago
The Great Plains has good or poor farmland
TEA [102]

Answer:

The Great Plains has good farmland, As the land there is highly fertile & high in humus content.

Hope it helps!

3 0
3 years ago
(50 Points + Brainliest answer if it's detailed, original, and clear.)
nadezda [96]
Zealots were a political/philosophic movement in first century (what I call) Israel. They were (if I can put it this way) a sort of uncouth bunch who thought the only way to free themselves from Roman rule was to oppose the Romans with force. 

That was their platform. They did not take into account that the Roman's were a huge military power that was ruthless when antagonized. As these things go, Rome was a pretty good ruler. At least they knew the difference between meaningful opposition and tolerance of differences.

The zealots did not see Rome that way. They believed that any interference was too much interference. 

That's when Rome got upset and the first Jewish War of 65 AD or so began. It was like sticking your arm in a hornet's nest. The Zealots had gained the largely unwelcome wrath of Rome. The zealots were unlucky (in a way). If they had picked a time that a warrior/emperor was not leader, their opposition may have evaporated. It would be like hitting a marshmallow. Rome may have considered it an internal affair. They had up to this point. Even though some of the Pharisee priests supported the Zealots, the alliance was destroyed by the unwillingness to negotiate further. 

Anyone who is really dedicated can be termed a Zealot in modern times. I am using the term to describe someone that is Zealous. You could look up Galatians 1:11 - 14 to see how  Paul used the term. This connection between Paul and Jewish leaders (including Zealots) is really hotly debated. It's another hornet's nest.
3 0
3 years ago
What’s your opinion on gender neutral bathrooms
Vika [28.1K]

Unisex public toilets can be designed to benefit a range of people with or without special needs, for example people with disabilities, the elderly, and anyone who needs the help of someone of another gender. Also gender-neutral bathroom facilities can provide a safer and more welcoming space to someone who may be transgender or may not identify with the male or female gender binary, by which public restrooms are often divided

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Was Lenin a hero who made life better for Russians or was he a villain who made it worse? Give reasons for your answer.
arlik [135]

Answer:

no he wasnt

Sure he removes the Royalty and all, but he never manages to do better in the ruling. He was power crazy, he kill those who disagree with him and use people to maintain his power, and all his promise for prosperity never achieved in his lives. Heck, he actually loses his first election and calls it void. He was a tyrannical ruler that are only slightly better than the old royalty, and better than Stalin who came after him.

He is not exactly the best example of a hero is. He is more of an idealist, and not cut out as a ruler, and he should never have come into power. Maybe as revolutioner, he is good and all but the person who should come into power should have been someone else.

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • I NEED HELP!
    10·1 answer
  • A design dictated by function may be protected by a(n
    10·1 answer
  • For how many years was Texas its own country?
    9·2 answers
  • Why did the U.S. finally grant Native Americans citizenship in 1924?
    6·2 answers
  • Which was the main concern with the first draft of the articles of confederation
    15·1 answer
  • What American invention aided the British textile industy
    8·1 answer
  • Battle of Hampton roads results
    10·1 answer
  • Lamar wanted to expand Texas territory by
    5·2 answers
  • Discution the language movement
    12·1 answer
  • The United States constitution says the power must come from a particular source what is that sauce
    14·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!