Southern Identity on Decline
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2003 14:08
VIEWED: 11855
PAGE 3 of 6
I myself have spent the vast majority of my life in the South, Virginia specifically.
Across the river from where I live is Fredericksburg, one of the main Civil War battlesites (several times) and close enough in any direction is any other main battlesite you might want to visit.
It was interesting as a boy scout seeing all these sites. At the Fredericksburg National Cemetary, I remember when all the troops in the area placed candles at every grave, both Union and Confederate, and it was quite the sight that stays with me.
I'm displeased to see individuals portray either side of that war as devils. Quite honestly, the person I have the most respect for in all of history is Robert E. Lee, because his reasons for fighting was for of his homeland, and he was one of the most noble of gentlemen and generals to the very end.
Even today we still consider ourselves as Yanks and Rebels, but above all that, we see ourselves all as Americans, and I think that's what matters the most.
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am southern, but moreso I am Texan, and that is the heritage I have always known. I live in Deep East Texas where people have manners and talk slow for the most part. I have been to college and listened to professors from the north proclaim Texans and Southerners ignorant and unable to take care of themselves. These same people who have so little opinion of me count on me to keep all their computer systems up and running 24/7. I grew up on a farm, I live on a farm, I hunt (squirrel hunting is my favorite), I fish, and I love home cooking. Heck you could even say it the way my father used to when it comes to home cooking. "I would walk a mile past a free meal from mcdonalds when starvin' to pay for mommas home cooking"
The south is slowly loosing its heritage because we are "backwards" according to the more "intelectual" of society. The complain about the shape the world is in, yet for some reason we don't have all these problems in small southern towns. I wonder why that is? Yes we finally have a decent southern President and it is about time, but if you think for one instant the Government has ever been controlled from the South you need to look again, because if it where then God would not be being taken out of our schools and courthouses, courtesy and respect would still be taught in school at the end of a paddle, and folks who just want to farm and live would not be taxed into extinction.
Yes I am American, and Southern, and Texan. And if it were up to me all this PC garbage that goes on every day would be thrown out the window and we would get back to good old Southern values.
My 2 cents, sorry for the rant
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOTV wrote:
Quote:
I'm displeased to see individuals portray either side of that war as devils. Quite honestly, the person I have the most respect for in all of history is Robert E. Lee, because his reasons for fighting was for of his homeland, and he was one of the most noble of gentlemen and generals to the very end.
I agree w/ you LOTV; the man from that dark era I respect most is Robert E. Lee. I have read every book on him I can get my hands on. I have visited his grave site, and went to the Confederate Museum here in Richmond when they had the Robert E Lee exhibit. Of all the men you read about, this man was the most shining example of an officer and of a Southern gentleman. What I find truly disgusting is how he was stripped of his U.S. citizenship for leading the Confederate forces. His citizenship was not restored until the 1970s, one hundred years after his death.
I do not subscribe to blind hero worship, as most critics of Lee are prone to accuse Southerners, but I admire and respect Lee. His strength of resolve, his conviction, and his sense of honor are the most true examples of leadership I have ever read of. It is no wonder to me that people on both sides of the conflict respected Lee.
AETHYS wrote:
Quote:
The south is slowly loosing its heritage because we are "backwards" according to the more "intelectual" of society. The complain about the shape the world is in, yet for some reason we don't have all these problems in small southern towns. I wonder why that is? Yes we finally have a decent southern President and it is about time, but if you think for one instant the Government has ever been controlled from the South you need to look again, because if it where then God would not be being taken out of our schools and courthouses, courtesy and respect would still be taught in school at the end of a paddle, and folks who just want to farm and live would not be taxed into extinction.
Yes I am American, and Southern, and Texan. And if it were up to me all this PC garbage that goes on every day would be thrown out the window and we would get back to good old Southern values.
My 2 cents, sorry for the rant
I agree that the fear of not being PC and being sued or boycotted by one special interest group or another has caused the loss of a good deal of Southern heritage. The removal of Confederate flags from Confederate graves in Missouri battlefield sites and the propsed removal of Confederate memorials in Gettysburg will further bury Southern heritage. Prayer in schools went the second someone of a religion found it inappropriate & complained. Fear of being sued ended any prayer. The pledge of allegiance went the same way.
As a society we seem less interested in where we have been and the heritage that could give us a foundation, than how much money & material gain can I collect.
Growing up, I remember men holding doors for ladies, people waving to one another & giving one another the greeting of the day. Now people seem so self involved they do not even register your existance, and if you say "Good Morning", they look at you as if you are about to mug them, or you have just grown a third eye in your forehead. Many men do not hold doors for a woman now, & I know when I do, less than a 1/3 of them even acknowledges the courtesy with so much as eye contact. It does not prevent me from doing it, but it is disheartening at times.
I feel you on the tax thing to AETHYS. My wife and I make a very respectable amount of money, live in an older, very modest house, and do not have any car payments, but between the cost of living, taxes, and health care, it seems that what we make flies out the window. The cost of living now is fast outpacing cost of living increases.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Even today we still consider ourselves as Yanks and Rebels, but above all that, we see ourselves all as Americans, and I think that's what matters the most.
It certainly should be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have been to college and listened to professors from the north proclaim Texans and Southerners ignorant and unable to take care of themselves. These same people who have so little opinion of me count on me to keep all their computer systems up and running 24/7.
Because of the superficial speech patterns, more "folksy dress" and other irrelevancies, city folk tend to think of themselves more urbane, smarter and hence better, than the hicks who live in the sticks.
Despite the fact that without the farms, the mines and other rural enterprises, the cities would cease to exist. City folk are dependent on the country in a manner that is not symmetrical, country folk have always been more independent and less needing of the city than vice versa.
Which is why you get this snobbish attitude from city folks. Deep down a lot of them know its an assymetrical life style, that they are more dependent on you, than you are on them. But if you realize it, you might not be willing to tolerate them as much. So to keep you in your place, as well as assuage their own creeeping fear and feelings of worthlessness, they put on this snobbish front.
I have to laugh at folks who talk about how backward country folks are, because most of them never set foot outside the cities in the first place.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it treats the South as a separate nation, instead of part of the Union at the time of the firing on Fort Sumter. South Carolina, and the South in general were still part of the Union, still part of the United States of America.
As Fort Sumter was a Federal military installation, whether South Carolina wanted it or not, is beside the point. It would be the equivalent of you shooting at a police officer patroling in the town you live in, just because you want his car.
As for tariffs and such, it should be remembered that tariffs were the principle means of financing the federal government, as there was not direct taxation at the time. The point remains that the South lost those votes, those decisions, and instead of accepting the will of the majority, they decided to break up the entire system. While the North did little to protect the rights of the minority South, it was the South that decided to dissolve the contract, and the Constitution on this and other points.
And we do disagree as to whether slavery was a major issue. Not the sole issue, I think we can both agree. But it was a serious issue and the election of Lincoln, along with support from the North, made the abolition of slavery, with the incumbent chaos it would cause in the South, all that more a tangible problem.
And you are right, the North would not have let the South go, so the South had no legal recourse if it wanted to leave. But again, there is the problem of destroying the democratic system, if it were allowed to leave legally, or rebelled openly. Either way you did it, you were asking for the destruction of the democratic system, the basis for government in the first place.
If any minority can simply petition and ask to leave, (without really going anywhere) then you no longer have a democracy of any kind. If a militia were allowed to fire upon federal troops, regardless of how those troops are seen to the rebels, free from any kind of punishment, then that federal government is in danger, and any benefit anyone garners from a rule of law is thrown in doubt.
You see, you talk about tariffs and such issues, but what you don't point to is any Constitutional violations comitted by the North against the South. They lost the votes in Congress. And so, the South decided unilaterally to dissolve the Union. Because they did not get their way, they rebelled.
You like to think about the "what if" as do I. Which is one of the reasons I find this subject fasinating. Think of all the things that would not have happened if the South had won. Would the west have been tamed? Would Alaska still be part of Russia? How would that have affected the Cold war?
Would there have been more wars later on, as Northern abolutionists smuggled run away slaves out of the South, or over western territories? Would Texas have ceeded from the Confederacy and become its own nation again?
How would the concept of democracy have faired elsewhere in the world, once the United States showed it did not work?
Without a strong United States to aid Europe during WW1, how would that have played out? Or WW2, would France be a German province today? What about Japanese expansionism, how would that have been stopped? Or would it only at the Texas border?
To say nothing of domestic race relations, and the increasing tyrannical laws the South required to prevent slave revolts.
Whether you want to call it war, invasion, rebellion or whatever, really matters little. As horrific as that war was, it did prevent far worst wars and tradegies down the line. A strong US was able to intervene in WW1, and 2, and prevent a Soviet invasion of Europe, as well as ICBMs parked in Alaska. And democracies are breaking out all over.
So, all in all, no matter how right the South thought they were, they weren't right enough to win, and the planet as a whole is better off that the South lost the Civil war, than if it had won.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Growing up, I remember men holding doors for ladies, people waving to one another & giving one another the greeting of the day. Now people seem so self involved they do not even register your existance, and if you say "Good Morning", they look at you as if you are about to mug them, or you have just grown a third eye in your forehead. Many men do not hold doors for a woman now, & I know when I do, less than a 1/3 of them even acknowledges the courtesy with so much as eye contact. It does not prevent me from doing it, but it is disheartening at times.
That's so sad for you and also, just lack of manners. Very often men open doors for me, sometimes rushing ahead of me to be there so I don't have to do it. I always say "Thank you" even if the same gentleman opens five or six consecutive doors.
I can remember my first few weeks at grad school when guys just let doors shut in my face. It took me a little while to figure out why I was so stunned.
We often make fun of ourselves around here, affecting more posh accents than we already have and telling one another things like, "I b'lieve I'll take my mint julep on the veranda where it's coolah..." but we still believe in the gentility of it. There's just no excuse not to have good manners.
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon wrote:
Quote:
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it treats the South as a separate nation, instead of part of the Union at the time of the firing on Fort Sumter. South Carolina, and the South in general were still part of the Union, still part of the United States of America.
Separate nation or not? I suppose that depends more on perception than actual legality, does it not? To the North, the South was part of the Union in open rebellion. To the South, they were fighting for independence against a government they felt treated them unfairly and were invading their lands, their homes.
I guess the real question here is this: if we have freedom, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, if we disagree w/ the government, do we not have the freedom to separate ourselves from that entity when all forms of resolution have failed?
Our forefathers faced this same dilemma when the Colonies first entered into conflict w/ England to win our independence. Odd really, when you compare the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. America was an English colony. Colonists were descendants of English citizens, and the Colonies paid taxes to England. America grew tired of taxes and mistreatment from England and entered into armed conflict w/ England. England considered us Rebels in unlawful rebellion seeking to tear apart the British Empire. We were part of English empire, lawfully, at that time and yet we broke away, without the consent of England, and entered into a state of war w/ them.
What is the difference in one war of independence, and the other. The U.S. won both, so they, being the victors, wrote the history we read today. In their war against England, they were "patriots" and freedom fighters. I am sure English history books write it differently, using terms like "rebels" and "traitors". The U.S. writes the history of the Civil War, and the people trying to break away from what they feel is an unfair gov't, fighting for their independence are now labelled "rebels" and "secessionists". The comparisons are there, though I am sure we could argue sides, viewpoints, and political reasonings until the sun goes dim.
Quote:
As Fort Sumter was a Federal military installation, whether South Carolina wanted it or not, is beside the point. It would be the equivalent of you shooting at a police officer patroling in the town you live in, just because you want his car.
Interesting point, but I refer to my earlier arguement that South Carolina had been lobbying Washington to remove their garrisons from their soil. All garrison were removed except Anderson's force, who, seemingly of his own will, moved his force from their location to Sumter. For reasons we may never know, Buchanan refused to order the withdrawl of Anderson's men. Why this one unit & fort, and not all the others? Why did all the other garrisons leave, and not Anderson? Was it stubborn pride? Was it the proverbial line in the dirt that the North dared the South to cross? Was it the provocation the North needed to justify armed forces entering the Confederacy to drive them back into the Union? I do not think it so cut & dry as the South fired & the North entered the Confederacy to exact revenge.
What would have happened if Anderson had gone North like the other garrisons in South Carolina? Would that fateful shot have ever been fired? Would the Civil War ever have taken place? I think it would have eventually. I do not for one minute believe Lincoln or the Federalists would have allowed the South to have their independence and the freedom to sell their agricultural goods to the Europe and deprive the raw material to Northern industries who did not want to pay a fair market value for them.
I do not think your comparison to me shooting at a police officer in his car patrolling my town because I want his car is even close to the situation at Sumter. Sumter was the result of a stand off that went on for months. Federal forces refused to yield an installation that sat on South Carolina soil. I am sure the North would
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, a rebellion is always against the law. No government can survive if folks were free to simply disobey laws they disagreed with, or shoot federal soldiers trying to enforce those laws. Asking for a legal rebellion is a contradiction in terms as well as suicidal to any form of government.
So, the South's rebellion was illegal. It was against the law. And the South's position was not a legally justifiable one.
Now on more philosophical grounds, you might have an argument. But if you want to argue law, you lose.
As for the police officer example, it is quite apt. The South did not want a federal garrison in South Carolina. You admit this. They wanted the cop somewhere else, and they wanted the fort. So they shot at the troops in that fort.
If the government no longer has the power to enforce its own laws, then it ceases to be a government at all. Whether one agrees or disagrees, lobbies for or against, once the votes are taken, all folks in a democracy agree to go along with the will of the majority. Should I be allowed to violate or rebel from a law I think is unfair, that I voted against, but the majority overruled? Can you imagine how that would work out, if everyone did that?
Rebellion is treason, but in practical fact, it is so only when it fails. It is making war on the government, but if the South had succeeded, we would not be having this discussion. They didn't. They lost the debate in the halls of Congress, and they lost it on the battlefield as well. And at that point, which lets face was almost a 150 years ago, the argument was settled.
Trying to compare the South's actions with those of all of the colonies is a bit of a stretch. The Union troops were not billeted in Southern homes prior to Ft. Sumter. There was no violation of rights or constitutional guarentees. As you note, it was about the price of cotton in Europe. Wanting a better price, or not willing to pay taxes that one had a vote in, are hardly the same as what the Brits were doing to the American colonies prior to the Revolution.
As for "fair market" price, I am not at all sure where you are coming from here. In free market economics, the seller and the buyer both agree to a price, and that is the fair market price of the product. No one was forcing the South to not sell to Europe. There was an export tax, yes, but that is hardly the same thing as forcing one not to sell.
The problem was that the price of cotton in Europe was not that high, and I think one of the reasons for that was competition from other sources (like Egypt). The South wanted more money, but all buyers want to pay less. That is not force, no matter how you try to dress it up.
As to Lincoln, all this clouds the fact that slavery was still wrong. The slave holding South still depended on that labor. Lincoln did want to free the slaves, this is apparent from a great body of his writings and works. But if it meant risking the dissolution of the governmental system we had, that is something he wanted to avoid.
After the war was on, the point was moot. And as for the timing of the Emancipation proclaimation, this was related to Northern battlefield victories, when it looked like the North was going to win. Which makes sense, as declaring freedom for the slaves when one had no hope of ever accomplishing it. Freeing the slaves in the North, that had already been accomplished. It was the slave holding South that required Emancipation. And when the South was winning, such a proclaimation would have simply looked foolish, and ineffective.
Quote:
Guess if you win, you are justified and no one questions the legality actions.
Well I would agree with the sentiment on practical grounds. That this is what happens, IF you win. But here you are, despite 150 years of history, despite the fact the North won, still questioning the legality of the action.
In practical terms this is what happens, right wrong or indifferent. And in a general sense, this is far from a bad thing.
I am not saying that Might makes Right. I will say t
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
First off, a rebellion is always against the law. No government can survive if folks were free to simply disobey laws they disagreed with, or shoot federal soldiers trying to enforce those laws. Asking for a legal rebellion is a contradiction in terms as well as suicidal to any form of government.
So, the South's rebellion was illegal. It was against the law. And the South's position was not a legally justifiable one.
Now on more philosophical grounds, you might have an argument. But if you want to argue law, you lose.
If we are going to argue the letter of the law, than I agree that "legally" speaking, the South had no ground to stand on in leaving the Union. That is a given. I am sure that there was nothing in British law giving legal right to Scotland to try to throw off the English yoke in 1745, or the Colonies in the Revolutionary War.
In terms of the right to throw off what one sees as an unfair or tyrannical gov't, I feel it is the right of all free men to do what they must to extricate themselves from said gov't. Obvioulsy the Confederacy felt the same way.
Quote:
As for the police officer example, it is quite apt. The South did not want a federal garrison in South Carolina. You admit this. They wanted the cop somewhere else, and they wanted the fort. So they shot at the troops in that fort.
If the government no longer has the power to enforce its own laws, then it ceases to be a government at all. Whether one agrees or disagrees, lobbies for or against, once the votes are taken, all folks in a democracy agree to go along with the will of the majority. Should I be allowed to violate or rebel from a law I think is unfair, that I voted against, but the majority overruled? Can you imagine how that would work out, if everyone did that?
I admit that South Carolina did not want the Federal troops in Fort Sumter, but you seem to miss the point. At the time Anderson secretly moved his troops into Sumter, South Carolina had seceded from the Union. Whether or not the Union "legally" recognized this separation or not is mote. Anderson is the only Union commander that did not abandon the forts as South Carolina requested. Note I do not say ordered, as it is a documented fact that South Carolina petitioned Washington for the release of these facilities. For four months South Carolina tried to negotiate peacefully for the abandonment of the fort. Anderson & Buchanan refused.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do find it odd that only the one commander did not leave his fort as asked. I also find it odd that he moved from his original garrison into Sumter. I find it equally odd that Washington did not condemn the men that left the other forts in South Carolina, or order the garrisons to return to their posts. If Washington truly did not recognize South Carolina's leaving the Union, why then did its troops leave their posts without a single shot being fired? Why did Anderson move from his post to another, uncompleted fort from which there was no escape? Why did Washington not recall him? Why did they instead try to send more troops & supplies?
There is no denying that Buchanan tried to reinforce Sumter. I propose that Anderson & his men were put in Sumter to provide a catalyst for war. I believe that Washington was willing to sacrifice that garrison to have reason to launch their war.
South Carolina exhausted all methods to clear the fort, yet Washington would not budge. You must remember that at this point, South Carolina stood alone in secession. A potentially hostile force, one whose commander threatened to fire on any ship that came within range of his guns, sat just off the shores of the major port of Charleston. It is tactically unsound to allow an opposing force to camp in your back yard. If they refuse to listen to reason, then they must be removed by force.
I further submit that if Brig. Gen. Beauregard had not fired on Sumter, that another relief fleet would have tried to sail into the harbor to again be driven off b
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME