Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on July 03, 2006, 09:50:13 AM
-
Weeks of wet weather preceding Lincoln's second inauguration had caused Pennsylvania Avenue to become a sea of mud and standing water. Thousands of spectators stood in thick mud at the Capitol grounds to hear the President. As he stood on the East Portico to take the executive oath, the completed Capitol dome over the President's head was a physical reminder of the resolve of his Administration throughout the years of civil war. Chief Justice Salmon Chase administered the oath of office. In little more than a month, the President would be assassinated.
Fellow-Countrymen:
AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. 1
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. 2
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
-
I wonder if Lincoln was alive today, if the media would say he lied about the war...
-
Comparing Bush to Lincoln. :rofl
-
Big difference as to "what counts." Eh? Take a peek at the Declaration. I started a thread, "We Mutually Pledge To Each Other."
In this world of "he says, she says." I want to follow the best "sayers."
hap
-
Just for fun, do a unique word count on Lincoln's speeches... Amazing vocabulary. Since campaigning used to be done in large part by distributing essays on paper, those early Presidents seem to have been quite eloquent and educated in ways that should still matter, but somehow don't.
Nowadays any candidate who spoke or wrote in that fashion would be dismissed as an elitist snob, simply because they could express themselves with grace and style.
Now everyone's a lawyer and lawyers only seem to need to know enough english to get people to fork over some more money.
-
Lincoln = the first Nazi
All he needed was the little mustache instead of the beard with no mustache....maybe he was compensating for his later reincarnation as Adolph Hitler with that beard.:lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Comparing Bush to Lincoln. :rofl
Well no comparsion was actually made... But rather what would the Ny Times have for a headline..
Extra Extra
Lincoln Lied
An anonymous source from Lincoln's cabinet explained that he deliberately told northern soldiers that the war was for perserving the union when in fact he knew it would free the slaves. Vice president Andrew Johnson was sought to comment on the statement but told us to F**** off. "Some 620,000 Americans have died to date in this war", claims George B. McClellan who will be running against Lincoln for president this fall. Mr. McClellan continues by saying " the president is incompetent and he should be impeached.". The war has not gone well for President Lincoln since he sacked General McClellan. Since then he has rotated through a number of Generals that have not done well. Lincoln's latest pick General Ulysses S. Grant is rumored to be a drunk and has recently lost 7000 men in one hour while attacking Cold Harbor. Soldiers under his command were so furious about the losses said they would no longer charge even if "Jesus Christ" himself order them to do so.[story continues on page 4]
-
Perhaps the greatest speech ever delivered by an American President...full of eloquence, insight, fervor, and compassion.
Only FDR's Four Freedoms speech comes close.
-
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
Just what was Lincoln trying to say here?
-
what he said, Holden.
hap
-
You didn't read this thread did you? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177760&highlight=slavery)
;)
-
That was an informative thread. Toad made some good arguments. Slavery was one of the reasons for the war, but not the only one.
Lincoln said in his 2nd Inaugural Address pretty much what he had to say, seems to me. It's a bad thing he was assassinated because he didn't want the South to suffer Reconstruction the way it turned out. Vindictive people in his administration wanted punishment for the South, and we got it to the tune of 130 years or so worth. Those guys sure didn't give much of a damn about God's justice, the way Lincoln was talking about.
I'm curious why you bring it up Holden McGroin. Is slavery something we need to keep rehashing? Or are you trying to win an argument with Toad? I'm thinking the latter, but bear in mind because Lincoln said it during his Inaugural Address, doesn't actually prove anything concerning what caused the war. It was a powerful speech by Lincoln. It may have been sincere on his part. I believe it was. It may also have been misinterpreted by some.
Let's say slavery was the primary cause of the war. Are you suggesting the Confederacy was the only one culpable?
Les
-
If you are going to make a speech about why you had a bloody civil war that killed untold thousands...
You might want to stress some noble reason like slavery instead of the real reason of wanting to keep the union together even tho it was a gross trampling on states rights that would forever change the meaning of the contract between the people and the federal government and give the federal government much more power that it was ever meant to have.
It would seem that the above would make more sense than anything else in light of the fact that when the war started lincoln said on more than one ocassion that if he could keep the union together by simply allowing slavery then he would have done so.
Slavery was on it's way out. It woulda died out in a few more decades in any case.
Lincoln
FDR
LBJ
These presidents were the largest contributors to the destruction of the original constitution and contract between Americans and the government. They did more to further socialism and destroy individualism than any others.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Slavery was on it's way out. It woulda died out in a few more decades in any case.
Ahem... weren't most of the Jim Crow laws on the books for another century?
-
yes sandie they most certainly were. The war civil war did not stop them. The civil war (and the loss by the south) was indeed the reason for them (why would you need jim crow laws if negroes had no rights anyway?)
Jim crow laws were bad for everyone as are all laws that try to "get' or "punish" one group by giving the government more power.
Allmost all modern gun control laws can be traced back to ignorant Jim Crow laws.
Slavery and discrimination are simply stupid ideas. Stupid ideas are doomed to failure. Forcing the issue allmost allways makes things worse (at least in the short term) and breeds biggotry.
If there had been no civil war or if the south had won... we would not have slavery today.... we would probly have had less Jim Crow laws and a lot less backlash and biggotry and discrimination today. We certainly would be a more free people on the whole with a less powerfull central government.
The civil war was a bad deal all around.
lazs
-
We need not expand this thread with a discussion on the cause of the civil war. I fully explained the correctness of my view and the complete ignorance of the opposing view in the other thread.:)
-
We need not expand this thread with a discussion on the cause of the civil war. I fully explained the correctness of my view and the complete ignorance of the opposing view in the other thread. :)
-
What was he saying here? "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
What "Lord" was he referring to?
-
It seems we argeed on something, Toad. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes sandie they most certainly were. The war civil war did not stop them. The civil war (and the loss by the south) was indeed the reason for them (why would you need jim crow laws if negroes had no rights anyway?)
Jim crow laws were bad for everyone as are all laws that try to "get' or "punish" one group by giving the government more power.
Allmost all modern gun control laws can be traced back to ignorant Jim Crow laws.
Slavery and discrimination are simply stupid ideas. Stupid ideas are doomed to failure. Forcing the issue allmost allways makes things worse (at least in the short term) and breeds biggotry.
If there had been no civil war or if the south had won... we would not have slavery today.... we would probly have had less Jim Crow laws and a lot less backlash and biggotry and discrimination today. We certainly would be a more free people on the whole with a less powerfull central government.
The civil war was a bad deal all around.
lazs
I'm not sure I follow...
If the South had won the civil war, blacks would have been treated better?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you are going to make a speech about why you had a bloody civil war that killed untold thousands...
You might want to stress some noble reason like slavery instead of the real reason of wanting to keep the union together even tho it was a gross trampling on states rights that would forever change the meaning of the contract between the people and the federal government and give the federal government much more power that it was ever meant to have.
It would seem that the above would make more sense than anything else in light of the fact that when the war started lincoln said on more than one ocassion that if he could keep the union together by simply allowing slavery then he would have done so.
Slavery was on it's way out. It woulda died out in a few more decades in any case.
Lincoln
FDR
LBJ
These presidents were the largest contributors to the destruction of the original constitution and contract between Americans and the government. They did more to further socialism and destroy individualism than any others.
lazs
Amen. Not many people would have a courage to express a view like that. PC and the rest of this rot, you know...
I've always been mistified with the legend/love/adoration given to Lincoln, FDR and (especially) LBJ. They were the worst presidents ever.
Clinton was just a wannabe, but fortunately, he was more of a potato than a politician. The damage he's dealt to this country was very significant, but had he not been an attetion potato, he could've done much more damage.
And no, I don't care about his BJs. I do care about missile guidance, nukes and ICBM info he gave to Chinese.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It seems we argeed on something, Toad. :D
We agree on the fact that we have totally opposite views, I believe. :)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It's a bad thing he was assassinated because he didn't want the South to suffer Reconstruction the way it turned out. Vindictive people in his administration wanted punishment for the South, and we got it to the tune of 130 years or so worth. - Les
The South, from the civil war right on up to today, have been punished, eh? 130 years of it?
No wonder the South is pissed off and just can't seem to get over it. I'd be pissed off too; being, like, half of America and still being punished for something that happened 130 years ago.
When-oh-when will the punishment stop?!
-
We're taking turns sending the South into "time out" and monitoring them so they don't act up again. They might call it punishment, but we think of it as tough love.
-
Well I suppose that the following facts are evidence of that tough love:
1. Carpetbagger governments cut deals with northern railroads whereby southern land was given to those railroads in return for each mile of track laid.
2. Graft and kickbacks given by those companies to the corrupt carpetbagger/scalawag governments.
3. Northern timber companies carting away half the timber harvested in the South in the decades after the war.
4. Northern banking concerns and government officials buying up vast tracks of land for the paltry sum of paying the back taxes on the land, thereby forcing large numbers of poor white and black farmers to indenture themselves to the sharecropping system...as great an abomination as slavery had been.
5. Massive state debt brought on by carpetbagger officials creating government programs in order to dispense largesse to kin and cronies.
Zip your pants and keep your tough love.
-
There is but one America.
Yet, you'd never guess it by listening to the folks residing in the Southern portion of it. I've raised the topic a few times here, and the resulting slugfest has usually led to the thread coming perilously close to lockage.
I'll try again.
Why can the South not manage to get over a war that happened well over a century ago? Why does it re-live that war on a seemingly daily basis? Why do they say that they have been punished ever since? Why do they continue to play the role of the victim of the United States so steadfastly, while at the same time being the first people to want to beat the snot out of anyone who burns its symbols?
We see the South's bitterness through a myriad of things:
1) Attacks on politicians for hailing from a north east state. Last time I checked, they too were Americans. Or do you not see them as every bit as American as you? So why the automatic disdain? Are you just not over the war yet? Were your feelings hurt? Do you need another 130 years to get over it?
To sulk about it?
2) Attacks on education and universities. Yeah, like it's a bad thing to be educated. "Ohh no! More elitist educated shysters!" At this point I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that your southern boy president George Bush was born in Connecticut, went to high school in (gasp!) Massachusetts, then went on to Yale.
3) Attacks on the news media. Never mind the fact the press serves as (these days) the one remaining body who is still willing to provide a check on the government - as so carefully protected by the founders. Alas, in a free country - there is no alternative. I'm not sure what the Southerners would like it replaced with, but I'm pretty sure that a free press is better than Pravda. There was a guy on FOX the other day seriously proposing the formation of yet another government agency - A United States Bureau of Censorship. Kid you not. What - pray tell Southerns, would you have in a free press' stead?
4) Attacks on Hollywood. Who gives a crap? If a movie sounds interesting, go see it. If it doesn't? Stay home. All the hand wringing in the world won't change it, and yes - even people in the south pay good money to see them time and time again. It all just sounds like meaningless hysteria from you guys.
5) Attacks on science. This one totally baffles me. Schiavo's marvelous chances for recovery, anti-stem cell research, the Earth being created 6,000 years ago, the out of hand dismissal that six and a half billion people don't really effect the environment. In a perfect world, just what - exactly - would y'all have us believe?
6) Attacks on the government itself. This one in particular resonates with the south. Why would they trust a federal government when it's that same federal government that has inflicted so much pain - one hundred and thirty years worth of it - on the south? Instead, they vote for people who have nothing but disdain for government. No surprise then that the people that they elect have absolutely zero idea as to how to govern.
Watch as they rape the treasury. Watch as they commit their boys to a fiasco of a war. Watch as they run health care into the ground.Watch as they throw their hands up in the air and turn the keys over to one corporation after another. Watch as they sit there stupefied looking at the horror show that is their governance, only mustering the ability to legislate on such significant issues such as flags and gays and video games. They very literally are capable of nothing else.
Then watch as they sit back and say "See? Government sucks."
7) Attacks on Gays. Get a life.
Attack, attack, attack...
Bitter? Yeah, I think so.
On the weekend I heard this song on the radio. It was a country song. I like a ton of country, but this song was one of those recent songs that seems to resonate with the south and lead to album sales.
The guy was saying something like "I don't wear no baggy pants - I got blisters on my hands, I got no peircings, I'm a blue collar worker, I work hard, you bums don't, I'm a cowboy from the south and I basically can't stand you."
Or something very, very close to that. At least a few of yas must know the song I'm talking about.
Now..... Go ahead and point me to something on the charts that has anyone else even bothering with some kind of attack on southern culture.
Something like: "Horses are teh ghey, and what the hell is up with a cowboy hat anyway? I make my minimum wage in working in Dennys, and Texas is too hot for me."
As if.
Victimhood. Oh woe is me. A very southern trait, and one that is laser-beam focused on tearing the entire republic into shreds.
Happy Independance day.
So I guess the grand question is: What the hell is up with y'all feeling so damned victimized all the time? What causes you to lash out at and seek to destroy everything that makes America the great country that it is?
A war? 130 years ago?
Do you not feel that you're really part of America now? Can you not get over it?
And finally... Never mind for a second what it is that you don't like (lord knows we've heard enough):
What exactly would make you guys happy?
-
*Looks skyward in awe*
Holy crap that is the biggest straw man I have ever seen.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
*Looks skyward in awe*
Holy crap that is the biggest straw man I have ever seen.
I don't think so Funked. I could be wrong. Show me how?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now..... Go ahead and point me to something on the charts that has anyone else even bothering with some kind of attack on southern culture.
Written and performed by a Kanukistani! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Man)
-
Heh. I'm just gonna salute your find, and the neat way that the 35 year-old song about the South was written by a Canadian. I reckon a kudos is in order.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You didn't read this thread did you? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177760&highlight=slavery)
;)
I glanced at it Holden, and I did not read it.
hap
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wanting to keep the union together even tho it was a gross trampling on states rights that would forever change the meaning of the contract between the people and the federal government and give the federal government much more power that it was ever meant to have.
lazs
yuppers. a "matter" to be sure. Though I don't know that your last clause is correct.
-
This is truely funny... a canadian explaining how we are all Americans and that only the southerner is to blame for the rift.... that our education system and news media and hollywood elite and yes... even our "scientists" are all saints that no one can question..
unless..... unless of course they stray from the lefty socialist line... then of course the most vile and vitriholic condemnation is too good for em....
Those who stray in teaching are ostracized... those who don't go along with the 80% or so liberal line in the news better be looking for work in the few conservative outlets...
Thos who don't go on "24 hour fasts" or raise money for libverals in hollywood are denied the social interaction needed to work... the lefty version of the blacklist... those scientists who don't jump on the man made global warming craze are denied grant money...
Yep... some canadian explains it all to us as being an attack by the red areas against the blue and that being.... the uneducated people who live in the wrong kind of homes and eat the wrong kind of food and don't wear the right kind of clothes or watch the right kind of news or movies...
he freaks because these people attack socialism and more government in their lives.... He joins his your-0-peeean bretheren in barbaric arrogance against a system far superior to his own.
And.... to top it all off.... he tells us this is all "southern" white men (he would never blame women or coloreds that would be well... red)
He seems to feel that these ignorant hating southern white men are to blame even tho the red and blue map makes it quite apparent that it is the effite socialists against those who would rather have less government in their lives.
oh... did I point out that the guy is a canadian who has probly never spent any time with southerners or conservative Americans but has spent countless hours making fun of them based on what he has read somewhere?
lazs
-
Now that the government worker who hails from the northern part of liberal California has had his say (what it was, exactly, is beyond me), does anyone from the actual south feel like addressing the victimhood that we always hear coming from it? I'd especially like to hear if anyone else feels as Leslie does; that the south has been punished for these last 130 years.
-
Sounds to me like they are pro-reparations.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds to me like they are pro-reparations.
I'd settle for pro-takeyerassbacktoyankeelandtions. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
that the south has been punished for these last 130 years.
140 years would be much closer...
-
Nash,
About the only places I hear the Civil War debated at length are on these bbs and in college classrooms.
Truthfully, it's just not that big a topic down here anymore. Race relations gets more play than the War of Northern Aggression (heh!)
I think what riles up most Southerners on these boards is the tendency of some northerners to use the topic to "tweak their noses." These jibes are, in my opinion, more of a clash of urban and rural cultures than anything else. It has been my perception that some of our western posters have, at times sided with the rural side of this argument.
As evidence of the difference of the perceptions of the Civil War, witness the regional views of Abraham Lincoln's administration. northerners view him, for the most part, as one of the best presidents to ever occupy the office, while Southerners are quicker to point out his failings. That is not to say that all northerners view Lincoln as a saint; nor do all Southerners view him as a sociopath. Obviously, to any objective person, the truth about "Honest Abe" lies somewhere in the middle of the two extreme views.
What I'm trying to point out is that there is undoubtedly as much myth evident in one of those views as there is in the other.
For further evidence that both sides of the Civil War argument have some maturing to do, witness the arguments we've had on these boards about the "cause" of the Civil War. Slavery. The big "booger bear" of an argument that sets rival debaters here to foaming at the mouth.
Quite frankly, having studied the topic thoroughly while working on two degreees, and teaching about the war for 30 years in a high-school classroom, I can state that the actual cause was economics. Specifically the economic differences between north and South as embodied in the Nullification Crisis, which was touched off by the Tariff of 1828. That Tariff was strongly opposed by the Southern states, because their citizens purchased most of their goods from European nations. The Tariff protected Northern industries from cheap foreign competition, but drove up the prices of all manufactured goods purchased by the South. South Carolina threatened to secede and voted to nullify the act.
This brought up an argument over state's rights. Neither of these two arguments, over the tariff or over state's rights, was directly related to slavery. The argument over high tariffs would remain a sore point between the two regions for decades.
Slavery was also a majory issue between north and South, as evidenced by the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the infamous Dred-Scott decision.
And yet, Lincoln did not cite slavery as the main issue driving his decision to send troops into the Southern States...it was preservation of the Union.
And it was not the Civil War, by itself, that left the widest rift between North and South...at least in my opinion. It was the Reconstruction Period, with Southern states under control of a hostile Republican congress, dominated by angry and bitter men such as Thaddeus Stephens and Charles Sumner (although Sumner had sufficient cause to hate the South, after the beating he took from "Bully Brooks.")
My previous post touched on some of the evils of the Carpetbagger governments in the South. While these governments accomplished much in the South that was good, they were, nevertheless, permeated with corrupt officials concerned mainly with lining their own pockets, and who committed the ultimate sin...organizing the black vote and using it to maintain themselves in power.
The main cause of the rift that existed between north and South, that persisted for so long and gave rise to Jim Crow and other evils, lie in the years of the Reconstruction.
Thankfully, much of that resentment has faded...indeed...the South is far different from what it was when I was a child. Things may not be perfect, but they are far better than they were.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Nash
There is but one America.
Yet, you'd never guess it by listening to the folks residing in the Southern portion of it.
You don't have to look very far to find sections of countries or nations that feel about the same way as the Southerners do.
It might have something to do with having their rights trampled by others. It probably takes a long time to forget.
-
Shuckins - awesome post - thanks!!
Same with you Toad, but I have a question. When you say that it "might have something to do with having their rights trampled by others," you of course realize that the North plays by the same rules as the South. Or am I mistaken about that?
Are the South's rights trampled while the North's are not?
If not, then country that America has eventually become is, like it or not, a land of shared sacrifice and opportunity. One nation, where the laws applicable to the country as a whole are evenly applied - North and South.
Thus it would seem to me that any misgivings about the result of the Civil War (and the resulting Reconstruction) necessarily translates into having misgivings about the America that exists today.
Mind you, I think that having misgivings about it is perfectly acceptable, perfectly American and in fact, I do think that - beyond a shadow of a doubt - the Civil War still looms large in the collective psyche of the South.
If there's any doubt about it now, please refer to "people in his administration wanted punishment for the South, and we got it to the tune of 130 years," and "it might have something to do with having their rights trampled by others."
Be that as it may, I do have serious issues with how those misgivings have been focused on what they seem to perceive as the "elite:" higher education, the press, good governance and science to name but a few (and the list is long).
And it seems to me that the South's answer to this "elite" is the embracing of its opposite in almost every meaningful way: deriding university and education, muzzling a free press, cheering on the dismantling of the government, and a determined effort to replace science with anything but science.
Finally, I can't help but think that these positions are irrational... but continue to be championed for no other reason but that they are at odds with what America is now as a result of the Civil War.
Uhm.... anyways.... that's my interpretation of it. If I'm off base, please, enlighten me.
-
Nash,
To ask what might have happened if Lincoln had not been assassinated is to indulge in mere speculation. Sure, the Reconstruction might have gone a lot smoother, with less bitterness and rancor, but we can never know for sure.
As far as the assertion that Southerners had their "rights" trampled...that is true in the sense that many whites who had supported the Confederate Cause were disenfranchised for many years after the war. No greater insult for the whites of that day could have been imagined, in that they lost the vote while the former slaves, for the first time, gained full voting rights.
In the twentieth century, some in the South would undoubtedly say that northern civil rights activists and northern politicians singled the Southern states out for special attention. To wit, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson worked feverishly to eliminate du jure segregation in the South while virtually ignoring the equally abhorrent de facto segregation which existed in the North. One clue that this criticism wasn't entirely without merit can be found in the extremely violent and destructive riots of the 1960s that were, almost exclusively, a phenomenon of the northern cities.
As to the perception that many Southerners despise the elitism of the north and readily embrace it's opposite, I can only say that is true, but only to a point. It would be more accurate to say that the rural areas of the South eschew the values they perceive as being embraced by the urban culture of the north: moral relativism, sexual promiscuity, atheism, elitism, and pride in an urban lifestyle. This detestation of urban culture, and the reciprocity of northern detestation of Southern rural culture, perhaps embodied most strongly in the writings of H. L. Mencken, is no more than the age old strife between city-folk and country-folk that has existed since the walls of Jericho were first raised.
This resentment of northern snootiness does NOT carry over into a destation of the United States itself, its history, or its government. Indeed, Southerners and Westerners have traditionally sent a greater percentage of their sons into the military than the urban areas of the country.
One example of the latter relates to two towns in my home state of Arkansas. Dermott and McGehee are sometimes called the twin cities in our county, although the use of the phrase twin cities is a misnomer. Anyway, during World War II both towns numbered approximately 3500 souls. Both sent equal numbers of young men into the military services. Dermott lost nary a son to enemy action...a miracle one might say...while McGehee lost 36.
Visit the South and you will be treated with great courtesy. Cuss the region or the country, and a Southerner will kick your ass.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Visit the South and you will be treated with great courtesy.
This has been - without exception - my experience there. Absolute faith restoring courtesy.
Another great post, Shuckins. I'll give other people the chance to pipe in before I respond with more of my BS.
But about the courtesy....
I've been there many many times. Some just as a traveller who's had to navigate the mess that is the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport in order to get to somewhere else.
Other times... well...
Louisiana. Homeless and stranded. Running around with others of like circumstance. This kid finds a box of Ritz crackers in the garbage - gives it to me: "Take it." I ate the whole thing.
Georgia, Alabama, wherever..... same deal. Those people are amazing and I'll never forget it.
-
Where do you get these ideas from Nash? I have yet to see where anyone on this bbs (from the South or not) has derided education where it's open to respectful discussion and debate. Nor have I seen where anyone wanted to muzzle a free press. Folks want the press to be responsible instead of sensational. About dismantling the govt. I for one have always said I have faith in our Congress to make sensible decisions and laws. I vote, and I have never said otherwise. Science...I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say replace science with anything but. Please elaborate on that one.
Concerning the South and in response to your previous question "What do we want?" We want America to come first. We're tired of any idea of the UN attempting to dictate policy. We want Western civilization emphasized in education.
I suppose what we really want is for the South and its great people to be accorded respect, because as faithful and loyal Americans, southerners have earned it. And as Shuckins said, things are getting better. I see it as more of a culture clash than anything, and this is a difficult thing to respond to, as people in any particular region are set in their ways, or, if you will, they have a system they adhere to. We are proud of our heritage, as I'm sure you are of yours.
I'm not sure victimhood is the message I was delivering in my post, but if it seemed to be I apologize for not being more clear. That was my fault for not giving specifics, though it's kinda hard to pin down. And I admit to being biased. With me it's the little things I suppose, and this is strictly local, like tearing down historic buildings and replacing them with modern ugly and imposing architecture. Or the city art museum not displaying local goods made by local artists in the gift shop. This may seem of small consequence. I see it as a kind of region-bore inferiority complex. To me there's something wrong with that. But that's something I don't want, and in keeping with the spirit of what I do want. I want the good and positive to not be hidden under a bushel.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.:D Have a great day.
Les
-
Originally posted by Nash
Same with you Toad, but I have a question. When you say that it "might have something to do with having their rights trampled by others," you of course realize that the North plays by the same rules as the South. Or am I mistaken about that?
You are mistaken. The North did not play by the same rules.
The origin of this goes WAY back, before the Civil War.
There is NO Constitutional mandate for any part of the Federal government to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union. Therefore, under the 10th, any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal government resides in the individual State or the People.
Lincoln had no justification...none... for using force of arms to prevent a sovereign State from secession.
Like so many other forced governmental associations around the globe, hard feelings remain for literally hundreds of years after these things happen.
-
Not to add much here, but I can vouch for the segregation existing in Northern cities during the 60's and later. Chicago in particular was one of the most racially divided places I've ever witnessed. In many respects it still is.
-
Originally posted by Toad
There is NO Constitutional mandate for any part of the Federal government to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union. Therefore, under the 10th, any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal government resides in the individual State or the People.
Toad, I don't know for a fact that you're correct because I'm not read up like I should be. What you say sounds right.
Quite the issue. Not a result that displeases me. I've not seriously pondered states exercising the autonomy you mention and the result upon the union. From 1865 to 1965, I suppose there is much fuel for discussion and evidence of states exercising autonomy (their [/I]rights[/i] ; can't think of another noun) and the Federal Gov't saying, no, no, that is wrong. Mississippi comes to mind. Also, in the north east I recollect the sewing/sweat shops, one being burned down with all inside because the bosses locked the workers in.
I dont' know if Fed government intervened in the case of the seamstresses. I'm sure folks will set us right with the facts.
hap
-
It really doesn't take that long to read the Constitution, especially the document and the Blll of Rights. There are the amendments but not all that many up to the Civil War.
There's nothing in there that specifically enumerates a power to the Federal Government that would allow the Feds to force a State to stay in the Union.
Lincoln radically altered the Constitutional status of the Federal Government.
Look at it this way: as originally set up, the Feds were Representatives of the States. The Federal government was a tool to implement the desires of the States. After Lincoln, the Federal government began to rule the States which is just bassackwards from what the Founders had in mind.
-
And can you imagine the screaming today if any President suspended habeus corpus, implemented military tribunals for civilians, declared martial law and had Congressional representatives the spoke against him deported to Canada?
Yet Lincoln is apparently revered by some despite this trampling of Constitutional rights.
Go figure.
-
Sic semper tyrannis! WTG Booth.
I only wish a couple of other brave men had the guts to do the same to LBJ and FDR.
-
You'd wish them dead? A bit over the top, IMO.
I just wish they'd never been elected. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
You'd wish them dead? A bit over the top, IMO.
Maybe you are right. I am against both the death penalty and abortion so wishing death upon some one is inconsistant with those beliefs. I certainly wouldn't have pulled the trigger. OTOH I have come to the conclusion that some folks may just need to be killed. Johnson and Lincoln have a lot of blood on their hands. FDR can't be blamed for war but his programs and policies on the domestic front were horrible IMHO.
I just wish they'd never been elected. ;)
I won't argue with you there.
-
I don't want this to sound too flippant - because it surely is not - but how is keeping the South in the Union any different than the U.S.'s taking over land from the Native Americans and displacing its people?
How is it any different than the annexing of the Western U.S. (Oregon, Texas) and the Mexican-American War that led to Mexico's ceding of the S.W. of the U.S. (California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado etc.)? How is it any different from the idea of Manifest Destiny?
It's not much different when you get right down to brass tacks.
A couple of hundred years later, and you've got an America that stretches from sea to shining sea.
What about any of that history makes the South special?
I mean, maybe MT was right. Maybe you really do want reparations?
Ya hear a lot of hurt coming from the south over this, but what you don't really hear in any significant way is anything resembling the sort of sentiment that would have the South wanting to secede from the United States. In fact, the opposite can be said; the South are some of the most vocally patriotic people in America.
So the South doesn't want to leave, yet is bitter about having to remain, and loves the country as it ended up becoming with them in it.
What's the answer here?
-
Debating state's rights or the causes of the War of Northern Aggression or the cultural differences between North and South does not necessarily indicate bitterness.
The South has a unique history. It is the only region of the nation to have been invaded by the Federal Government. Of COURSE Southerners are going to view that event differently than citizens from the north or West. Oddly enough, Southerners take pride in that uniqueness.
Conceding the argument about the evils of slavery, the debate in favor of the doctrine of state's rights has a great deal of merit if one looks at that debate in light of what many of the Founding Fathers believed about the basic powers and responsibilities of the State and federal governments.
Also, there is considerable merit to the accusations about the war having one of its root causes in the economic struggle between north and South which manifested itself in a decades long political struggle for control of Congress and its power to regulate the tariff and set the nation's economic policy.
Southerners are closer to all these historic events than the residents of any other section of the country. They have studied the period extensively, and some of the best histories of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow have been written by Southern historians, such as Douglas Southall Freeman and Comer van Woodward.
But bitterness. Hardly. A willingness to defend the belief in the "lost cause,"...certainly. Pride in the nobility of character of men such as Robert E. Lee, despite the stigma attached to that cause...most definitely.
For Lee is the embodiment of the best elements of the Southern spirit. Honor, generosity, patriotism. Yes, patriotism....for when the war was over no man worked harder than he to mend the rifts between North and South...or to encourage his fellow Southerners to accept the fait accompli.
Who else but Lee would be the first white man to kneel in prayer beside a former slave at the alter of his church?
The same fierce pride in Southern history is also mirrored in the fierce patriotism Southerners have for the United States. How odd it must seem to a Yankee that a descendant of a Confederate Rebel can show equal pride in flying both the Confederate battle flag and Old Glory.
Unique? You betcha!
-
Originally posted by Nash
The South, from the civil war right on up to today, have been punished, eh? 130 years of it?
No wonder the South is pissed off and just can't seem to get over it. I'd be pissed off too; being, like, half of America and still being punished for something that happened 130 years ago.
When-oh-when will the punishment stop?!
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
LOL.
You wanna fight me Mac?
I'm game. But no weapons, and that includes your Walmart bulk pallete of Kleenex.
:rofl
-
nash... you can't have it both ways... first you say that the "south" is full of people that hate state mandated and controlled education and liberal controlled media bias and big government and then when it is pointed out that it is not just the south that dislikes those things...
My folks lived in the south... I was there every year. I am not a southerner... My grandparents came here to the U.S. long after the civil war and I live in kalifornia.... I still think I have a right to voice my opinion on government and education and the press.
I think that the war between the states was a war about states rights and even more.... the rights of the individual against those of a strong central government.... the individual lost.
Today we have the same kind of fight but the borders are not so well drawn... it is more like a the red and blue map looks more like a quilt sewn by a crazy woman and only makes sense when you look at population areas..
the rural people still want to be individuals... the sardine men and women still want to be socialists jammed into their little city boxes and minding everyone elses business.
MT.... the south did not or is not asking for reparations.... the immigrants to this country who were all treated way worse than any slave ever was are not asking for reparations..... only one group is that I know of...
The loss of the civil war was a loss to all Americans who believed in the tenants of the first revolution against a stong and arrogant central government in england.
Those in favor of a strong central government remain the enemy.
lazs
-
The other reason why strong states rights are important is because no matter where you live in the U.S. it would be nice to have options.
For instance... many states are more liberal and have higher taxes and more restrictions on how you live. It is nice to be able to move to a place like new york city if you are a person like nash (except he isn't a citizen of the U.S of course) and to move to a place like Texas or Arizona if your sympathies are like mine..
Restrictions on cars should be different in the LA basin than say the plains..... gun control laws should maybe be different in detroit than in some rural state or county.
No strong central government can please all these types of people... that is why there is such a huge red and blue rift.
Red people don't want to live in the blue areas and the blue ones hate the red areas. They really should have seperate laws not stong central ones except for human rights ones.
lazs
-
Nash you seem to be French Canadian.
:D
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Sic semper tyrannis! WTG Booth.
I only wish a couple of other brave men had the guts to do the same to LBJ and FDR.
Bruno, what you say is plain awful and wrong.
hap
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
*Looks skyward in awe*
Holy crap that is the biggest straw man I have ever seen.
Man...after nash's post...that caught me perfectly off-guard!
:p :p
-
Originally posted by Nash
...any different than the U.S.'s taking over land from the Native Americans and displacing its people?...
.....How is it any different than the annexing of the Western U.S. (Oregon, Texas) and the Mexican-American War that led to Mexico's ceding of the S.W. of the U.S. (California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado etc.)? How is it any different from the idea of Manifest Destiny?
I think you'll agree that neither the Native Americans or the Hispanics (who talk gleefully now of the "reconquista") have any big warm fuzzy feelings for the Federal government. Pretty much like Southerners in that regard, wrt to the "ell no I ain't forgettin'" aspect of the Civil War.