It was a states rights issue...the right of those states to own slaves. If you read the articles of succession for each of the confederate states (the actual words the actual people who decided "screw that Union thing..." put on paper to justify what they are doing and sent to Washinton), every one of them explicitly states "we are doing this because you are threatening our right to own slaves". This is the "well ackshually..." argument used to pretend the Confederates were fighting a noble cause and the rest of the hypocrisy being shoveled about.

And I am sure there is no mention that Slavery was the # 1 reason for Texas Succeeding from Mexico.

Yet all these educated people keep lauding and moving to Texas?

In fairness, Texas is a place where they make elementary school kids stand up every morning and say the Pledge of Allegiance...

to the TEXAS flag.

Just pointing out that the educational experience in Texas is not necessarily indicative of what the educational experience in the rest of the US is like.

> Denying the existence of a major dynasty is like declaring that Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson didn't exist

There's a great difference of scale.

Lincoln died about 150 years ago. There are voluminous primary sources about Lincoln - e.g. photographs of him, original documents that he wrote, firsthand accounts of his actions, etc. We certainly don't know every detail of his life, but we do know a lot of it, and we're quite confident it's true.

The Tang dynasty, by contrast, fell over a thousand years ago. We know of it primarily through second- and third-hand histories and through interpretation of archaeological artifacts - much like our knowledge of Greek and Roman history, for instance. There are a lot of thinly covered areas, and many of the sources are biased; there's a lot more to be uncertain about.