Southern Identity on Decline

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2003 14:08
VIEWED: 11855
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, October 6, 2003 3:21 PM

I was born in Chicago, IL, but my parents moved back to Virginia when I was 4 years old. Family from both sides live in VA, and I have lived here ever since we moved back. I am a Southerner, and am proud to say so.

I think the main reason for people not calling themselves "Southern" is that they are afraid of being stereotyped as bigots or uneducated, inbred hicks. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think in today's politically correct society, where people are terrified of being censored for some imagined slight against one group or another, people have forgotten their heritage for the sake of avoiding misconception or adversity.

I myself am proud of my Southern heritage, and proud of the fact that six of my ancestors fought for the 45th Virginia Infantry. No they did not own slaves, nor did they mean to protect the vile institution of slavery, rather they fought against an invading army whose intent was to force them back at bayonet point into a Union of which they no longer wished to be a part.

What disturbs me is that the phrase "history is written by the victor" seems to be born out by what is tought in schools today. My son was told by his teacher that the Confederacy was "bad" & that men like Robert E. Lee were "tyrants". Needless to say I had a long talk w/ him, and the school about the slanted version of history they are teaching.

I know everyone has their own spin on the Civil War and why it was fought, and the motivations behind the Federalists of the North, and the Confederacy of the South, but I would argue that the South is as rich in history and contributions to this nation as the North.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

VETERAN

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 10:52 PM

I find this thread interesting, while I've always been aware of a Southern indentity (Southern Pride etc.) I never hear of a Northern counterpart.

Southerners get a bad rap for a lot of what happened after the war (i.e The birth of the KKK and Jim Crow). Do they deserve this? Some do (I assume there are still some Klansmen down there, I know there are up here). Others, not so much. The fact is the treatment of Blacks in this country upto very recently has been very poor. Unfortunately, a group, or in this case a region, carries the guilt on this point because it fought in a war that, at least in part, was involved with the freedom of another group of people. Funny how bigotry gets turned around, fact is the whole nation was to blame for slavery and the treatment of blacks after the war. I think Ken Burn's Civil War deals with this very well (pardon me, this isn't exact)...."the nation needed to be cleansed in blood, now that the war was over many felt that the South should be forgiven."

I recently visted Gettyburg with my son's scout troop. We took the Johnny Reb trail and then the Billy Yank Trail. The scouts have a pamphlet the follow while touring the battlefield. The interesting thing about the pamphlet is that the scouts are asked to put themselves in the shoes of both Rebel and Yankee forces. Too bad your son wasn't given an evenhanded treatment of the subjects that the Scouts have.

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 8:29 AM

Thats the weird thing about the "War of Northern Agression" It was a rare war in which both sides were right.

The South was attempting to defend itself from the more politically powerful North. Northern and Southern economic and political interests had long ago diverged, if they were ever unified. The South, based as it was on the plantation system, could not overnight deal with freeing the slaves, despite the clear logical inconsistency with the Declaration of Independence. The South fought for "States Rights" and a limitation to federal interference.

Unfortunately, the particular issue that this became connected to was the issue of slavery. The South found itself defending an abstract good, by maintaining a particular evil. The South fought for their independence, from Northern tariffs and Northern insensitivity to their economic plight, while at the same time fought to maintain slavery.

On the Northern side, they fought to maintain the Union and the rule of democracy. I know it sounds weird, the South were simply wanting to do their own thing. But the key element of our democracy is that whoever wins the vote, wins. Everyone else goes along with that winner, (well, within limits. We are free to express our disagreement and continue to try to persuade the populace. But open rebellion, or force is not playing by the rules.)

And there is the fact that the Republican party came out of the anti-slavery Whigs, and for the first time had enough political clout to free the slaves. And gave the appearance of a lack of concern for the economic deprivation that would cause the South.

So in a sense, both sides working under the American concept of "majority rile with respect for minority rights." The North, more for the first part of the equation, and while the South was defending their minority rights, they were denying them (Indeed, due to the risks of slave revolt, HAD to deny them) to a substantial minority.

Thank goodness that is all history. Hopefully we have learned something from it, and can move forward.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, October 10, 2003 4:52 PM

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
The South fought for their independence, from Northern tariffs and Northern insensitivity to their economic plight, while at the same time fought to maintain slavery.

Though a popular misconception, it is still a misconception. The Confederacy did not fight to hold onto the institution of slavery. Less than 1% of those that fought for the Confederacy even owned a slave. Those that owned slaves either dodged the draft, or purchased commissions in the army of the CSA. Many of these deserted when it was apparent the war would not be over in short order.

Another thing that history books do not mention is that many in the North owned slaves as well. It is a documented fact that William T. Sherman himself owned dozens of slaves to work his land. These slaves were not released until after the War was over.

Quite honestly, the issue of slavery was simply a justification for the invasion of the South. It was a way to sway public opinion behind the Federalists as the war drug on & public support began to flag. It is documented that public support for the war effort was falling off & the North needed a way to solidify the constant call for recruits & resources.

Lincoln has been quoted as saying:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388)

I wonder how many African Americans or Lincoln supporters know he made this statement. I wonder why the history books omit it.

Lincoln did not care if slaves remained in chains or not, all he cared about was bringing the South back into the Union, whether they wanted to come back or not. Could it have been that the South needed the agricultural and textile resources of the South, but did not want to compete for them w/ England & France, who was willing to pay what they were worth? I think so.

Though history books (written by the victor, remember?) hold on to flawed logic that the South fought to keep another race in chains. I argue that the South fought to keep invaders bearing arms off of our soil. I would also argue that with less than 1 man in 100 having the personal motivation of owning slaves, slavery was not a priority for the men in gray who fought.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

VETERAN

Friday, October 10, 2003 11:27 PM

We may have to reopen "The Biggy Messy Thread"

Quote:
I wonder how many African Americans or Lincoln supporters know he made this statement. I wonder why the history books omit it.

Two reasons:

1) The Victors write the history books.
2) History as taught in most schools is, for lack of a better euphuemism, the "Readers Digest Version." You know, ....

First there were dinosaurs and then came the cavemen ... who became the ancient Greeks, next Columbus discovered America, then George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. The next day they had a Tea Party in Boston and then ....

DRAKON

Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:33 AM

Go back and look at what I wrote. Yes, they wanted to be free of Northern intrusion and tariffs. But slavery was still an issue they wanted to preserve. This is the big reason things erupted after Lincoln got into the White House. The Republican party was formed for the expressed purpose of getting rid of slavery.

If the South had abolished slavery, they would have won the support of Europe, especially England, and Lincoln would have had his legs cut out from underneath him. But they didn't and they couldn't. Economically, it would have been devastating. Whether it would have been more devastating than the war, well, that is irrelevant at this point in history.

Besides which, the "justification" for the invasion was firing on Fort Sumpter. While Lincoln did not want to risk the Union, over the issue of slavery, the fact was that the South broke first, and that was all the justification that was needed.

The South handed Lincoln a cause, in the issue of slavery. Faced with potential support from England and others, Lincoln went ahead and made it an issue. Instead of surrendering or abolishing slavery, the South fought on.

You might have the right to rebel. You don't have the right to succeed. I don't wish to fight the Civil war all over again, but pretending that slavery was not one of the issues, well, that is simply not true.

You call it an invasion. What it was was rebellion against a democratic government. Granted that government may not have treated the minority southern interests in the best light, but that still does not excuse the armed revolt, the firing on Ft. Sumter, or the destruction of the Union. Nor does it really explain why the South waited until after a Republican, a party that was quite new at the time, and whose main platform was the abolition of slavery, was elected into office.

It should also be remembered that it was one nation until the South decided it did not want to play any more. They got overriden in the vote, so they decided to quit. Characterizing it as an invasion, as if it had been a separate nation beforehand, is simply not accurate.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

VETERAN

Saturday, October 11, 2003 6:18 PM

You are right. People try to use the "States Rights" issue to write off slavery as one of the causes of the war. The argument is faulty because slavery was an important part of if not central to States Rights.

Browncoat1's quote of Lincoln is correct and he is correct again when he says that this is generally not taught in schools. He did neglect to mention, that early in his political career, Lincoln made many statements attacking Slavery and the general treatment of Blacks under the constitution (3/5ths etc).

I don't know the factual basis regarding the statement that only 1% of the confederates under arms owned slaves. I've seen data indicating between 10 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves. This could be accurate statistics though because he qualifies it by saying "those who fought." As far as Sherman owning slaves, I've never heard that one before. I know he wasn't against slavery per se. But prior to the war he had failed at a banking firm in San Francisco and through his connections with P.T. Beauregard and Braxton Bragg obtained a position as the president of a military college in Louisiana, not likely that he had much land to be worked by "dozens of slaves."

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, October 13, 2003 5:27 PM

Yes, if the South had abolished slavery immediately, France & England would have considered taking some action, though I doubt it would have involved troops landing in the U.S. Most likely it would have been ships bringing in supplies, and perhaps some saber rattling to stop hostilities. The South did not abolish slavery when Union troops crossed the Potomac because, as you pointed out, to do so would have been economically crippling to the Confederacy and thousands of farms and plantations. Slavery was a abominable practice as an alternative to paid labor. The South had no alternatives in place to harvest cotton & tobacco if slaves were freed. I wish they had so that the rallying point of slavery would be shown to be as hollow. A wishful thought now, but an interesting "what if" nonetheless.

Fort Sumter. Another touchy point. If you view it as "rebels" firing on a US fort, than yes, I suppose it could be considered the transparent excuse Lincoln & his Federalists needed to send in their troops. Yet, if you view it from the other side of the arguement, you may find it not such a clear issue.

South Carolina had sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate the transfer of forts in South Carolina to the state, and requested immediate control of Fort Sumter. A US commander, Anderson, considered his situation increasingly precarious, especially if South Carolina occupied Sumter. After nightfall, on the evening of December 26, 1860, Anderson moved his small force from Fort Moultrie to the more defensible Sumter.

Now, SC is trying to take over these forts, which they see as part of their state, and being on SC soil, it is easy to see why they would feel they had claim to these forts, that and the fact that a potentially hostile force occupying a military fort within your borders is less than an ideal circumstance. On the flipside, I can see why the North would not want to abandon forts they had paid to build.

Now, rather than simply blame the South for firing the first shot, so the excuse to invade is all nice & tidy, let's examine the events. The South contacts Washington asking that Anderson & his force leave Sumter. President Buchanon refuses to order the abandoning the fort. Stiffening his resolve to protect Anderson's vulnerable garrison, President Buchanan approved an expedition headed by a chartered merchant steamer, the Star of the West, to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the ship arrived at Charleston Harbor, but turned back when it was fired upon by South Carolina's batteries.

This firing on the steamer led to much posturing by both Anderson & the governor of Charleston. Anderson called the incident an act of war & threatened to fire on any ships entering the range of his guns. The Governor of Charleston replied that any reinforcement of troops or supplies to a fort occupied by potential hostiles could not be allowed. Sound enough reasoning.

For nearly four months, from December 26th of '60, to April 10th of '61 the South tried to oust the Union forces through negotiation w/ Washington & Anderson. When the call for surrender came, and the garrison refused, I do not see what other action could be taken save to starve out the Union forces. A seige would have been preferable to open hostilities at that point, but quite honestly the Union would have invaded to break the seige once supplies began to run low at Sumter.

I do not dispute that slavery was wrong, nor do I dispute that it was a non issue. Rather I dispute the fact that it was a major issue and not a justification for invasion. I find it odd that the North and its "democratic" gov't were perfectly fine with reaping the fruits of slave labor, and it was only after those fruits would no longer be available w/ the seccession of the South that they felt so strongly about the issue of slavery that they were willing to take up arms to abolish it.

Yes, I call it an invasion. Call it a "rebellion against a democratic government" all you want, it will not change fact. Fact: the North showed it

BIGBLUEFAN

Monday, October 13, 2003 5:49 PM

I agree. I think alot of people do not want to be considered a "Redneck", which is supposedly on par with being a Southerner. I've lived in Kentucky most of my life and am proud to be a Southerner. No inbreeding, barefoot, backwoods here. Just good, old-fashioned southern charm & hospitality!

FIREFLYGIRL

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:49 AM

I agree also. I'm from Georgia and it infuriates me when people assume that because I talk a little slow and drawn out that I am stupid. I had a teacher in high school that said it best, "Intellect has nothing to do with dialect, and people who think that are ignorant".

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE