Author Topic: The South and Civil War  (Read 695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
The South and Civil War
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:58:44 AM »
As many of you know, I hate the South and, by and large, southerners.  One of the things I particularly hate about them, is their spin on the Civil War.  Besides calling it the War of Northern Aggression, they also say it was not about slavery (oh, no, not at all), but about States Rights. 

LTCo. Robert Bateman blows that stupid argument out of the water and makes clear it is a lie.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/civil-war-was-about-slavery-022814

He goes to the original documents from the states themselves - their declarations of session.

From Mississippi, second sentence.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
Quote
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Georgia, second sentence
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
Quote
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

South Carolina is a little more circumspect
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Quote
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

And Texas, quite possibly the biggest asshole state on the Eastern Hemisphere
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
Quote
[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

And then...
Quote
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

bold mine.  Ho my glob! "beneficent and patriarchal"!  As Bateman says, they take it to 11.

So yeah, it really was not about states rights at all.  Totally about owning people.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2014, 12:16:30 PM »
So you hate all us southern members? That's nice to know.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2014, 01:37:02 PM »
So you hate all us southern members? That's nice to know.

Do you not understand the meaning of "by and large"?  You must have been educated in the south.

Also, off topic.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2014, 03:28:13 PM »
Also a dirty Southerner here, well UK southerner.

But yes, I can understand the frustration, it's kind of dealing with holocaust deniers, they wish to alter history based on wishful thinking and thus ignore the facts and the evidence that proves them wrong, but a lot of folk aren't intellectually honest and often delude themselves with their own line of thinking. We see it here a lot, so it isn't all that surprising. But that's wishful thinking for you, no matter how much you want something to be true, the facts don't change, but every culture has something shameful about their past, so really I see no need to hide behind a web of delusion.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2014, 03:53:31 PM »
So you hate all us southern members? That's nice to know.

Do you not understand the meaning of "by and large"?  You must have been educated in the south.

Also, off topic.

Please...you're talking about a non-topic; and after reading the OP you decided to vent, where? here.

The main subject of the Civil War was slavery. It wasn't the only subject but it was the main subject. It's irrelevant that the south's state constitutions promoted slavery because who didn't already know that? But wars back then are much like now: what would give the people a reason to go to war: slavery would, and the spread of slavery into new territories as the US expanded west.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline shnozzola

Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2014, 06:19:18 PM »

And Texas, quite possibly the biggest a**hole state on the Eastern

Texas is an enigma.  I hear you will meet very kind friendly folks, and,  Brave Combo is from Texas - who else plays rock and polka, kick ass clarinet and the Hokey Pokey.

Austin sounds like a  bastion of coolness inside evil.  Npr today had a good piece on the horrible politics of the right in Texas.  And of course, George W.  drinking beer and chopping firewood.  Crazy state.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 06:21:20 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1189
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2014, 09:22:40 PM »
To be fair, States' Rights was a major reason for the South's secession.  It just happened that all the rights they were trying to flex involved slavery laws.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2014, 04:05:00 AM »
It's certainly true that Texas played a damnable role in slavery and the Civil War. And I'm embarrassed by the Texas Board of Education members who've attempted to inject creationism into the public schools, and by our idiot-in-chief governor, and his predecessor. And I'm appalled that there are enough idiots among Texas voters to keep putting people like that into power. But even so, I can't help bristling at a statement such as this:

And Texas, quite possibly the biggest asshole state on the Eastern Hemisphere

I'm sure that wasn't meant to apply to ALL Texans, and maybe not even MOST Texans. But even granting that, it still seems a bit unfair.

Consider:

1. About half of all Texans accept that humans evolved from earlier species. While that may be worse than the national average, it still means that creationists (or at least, anti-evolutionists) are not a majority in Texas. And even the half that are creationists are not all fundamentalist YEC's.

2. While Texas as a whole is a pretty solidly red state, it's large population centers are mostly blue. In the last presidential election, Barack Obama won Dallas County, Harris County (contains Houston), Travis County (Austin), Bexar County (San Antonio), and El Paso county. If you look at the election results by land area or by county count, Texas looks like a sea of red, but if you go by population, the right-wing majority is narrower than you might realize. And the state seems to be trending bluer. I would not be at all surprised if Texas becomes distinctly purple within a decade, and blue in two.

3. You rarely hear that "war of southern aggression" phrase used here, and when you do, it's usually tongue-in-cheek.

4. Texas has some great universities, and even the ones that aren't highly ranked are mostly real, respectable, schools, not the "Bob Jones" or "Liberty University" kind of crap.

5. Texas has many great science museums, planetariums, etc. Fair Park (home of the State Fair of Texas) in Dallas has several museums dedicated to science. Their dinosaur exhibit has no humans hanging out with dinosaurs, and the fossils are dated much, much older than 6000 years. Their geology exhibit has even older objects, and you won't find any "flood geology" pseudoscience there. The last time I was there they had a DNA exhibit that discussed the genetic evidence for evolution and the large amount of genetic information that humans have in common with other species. Real science, not creationist junk.

6. Texas is home to the McDonald Observatory. One of the largest annual star parties in the U.S. is held near there.

7. Texas is home to NASA's Johnson Space Center. NASA's current Mission Control Center is there, as well as the old Mission Control Center where those famous words, "The Eagle has landed", were received. To me, that historical site is hallowed ground more than any religious site could ever be.

8. In 1925, Texas was only the 2nd state to elect a woman governor, and the first to do so in a general election. She was elected again in 1933, and another woman, Ann Richards, was elected governor in 1991.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to make my point. Texas does have more than its fair share of ignoramuses, bigots, and nutjobs. And yet, there's a lot of good here, and it's also home to some of the most intelligent, most tolerant, most open-minded people I've ever met.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2014, 10:14:43 AM »
The sad thing is is that the implication is that those not in the southern US are better than those in the southern US, and that's just ridiculous.

It's like when I date a girl not from the southern US and she asks me solely based on me being from the southern US if I am racist as if only racists are from the southern US.

Screwtape: you sound like that.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2014, 10:22:31 AM »
The sad thing is is that the implication is that those not in the southern US are better than those in the southern US, and that's just ridiculous.

It's like when I date a girl not from the southern US and she asks me solely based on me being from the southern US if I am racist as if only racists are from the southern US.

Screwtape: you sound like that.

-Nam

Anyone who thinks severe racism is confined to the souther US has not been in rural Pennsylvania. I see more of it there, and blantantly so, than anywhere else I've been. Of course, I've never been to the rural south, just cities in the south.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2014, 10:44:49 AM »
Texas voters...

Louie Gomhert
Ted Cruz (a Canadian, btw)
Joe Barton (apologized to BP when they poisoned the gulf of mexico)
Lamar Smith
Tom Delay
Rick Perry
need I mention the Bushes?

Maybe your awful politicians are so awful they taint my perspective on the rest. But holy mother of glob, how do you elect these goons?  Add to that an official plank in the Texas GOP platform is to return to the gold standard.

Every state elects some idiots.  Yes, we've got Chris Christie, and yes, I take that to mean that the majority of NJ voters are stupid louts who like and want a loutish bully to lead them.  And even though he pretended to be a moderate and never said any of the crazy shit the Texas pols had to say in order to get elected, not many people are calling for his head over the obvious corruption in his office. 

That fits with my universal theory that 90% of people are stupid animals who occasionally can pull their shit together and walk upright, thus taking on the appearance of being a human. Fuggetaboutit. 

 

I'm sure that wasn't meant to apply to ALL Texans, and maybe not even MOST Texans. But even granting that, it still seems a bit unfair.

Of course not.  Mainly my statement was in reference to the Civil War and how they declared session.  OF all the states, they seemed to embrace slavery the most in their declaration.

Jetson and Hal are both from Texas.  I like them both, however infrequently I bump into them anymore.  I am pretty sure there are several other Texans here who do not immediately jump to my mind, whom I also like.  I had a roommate in college who was from Texas and despite his completely uninformed biblical literalism,[1] I liked him a lot and considered him a friend. In fact, I cannot think of any specific Texan whom I have actually met that I do not like.

I think the state sucks, nevertheless.  It is an attitude thing, I think.  If the state of Texas were a guy, would he be an asshole?  Maybe that can be said about all the states?  Perhaps.  But I don't know any other state that is so in-your-face about it.  "Don't mess with Texas".  Ugh.  Or what, you'll let another fertilizer plant blow up? 

Your point is taken, though.  I do tend to get carried away and see things in black and white.  It is a lesson that apparently does not sink in.


I would not be at all surprised if Texas becomes distinctly purple within a decade, and blue in two.

Totally.  I've discussed this idea on this forum somewhere before.  The thing is, for this to happen, the hispanics must vote, which they largely do not do now.


edit: the -->they
 1. he believed the bible was literally true, but had not ever read any of it.  Kind of a dumb thing for such a smart guy.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 11:49:50 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2014, 11:17:34 AM »
The sad thing is is that the implication is that those not in the southern US are better than those in the southern US, and that's just ridiculous.

Well, Nammy, the fact is, we are actually better.  I know that won't sit well with you, and I am sorry about that.  But it is a scientifically proven fact.  If you were born there, moving North will not help you.  The Stank of the South is in your DNA.  If you were to come here and have children, they too would have some of that Stank, even if their mother was not from the south.  It would take approximately 8 generations of not-south living and breeding to remove the Stank of the South from your line of offspring.

The sad thing is, it only takes one generation born in the south to acquire it.  For evidence of this, read a story by David Sedaris about The Rooster.  It was in his book Me Talk Pretty One Day.[1]


But you raise an interesting point about racism.  Kind of a paradox I've observed (and backed up with no data whatsoever).  I have occasion to travel into Dixie[2] to visit family (they do not have the Stank, not having been born there).  And I notice far more interracial relationships than I do in NJ.  That suggests to me a lack of cultural racism.  I think that is a good thing. 

On the other hand, this is also a state (NC) where the elected law makers are doing everything in their power to make sure black people have as many obstacles to voting as possible, including being dropped from voter roles en mass mere days before an election. I take that to indicate a higher degree of institutional racism.

In NJ, I find the opposite.  While I do see interracial relationships, I do not see them as often as I did in NC.  Which suggests to me some degree of cultural racism and segregation.  However, I do not see the government (currently run by a repub) attempting to curb voting in anyway, which suggests to me a lack of institutional racism.

I find it interesting and do not know what to make of it.  I would like to see some data.
 1. https://sites.google.com/site/mendomundo/home/you-cant-kill-the-rooster
the whole book is pretty brilliant though.  I highly recommend it.
 2. I fcking hate that word
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2014, 11:24:41 AM »
To be fair, States' Rights was a major reason for the South's secession.  It just happened that all the rights they were trying to flex involved slavery laws.

To be fair, no, that doesn't wash.  "States' rights" is a post hoc justification.  If there were no slavery, there would have been no war over state's rights.  It was about slavery, as demonstrated.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6378
  • Darwins +752/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2014, 11:40:19 AM »
I'm from the northwest, but I've spent over a year of my life working in Texas on various building projects.

While their politics often sucks, I enjoyed most of the people. They are rest story tellers and fun to work with. Even most of the rich folks (there was one notable exception) I worked for were great. Some were super-great. Even though I'm pretty sure that neither our politics or religious views matched.

But to me, Texas is a foreign country. I've traveled all over the U.S., and Texas is the only state I spent time in that I was surprised I didn't have to show my passport to enter.

And if you are going to picture Texas as a guy, and think of him as an asshole, make sure he's wearing a big belt buckle too. Otherwise your image will be incomplete.  :)

All that being said, I was working in Georgia with a bunch of southern carpenters, and another person from the north, like myself, used the "N" word, jokingly, if that is possible. The southerners looked shocked, and did not respond as I would have expected, based on my assumption that they are a bunch of racists. They quickly changed the subject and no more was said. And the insensitive northerner who had used the word didn't even notice.

I have a very good friend who was born in Biloxi, MS, and raised in Texas. She is white, but her granddaughter is married to a black man and has a mixed-race child. And they live in North Carolina. And my friend has no problem with that. She loves them all. But she does say that if her father were alive, he would be apoplectic. Things are changing. Way too slowly, but in many ways they are changing.

And I live in an area full of paranoid white racists who want to build concrete bunkers and live in fear for the rest of their lives. And they come from all over the place. So while the generalization about the south may have some merit, one cannot be too righteous about being a northerner, because we have our assholes too.

People are always trying to rewrite history to their advantage. Usually the winners get the final say. I don't think southern apologists are going to have much success claiming innocence.

And since screwtape has just further stated his POV, I should point out that psychologist who study such things have found that the southern culture produces males with higher levels of testosterone, which they tend to use whenever they feel that their manhood is in question. This is apparently a cultural thing, where personal offense is more important to define and more important to respond to. The example given was if someone accidentally bumps into a southern male in a hallway, the southerner will take it as a personal offense and respond aggressively. The typical northern male will take it in stride, and certainly not personally. So it appears that there are cultural differences that are measurable. That doesn't account for slavery, but it explains how northerners might define southerners a bit less generously.

Hey, you're in luck. I thought I should probably provide a link, and the subject has made it to Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States)

One more thing. One charming and very southern couple (From Florida, though I was working on their second home in Virginia) I did some work for handed me the final check on my contract when I finished working on their house, and thanked me profusely for helping other workers, who had lots of questions because they had never built a log home before. And then the couple handed me an envelope with $2,000 cash in appreciation of the extra work/effort I had put into the project.

No northerner ever did that, even when the situation was similar, and the wealth level was similar. I never got even a dollar that way from such folks.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2014, 12:29:21 PM »
On slavery and what the South values
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/charleston-denmark-vesey-statue-030314

In Charleston, SC they just put up a statue to a slave named Denmark Vesey.  He planned a slave uprising to kill the masters, free his wife and children and escape to Haiti.  But they were caught and hanged.  The statue is causing controversey today because many southerners consider him to be a terrorist. 

At the bottom of the piece, Charles Pierce includes a monument that Charlestonians have erected to memorialize the men who initiated the seditious act of seceeding from the Union by attacking Fort Sumter.  As he said, "
the city never has been shy about memorializing actual treason."

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2014, 02:00:02 PM »
Hey, screwtape--what state are you living in so I too can make a list of people and ask you how you people elect them.

You started this discussion with a bias. You're discussing this topic with a bias, and you'll walk away with the same bias.

If anyone here has a right to a bias in concern to the south it's southerners here and sometimes we do but I don't remember anyone here talking shit about where you live with such bias and hatred toward them. "By and large" means "all things considered" "in general", to me that means 99.9% of everything minus that small .01%.

Oh, and my father's side, including my father, are from Indiana. Kind of takes that "stank scientifically proven fact" shit out of water.

You're a bigot. Congrats!

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2014, 02:58:20 PM »
You got that all wrong, Nam.  It takes being born in the south to acquire the Stank.  It doesn't matter where your father was born.  It matters where you were born and raised.  Which, for you, is apparently the South.  Which explains the Stank.


And if you'd, you know, bothered to read my post I said:
1. I live in NJ (but I am not a native)
2. I acknowledged every state elects idiots
3. I cited the NJ governor as an example of that
4. I agreed that probably 90% of people are idiots, but Texas is a special brand
5. I left open the possibility that it is only a couple high profile loons from Texas that make the rest look bad
Your lack of thoroughness on this is disappointing.

Yes.  I have bias.  I don't care.  It is a good bias.  Read my prior post on Charleston and the fact that they idolize and commemorate traitors.  Those are good people to be biased against.  It is like being biased against homophobic, sexist, chauvinistic fundies.  Calling me a bigot for being biased against them is ironic.

As far as southerners talking shit about my state, I have heard southerners actually talk about 9/11 as a good thing, wishing someone would knock down the rest of the city and then nuke L.A.[1]  I don't recall wishing terroristic destruction on the south. 

If it makes you feel any better, I've wanted to punch the majority of Vermonters and New Hampshirites (state motto: "drive like an asshole or die") I've met right in the face. 


 1. since Nam likes to jump to conclusions, let me just make clear, I do NOT think all southerners feel this way.  I do not even think most of them do.  But there are way more who do than northerners who talk about bombing anywhere in the south.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2014, 03:29:05 PM »
As many of you know, I hate the South and, by and large, southerners.  One of the things I particularly hate about them, is their spin on the Civil War.  Besides calling it the War of Northern Aggression, they also say it was not about slavery (oh, no, not at all), but about States Rights. 

LTCo. Robert Bateman blows that stupid argument out of the water and makes clear it is a lie.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/civil-war-was-about-slavery-022814

Quote
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

[...]

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
There's some irony in the use of "prejudice" but the whole thing speaks of the Southern States being unaware ofexactly what they were letting themselves in for when they signed up.

This is a very common mistake. From a European perspective, there is now much feeling that the European Union is a set of self-seeking bastards. We had been assured that being a member of the EU would not affect us at all, but simply make things easier and cheaper when going to Europe (if you do that sort of thing). It has turned out that the EU has made over 5,000 laws affecting the UK and altering our sovereignty and way of life.

It is clear that the Southern States thought that the trade agreements would be advantageous and that the national government would restrict itself to foreign policy. However, they misread the level of interference and became increasingly annoyed.

Nor must it be forgotten that the victor gets to write the history.

Screwtape, you are probably more concerned with those who will not let the War of Northern Aggression drop and call upon its cause to support 19th century attitudes.

I see the same with the Irish who, the best part of 500 years later, still go on about the deeds of Cromwell and, 150 years ago, the potato famine, etc. etc, ad nauseam.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2014, 03:47:35 PM »
Sorry, screwtape, but I have to agree with Nam.  There's simply no basis for this idea you have that a person born in the South somehow has this 'Stank' invade their DNA and that it takes eight generations of not being born in the South for it to leave.  So that means you're using it as an excuse to justify the bias you have against Southerners (or possibly as a way to twit Nam, though you seem quite sincere in it as far as I can tell).

You made the claim, so pony up with some evidence to support it.  Not simply quoting from a book written by a humorist and comedian, but actual statistical evidence and the like.  If you can't, well...

Now, if you want to point to cultural differences between the South and other regions, that's a different situation.  But if so, you shouldn't be talking about DNA in the first place.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +128/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2014, 04:52:35 PM »
But you raise an interesting point about racism.  Kind of a paradox I've observed (and backed up with no data whatsoever).  I have occasion to travel into Dixie[1] to visit family (they do not have the Stank, not having been born there).  And I notice far more interracial relationships than I do in NJ.  That suggests to me a lack of cultural racism.  I think that is a good thing. 

On the other hand, this is also a state (NC) where the elected law makers are doing everything in their power to make sure black people have as many obstacles to voting as possible, including being dropped from voter roles en mass mere days before an election. I take that to indicate a higher degree of institutional racism.

In NJ, I find the opposite.  While I do see interracial relationships, I do not see them as often as I did in NC.  Which suggests to me some degree of cultural racism and segregation.  However, I do not see the government (currently run by a repub) attempting to curb voting in anyway, which suggests to me a lack of institutional racism.

I find it interesting and do not know what to make of it.  I would like to see some data.
 1. I fcking hate that word

I believe I wrote this in another thread somewhere, so if I am repeating myself ... well, endure.

Many years ago I watched a documentary about race, prejudice and racism in which the director talked to numerous people who live up north and down south. One woman (she was likely in her 80s at the time, probably dead by now) put it succinctly by saying that Northerners don't care how high (in control) the blacks get in society, they just don't want to live next to them. The Southerners don't mind how close by the blacks live, they just don't want them to get too high (in control). I have found circumstance after circumstance that proves that statement true.

I think this has to do with Southerners historically living with blacks as slaves. The slaves lived on the property; the slaves worked in the houses. The slaves were everywhere, but they were not in control.  Northerners didn't live near blacks, historically, and don't care to live next to them in contemporary society, either (though this is slowly changing), but Northern whites don't mind if those blacks are attorneys general, governors ... or president.

The "stank" of racism continues, but just a bit differently according to your address.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +128/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2014, 05:06:47 PM »
While their politics often sucks, I enjoyed most of the people. They are rest story tellers and fun to work with. Even most of the rich folks (there was one notable exception) I worked for were great. Some were super-great. Even though I'm pretty sure that neither our politics or religious views matched.

...

One more thing. One charming and very southern couple (From Florida, though I was working on their second home in Virginia) I did some work for handed me the final check on my contract when I finished working on their house, and thanked me profusely for helping other workers, who had lots of questions because they had never built a log home before. And then the couple handed me an envelope with $2,000 cash in appreciation of the extra work/effort I had put into the project.

No northerner ever did that, even when the situation was similar, and the wealth level was similar. I never got even a dollar that way from such folks.

This doesn't surprise me. Southerners are all about who you know -- politics is paramount. They do extra if you do extra. Northerners ... I don't know what it is. Yankee thrift? British tight-ass cultural hand-me-downs? Northerners wouldn't dream of paying an extra penny for good work -- you have to build that into the price of things. Northerners can be uptight, cranky and tight-fisted. This may simply be a cost of living affect. The amount you have to pay for real estate in northern locations makes living in a southern location a very tempting thing. Northerners pay more, they demand more. The give as little as possible.

And, yes, I'm generalizing. I've been working with the public for over 25 years. This is what I see.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline shnozzola

Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2014, 05:38:54 PM »
   Funny, growing up in the north, you never realize that the southern view is still tainted about "yankees" until you travel down south.  It's like - The Civil War ?  Yeah, so what, that was 1850.  Who cares?

   But they sure do.  I believe it has to be pure south.  A city like Miami or New Orleans doesn't cut it.   As cool as Athens Georgia is, I felt the "oh you got a northern accent"  there.  There is so much cultural baggage.  Growing up above the Mason Dixon line, we just loved Southern Rock and the confederate flag.  We had no idea as teenagers how important it was for white and black from the south. How that flag is loved and hated.  How naive we were.

   And PP's story about his tip is so right on comparing southern hospitality to the northern straightforward approach to paying someone.

   In another thread I mentioned the new movie, "Muscle Shoals," where black and white musicians from Aretha Franklin to the Stones went down to a corner of Alabama expecting to record with the most soulful black men on planet earth, only to find out the cool long slow drag was laid down by lily white punks that knew how to jam.  Prejudices.  Everyone should experience living as a minority during their lives.

   And Graybeard's mentioning the Irish says everything about Israel and Palestine.  We humans love our grudges, no matter how foolish and useless.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +128/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2014, 06:34:54 PM »
I don't hate or even dislike Southerners. Many of them are friendly, affable and entertaining. But they are different.

Texas voters...

Louie Gomhert
Ted Cruz (a Canadian, btw)
Joe Barton (apologized to BP when they poisoned the gulf of mexico)
Lamar Smith
Tom Delay
Rick Perry
need I mention the Bushes?

Maybe your awful politicians are so awful they taint my perspective on the rest. But holy mother of glob, how do you elect these goons?  Add to that an official plank in the Texas GOP platform is to return to the gold standard.

Southerners, in general, are still fighting the Civil War. They just can't help themselves. They don't like to be on the losing side so they do everything else they can to be on the winning side.

Texans are just from a big state that has a big impact on everyone else. If Texas were half the size that it is now ... Texans would have about as much affect on the political scene as ... Louisiana. The Goons of Texas were elected by an idiotic lot of voters chosen by an idiotic lot of leaders:



By looking at the congressional voting districts of Texas you can see that Texas is large enough that numerous counties (TX-19 has 29!) can be in a single congressional district. Move to the right side of the graphic where you can see the details of the urban areas. The districts take on more contorted shapes than The Ross Sisters could invent.

Maryland, a state that is physically about 5% of the size of Texas but has about 20% of the population of Texas, suffers from the same effect but it becomes more obvious because of the smaller scale and tighter population:



Gerrymandering is an ugly thing, really. It serves no particular purpose except to specifically include certain voter profiles in order to exclude others. I don't like gerrymandering because I think it is wrong and it is imposed to keep control among a few instead of among the people. I acknowledge that I benefitted somewhat from gerrymandering as the district in which I live had been represented for 20 years by a Republican whom I regard as largely a useless buffoon. Maybe he wasn't that bad, but I had some personal experiences to attest to his lack of brain power. Gerrymandering forced him out of the picture and now we have a Democrat. I do not know enough about him to say that he's better than sliced bread, but I know he has to be better than the man he replaced. Ugh. Still, I'm not sure that less gerrymandering in Maryland would produce more Republican results compared to less gerrymandering in Texas which would likely produce more Democratic results.

Nevertheless, I do not know how our states get away with these gerrymandering maneuvers. Just look at Harris County (aka Houston) in which TX-18 surrounds part of TX-29 like a peninsula. TX-2 almost engulfs both of them like a hurricane. How can we justify that a person can make a beeline through two other congressional districts to get to the opposite side of their own congressional district? This is stupidity. Yet, this stupidity in Texas keeps Republicans in charge. In Maryland it keeps Democrats in charge.

The resulting differences between the two states may not be directly or completely attributable to the political influences exerted by the controlling parties of each state, but the differences are stark and substantial and are likely reinforced by such political controls. Maryland has the highest household incomes in the nation and has been placed highest among states for the educational results we get from our public schools. Texas is nearly the opposite. The number of people who have health insurance? Maryland ranks high among states with the most insured -- Texas is the lowest and has been the lowest-insured state for well over 20 years. I can only conclude that Democrats are more liberal, progressive and results oriented. Republicans are more conservative, regressive and tax-free oriented.

This is not to say that I have a love affair with Democrats. What it does show is that if I had to choose between one of each and I had no particular knowledge of each candidate, I'm gonna choose the Democrat. The Democrat is more likely to produce a better result or inflict the least damage.

I have visited Texas many times and there are many things to like about it (I think Texans are far more relaxed but perhaps too relaxed), but I'm so glad that I live in Maryland where the public educational system has been great for my daughter, citizens in need of health care or assistance for special medical needs get it, or where we actually care about the Chesapeake Bay even if our controls still haven't gotten the results we wanted by now ... I may be in Maryland for many years to come but I was recently made aware of an opportunity for a career change where my work could be located in 1 of 3 places: Atlanta, Dallas or Phoenix. Oh dear. Any of those choices are certainly  politically retrograde and would come with some significant culture shock. Yet, for example, I could buy 3x the house in any of those locations compared to what I can purchase here.

So, why does Bubba keep voting for Louie Gohmert? Because Bubba likes his guns, he likes his god, he thinks he's being marginalized by people who don't look like him or speak his language, he received a third-class education, receives a little above minimum wage and has no health care coverage. Yet he has been told that he is in the biggest, baddest, best state of all -- Texas! He sees Louie givin' it to the man in Washington (whomever that needs to be for any particular issue). Bubba is just dumb and Louie and his pals are making sure that Bubba stays dumb.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1189
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2014, 07:25:57 PM »
To be fair, no, that doesn't wash.  "States' rights" is a post hoc justification.  If there were no slavery, there would have been no war over state's rights.  It was about slavery, as demonstrated.
States' rights was a major issue from the start.  It was the driving force behind many of the compromises in the US Constitution, and first rose as a major issue a mere 10 years after the Constitution was established.  Southern states invoked states' rights numerous times throughout the 1800s, especially as slavery became a divisive issue.  The South steeped its political theory in the idea that states had the right to nullify laws they found unconstitutional, and had the right to secede if they felt the government no longer represented their interests.  In short, they viewed states as independent units, while the North viewed the union as a cohesive whole.

The Civil War settled the issue of secession, and the Supreme Court settled the issue of nullification in 1958.

Yes, slavery was the inciting factor of the Civil War, but that doesn't mean that it was the only issue at play.  Do you think the American Revolution was solely about tea and taxes?
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2014, 06:56:29 AM »
To be fair, no, that doesn't wash.  "States' rights" is a post hoc justification.  If there were no slavery, there would have been no war over state's rights.  It was about slavery, as demonstrated.
States' rights was a major issue from the start.  It was the driving force behind many of the compromises in the US Constitution, and first rose as a major issue a mere 10 years after the Constitution was established.  Southern states invoked states' rights numerous times throughout the 1800s, especially as slavery became a divisive issue.  The South steeped its political theory in the idea that states had the right to nullify laws they found unconstitutional, and had the right to secede if they felt the government no longer represented their interests.  In short, they viewed states as independent units, while the North viewed the union as a cohesive whole.

The Civil War settled the issue of secession, and the Supreme Court settled the issue of nullification in 1958.

Yes, slavery was the inciting factor of the Civil War, but that doesn't mean that it was the only issue at play.  Do you think the American Revolution was solely about tea and taxes?

You can't reason with a bigot.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12098
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2014, 07:32:30 AM »
Here screwtape, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

Educate yourself.

-Nam

A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2014, 08:23:33 AM »

You can't reason with a bigot.

-Nam

I could easily say you can't reason with whatever is an opposing viewpoint. While, yes, the whole 'stank' thing was more than a little bit distasteful, and bigoted. Lets not ignore the basic fact that slavery was listed by several states as their reason for succession. If slavery hadn't existed, the war wouldn't have happened. Sure there's various other underlying socio economic and philosophical differences, but none that would have resulted in armies being assembled. Just some bitter elections, and perhaps the occasional pocket of violence.

« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 08:26:48 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2014, 08:31:04 AM »
Even that wiki page tacitly admits that the primary reason for the civil war was slavery.  And it takes away the whole fig leaf of "states' rights"; it explicitly states that "states' rights was entirely a matter of protection of slavery."  There were other reasons for the war, but there weren't any "states' rights" involved except the right of the states to hold slaves.

Look, if it were truly about states' rights, then there would have been at least a few other things besides slavery involved.  Yet the actual secessions came about because Southerners - and not even all of them - were terrified that Abe Lincoln and the Republicans was going to take away their slaves after he got elected.  They didn't even wait for him to officially be sworn in!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12218
  • Darwins +661/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The South and Civil War
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2014, 09:50:36 AM »
You made the claim, so pony up with some evidence to support it. 

Oh for fcks sakes, really?  Do you really think I think living in the south puts a stank on DNA? 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.