The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals is not something that started back in the 1960s. As this article points out, it has been going on since the Revolution:

www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/

The labels " southern" and " Yankee" are a simplefication, of course. There have been, and continue to be, Southern leaders commited to the liberal ideal ( Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, etc. ) and the " Yankee " ideal of the rich serving their community oftentimes rang very hollow, e.g. Andrew Carnegie's gifts of libraries to New York City- given at a time when he connived with his ruthless partner Henry Frick to break an ongoing strike with Pinkerton goons and bullets. But the basic premise holds up.

The naming of these two cultures as inherently southern and inherently yankee isn't comfortable for me to accept on its face. Otherwise, I think it is quite accurate.

If you're interested in this type of idea, start here



The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America
by Kevin Phillips discusses the idea that this conflict has it's origin within the English CIvil War and has been refought, in many ways, in both the Revolution and Civil War and still echos in the "culture wars" of today. Basically his thesis is that the Yankee/Liberal forces in America are descended from the victors of the ECW and the South was heavily populated by the losers of that conflict and that the conflict reignites every so often.

Very well written and argued, I found it very persuasive.

wlewisiii wrote:If you're interested in this type of idea, start here

The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America
by Kevin Phillips discusses the idea that this conflict has it's origin within the English CIvil War and has been refought, in many ways, in both the Revolution and Civil War and still echos in the "culture wars" of today. Basically his thesis is that the Yankee/Liberal forces in America are descended from the victors of the ECW and the South was heavily populated by the losers of that conflict and that the conflict reignites every so often.

Very well written and argued, I found it very persuasive.

I haven't read that book, but I've heard that thesis, and I generally am unpersuaded.

It often seems to be based on a superficial resemblance between English Cavaliers and the supposedly gallant Southern aristocracy (think R. E. Lee, etc.)

One very strong cross current is the role of fundamentalist Christianity. It was the dominant characteristic of the English Puritans, and at one time was still evident in the Northern U.S. (New England) elite, but now is solidly the domain of the U.S. South.

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that the writer don't know doodley squat about the South.

He writes, "400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God."

This is bull hockey at it's finest. Slavery was introduced by the english in both Virginia and Massachusetts in the 1600s. All of the colonies were slave colonies until Pennsylvania first outlawed the practice around 1790. Federally it was a "States Rights" issue until slavery was federally prohibited in 1865. What all this means is that YANKEES OWNED SLAVES! If it wasn't for the Quakers and a few more liberal groups of theologians, the yankees would still have had slavery when the Civil War started. The good folks saved the soul of the north on that issue. In order to control the labor force, the yankees turned to enslaving the Irish and they did a fine job of that to. I have read more than one historian say that it was far cheaper to kill an Irishman than it was to kill a slave.

The southern concept of civility and noblesse oblige is deeply ingrained in antebellum society. The south had a form of socialized medicine that the north did not enjoy. The plantation owners were deeply involved in the local communities and when a member of those communities were sick, the plantation owner assisted with medical attention and helped provide for the family until the individual recovered. The plantation owners built and funded churches and schools many of which are still standing and in service with a long and proud history. The wealth of the plantations was shared by the community and the owners were more often than not looked upon with favor.

He also writes, "Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror."

Yes there was a great divide between the rich and the poor but that exact same divide existed in the North. The divide between the rich and powerful in the North far surpasses the South by a large margin. The North had ten times the wealth of the south and fifteen times the population. The one percent in the pre-Civil War North probably controlled 95% or more of the wealth. Most urban northerners lived in a level of poverty that far exceeded that experienced by a southerner. Most slaves were better dressed, better fed, and better housed that the european immigrants living in the northern urban centers. Did the rich northerners give a damn? Hell no! It was cheap labor as far as they were concerned.

There was no state sponsored terror in the South and the claim is bullshit. There were evil laws that allowed one person to hold another person in bondage and that sucked but the South never had civil unrest outside of the slavery issue. That can not be said for the North. Another point to ask is, do you really think that all those fine young southern men would march off to war to protect a terrorist regime? That again is flaming bull hockey.

"He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible."

Think about it! More crap! The South did not have northern wealth and were largely an agricultural society. The centers of manufacturing were Birmingham, Chattanooga, Richmond, and etc. The had foundries and manufacturing on a wide scale. It wasn't as large as anything that the north could achieve but they were good solid industries with many fine artisans on their payrolls.

"The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more “liberty” you could exercise — which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more “liberties” with the lives, rights and property of other people."

It gets deeper and deeper. Why does this man think that if you cheat on a poor man that he won't blow your head off? The south was and still is a passionate place where family, land, and community comes first and if you threaten any of that a southern man will put you in the ground regardless of your financial well being.

"When a Southern conservative talks about “losing his liberty,” the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control — and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from — is what he’s really talking about. "

This issue of slavery has always been the control of labor and nothing else. The northern manufacturer had an unlimited supply of immigrant labor that would work for half the cost of a slave. Take away a yankees cheap labor and he will go to war and do all sorts of unspeakable things to get it back.

It goes on and on. This guy is just a intellectual debutante who wants to say that northern rich guys maybe bad but thank God they aren't southern rich guys. He also is sort of implying that we need to get southern rich guys out of politics and put the yankee carpetbaggers back in or else the whole world will become a southern plantation. What a dweeb!

There are many sins the South has committed. We should only have to make amends for the ones we actually committed. Anyone who believes tripe like this needs to move to the South and get involved in our real culture. We are polite. We open doors for others and hold them open while providing an honest smile. We care for our neighbors and our community. We love cold beer and barbecue. Fried green tomatoes was on the table the night before last. Catfish is in the creek. Football is argued as strongly as politics. We love to swim in our free flowing creeks and rivers. Our fields are fertile and our woods are full of game. You would love our people and our lives. It is a wonderful place and even though I have circumnavigated the globe and spent most of my life seeing the far corners of the world, I always come back home to my beloved Tennessee and the wonderful South.

I was raised by northern liberals, amongst northern liberals. The only prejudice that one could hold without any shame was a prejudice against southerners. That's not my idea of righteousness.

punkinlobber wrote:After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that the writer don't know doodley squat about the South.

He writes, "400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God."

This is bull hockey at it's finest. Slavery was introduced by the english in both Virginia and Massachusetts in the 1600s. All of the colonies were slave colonies until Pennsylvania first outlawed the practice around 1790. Federally it was a "States Rights" issue until slavery was federally prohibited in 1865. What all this means is that YANKEES OWNED SLAVES! If it wasn't for the Quakers and a few more liberal groups of theologians, the yankees would still have had slavery when the Civil War started. The good folks saved the soul of the north on that issue. In order to control the labor force, the yankees turned to enslaving the Irish and they did a fine job of that to. I have read more than one historian say that it was far cheaper to kill an Irishman than it was to kill a slave.

The southern concept of civility and noblesse oblige is deeply ingrained in antebellum society. The south had a form of socialized medicine that the north did not enjoy. The plantation owners were deeply involved in the local communities and when a member of those communities were sick, the plantation owner assisted with medical attention and helped provide for the family until the individual recovered. The plantation owners built and funded churches and schools many of which are still standing and in service with a long and proud history. The wealth of the plantations was shared by the community and the owners were more often than not looked upon with favor.

He also writes, "Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror."

Yes there was a great divide between the rich and the poor but that exact same divide existed in the North. The divide between the rich and powerful in the North far surpasses the South by a large margin. The North had ten times the wealth of the south and fifteen times the population. The one percent in the pre-Civil War North probably controlled 95% or more of the wealth. Most urban northerners lived in a level of poverty that far exceeded that experienced by a southerner. Most slaves were better dressed, better fed, and better housed that the european immigrants living in the northern urban centers. Did the rich northerners give a damn? Hell no! It was cheap labor as far as they were concerned.

There was no state sponsored terror in the South and the claim is bullshit. There were evil laws that allowed one person to hold another person in bondage and that sucked but the South never had civil unrest outside of the slavery issue. That can not be said for the North. Another point to ask is, do you really think that all those fine young southern men would march off to war to protect a terrorist regime? That again is flaming bull hockey.

"He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible."

Think about it! More crap! The South did not have northern wealth and were largely an agricultural society. The centers of manufacturing were Birmingham, Chattanooga, Richmond, and etc. The had foundries and manufacturing on a wide scale. It wasn't as large as anything that the north could achieve but they were good solid industries with many fine artisans on their payrolls.

"The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more “liberty” you could exercise — which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more “liberties” with the lives, rights and property of other people."

It gets deeper and deeper. Why does this man think that if you cheat on a poor man that he won't blow your head off? The south was and still is a passionate place where family, land, and community comes first and if you threaten any of that a southern man will put you in the ground regardless of your financial well being.

"When a Southern conservative talks about “losing his liberty,” the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control — and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from — is what he’s really talking about. "

This issue of slavery has always been the control of labor and nothing else. The northern manufacturer had an unlimited supply of immigrant labor that would work for half the cost of a slave. Take away a yankees cheap labor and he will go to war and do all sorts of unspeakable things to get it back.

It goes on and on. This guy is just a intellectual debutante who wants to say that northern rich guys maybe bad but thank God they aren't southern rich guys. He also is sort of implying that we need to get southern rich guys out of politics and put the yankee carpetbaggers back in or else the whole world will become a southern plantation. What a dweeb!

There are many sins the South has committed. We should only have to make amends for the ones we actually committed. Anyone who believes tripe like this needs to move to the South and get involved in our real culture. We are polite. We open doors for others and hold them open while providing an honest smile. We care for our neighbors and our community. We love cold beer and barbecue. Fried green tomatoes was on the table the night before last. Catfish is in the creek. Football is argued as strongly as politics. We love to swim in our free flowing creeks and rivers. Our fields are fertile and our woods are full of game. You would love our people and our lives. It is a wonderful place and even though I have circumnavigated the globe and spent most of my life seeing the far corners of the world, I always come back home to my beloved Tennessee and the wonderful South.

.. and the sad thing is, you actually believe the absolute bullshit you just spouted. You remind me of a white guy I once worked with who made the ignorant statement, "slavery wasn't so bad ... my great great grand father owned slaves and he was nice to his ..." I had to turn and walk away from that ignorant son of a bitch because at that moment, I wanted to kill him. Later on I shared with him a story my grandfather shared with me (my grand father's parents were slaves). On a slave plantation in shit hole Alabama, a little piss ass white kid woke up one morning and said, "I feel like whipping a nigger". A house slaves (my ancestor from my mother's side) was dispatched to go to the slave quarters and bring back a field hand. At this time, the slave was tied to a whipping post and the little piss ass would proceed to beat the shit out of the man. Oh yes, and if little piss ass got a hard on, he'd go to the slave quarters and "take" a nigger winch. If a slave attempted to escape this horrible life, he'd be hunted down with blood hounds and returned to the owner. He would be severely beaten for his "crime". If he continued to attempt to escape, he'd be killed. One more thing, when ole massa found one of his winches pregnant, if he wanted a "buck" but the women delivered a girl (a breeder), ole massa may well grab the infant by the heels and bash its head against a tree.

The unfortunate thing about this is that people like you are fed this revisionist history because the "modern" South doesn't want to own up to its past. This is why it is imperative that the truth be told about how slavery was maintained that the Civil War was, indeed, all about slavery.

By the way, I'm a native Texas and my people (on my father's side) have been here since before the Civil War.

the comedian wrote:The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals is not something that started back in the 1960s. As this article points out, it has been going on since the Revolution:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/souther ... s_revived/

The labels " southern" and " Yankee" are a simplefication, of course. There have been, and continue to be, Southern leaders commited to the liberal ideal ( Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, etc. ) and the " Yankee " ideal of the rich serving their community oftentimes rang very hollow, e.g. Andrew Carnegie's gifts of libraries to New York City- given at a time when he connived with his ruthless partner Henry Frick to break an ongoing strike with Pinkerton goons and bullets. But the basic premise holds up.

I suggest you do a little more research on Woodrow Wilson before you include him among the ranks of Liberals or define what you mean by Liberal.

Libshooter, the story you tell me about beating a slave I find a little fictitious. I abhor slavery or the subjugation of humanity for any reason. I must remind you that in the 1850s, a slave cost two thousand dollars to replace. Then you had to cloth him, feed him, house him, and provide at least some form of minimal health care. The average American probably did not earn two hundred dollars a year and so what you are talking about is a little massa beating tens years of average annual income and a loss of very valuable labor. It doesn't make sense and it would be akin to a modern lad wrecking daddy's porsche and then asking daddy for another one. Don't forget that slavery has always been about the control of labor and if one destroys one's labor source, one destroys one's wealth.

Since you like to talk us southerners down please observe the skid marks in your own undershorts. It is because of the northern rich that the federal government outlawed child labor. The Yankee rich worked children to death for ten cents a day. The Yankees built the nastiest slums and ghettos to house their labor source. You crushed the Irish immigrants and after them the Swedes, Poles, Germans, Italians, and etc. Oh, let's not forget what your railroad tycoons did to the Chinese! It is the northern rich who inspired the creation of unions because they were such bastards towards those who built their fortunes. You lovely noble rich hired Pinkertons to break up strikes with cannon and fully automatic weapons. Oh joy, put that in your pipe and suck on it.

And if you truly believe what you preach, you will vote for that Yankee rich guy in November.

LibShooter wrote:

the comedian wrote:The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals is not something that started back in the 1960s. As this article points out, it has been going on since the Revolution:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/souther ... s_revived/

The labels " southern" and " Yankee" are a simplefication, of course. There have been, and continue to be, Southern leaders commited to the liberal ideal ( Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, etc. ) and the " Yankee " ideal of the rich serving their community oftentimes rang very hollow, e.g. Andrew Carnegie's gifts of libraries to New York City- given at a time when he connived with his ruthless partner Henry Frick to break an ongoing strike with Pinkerton goons and bullets. But the basic premise holds up.

I suggest you do a little more research on Woodrow Wilson before you include him among the ranks of Liberals or define what you mean by Liberal.

Yeah, Wilson was a strict segregationist. But he was also an internationalist and fought for the right of national self determination in Europe and wanted easy surrender terms for Germany after WW1.
People back then do not fit in the neat little " conservative"/ " liberal" boxes we have today.

wlewisiii wrote:If you're interested in this type of idea, start here

The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America
by Kevin Phillips discusses the idea that this conflict has it's origin within the English CIvil War and has been refought, in many ways, in both the Revolution and Civil War and still echos in the "culture wars" of today. Basically his thesis is that the Yankee/Liberal forces in America are descended from the victors of the ECW and the South was heavily populated by the losers of that conflict and that the conflict reignites every so often.

Very well written and argued, I found it very persuasive.

Added to the reading list.
The English Revolution, though it ultimately failed, was the grandaddy of all modern revolutions. You cannot fully grasp why the founders did what they did without learning about it.

punkinlobber wrote: And if you truly believe what you preach, you will vote for that Yankee rich guy in November.

Which Yankee rich guy? The current one or the conservative one?

(I'm voting for President Obama.)

President Barack Obama is not a Yankee. He is a westerner. He was raised in a cultural climate not affected by that earlier terrible conflict in American history. Some of the issues, such as racism, might have spilled across that line but they shouldn't have. Those issues should have remained confined to the geography of antebellum America. I have no idea why anyone would want to haul that baggage west.

The article was written solely to be a strike at the deep South. It is prejudicial in that it claims that northern wealth, as bad as it may be, is far more holy than southern wealth because northern rich folks are the offspring of pilgrims and puritans. Northern rich, according to the article, are corrupted only by wealth where as the southern rich are corrupted by wealth and culture, southern culture. This also comes from someone who on the surface appears to be ignorant of much of American history and southern culture.

Historically, the northern rich defended the culture of slavery. The Yankee rich controlled the ports and shipping. Once cotton and tabacco were harvested, the rich Yankee merchants took control (with the corrupt assistance of the Federal Government) and reaped all further rewards and excluded the southern land owner who produced the crop from further profit. The institution of slavery had earned the northern rich billions of dollars in profits and they did not want to see those profits dry up. They had the majority in congress and held the presidency. Outlawing slavery would have been easy. Why didn't they do it? Money! Money! Money! Had the South Carolinians never fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, the Civil War would never had occurred and the emancipation proclamation would never had been made. In short, the northern rich reaped the rewards and were corrupted just as much by the institution of slavery as the southern rich.

No pun intended, but to those who want to put down an entire people and culture and elevate themselves while doing so; history is not all black and white. If one really wants to understand a lot of the history of that era, answer this question; if less than 5% of the South were slave holders, why would 90% of the South support the conflict with the lives of their fine young men, the totality of their wealth, and the future of their civilization; a total commitment to war that we in modern times are unwilling to make?

I would say it was due to the fact that there was tacit approval of slavery since the Articles of Confederation were drafted and then again in the halls of he Constitutional Convention that decided that some men were only 4/5ths of another due to the color of their skin. When Abolitionists started getting a voice in the mid 19th century, South Carolina threw a giant hissy fit on the floor of the Senate and drug the rest of he slave holding states into an open insurrection.

Nationalistic pride held at a state level is what led to so many taking up as when Jefferson Davis called on them to do so.

I have a hard time separating Southerners from the history of lynchings, fire bombings and the Farm Crew punishments of the last century. Nathan Bedford Forrest still has a lot of followers that want to see the South go back to where it was. Neo-Confederacy is very much alive in MO.

punkinlobber wrote:Libshooter, the story you tell me about beating a slave I find a little fictitious. I abhor slavery or the subjugation of humanity for any reason. I must remind you that in the 1850s, a slave cost two thousand dollars to replace. Then you had to cloth him, feed him, house him, and provide at least some form of minimal health care. The average American probably did not earn two hundred dollars a year and so what you are talking about is a little massa beating tens years of average annual income and a loss of very valuable labor. It doesn't make sense and it would be akin to a modern lad wrecking daddy's porsche and then asking daddy for another one. Don't forget that slavery has always been about the control of labor and if one destroys one's labor source, one destroys one's wealth.

....

What was the purpose of this particular perspective again?

Xela

It was Virginia that got each slave to be measured for 3/5s of a vote. That was for counting how many representatives the state got. Pretty slimy thing since the additional representatives were in no way representative of those held in bondage.

If anyone should be thanked for the abolitionist movement, it should be the Quakers who got slavery outlawed in Pennsylvania in the early 1790s. I believe it was the Methodists who followed suit soon after. Abolition in the United States was a Christian religious movement whose argument even divided the Baptist faith into the Baptist and Souther Baptist churches. It was northern wealth that defended slavery and northern religious ethics that demanded it's end. I saw a quote once from Abraham Lincoln who said he would preserve the institution of slavery for a thousand years if it would preserve the union. Like I said, if the South Carolinians had not fired on Fort Sumter, the Emancipation Proclamation would never had been read.

Slavery was a major issue in the Civil War but it does not come anywhere near to explaining the events of the day. For the average southerner to go to war to destroy the union for the sake of slavery would be like someone here on this forum going to war to defend the practices of Wall Street. That answer doesn't apply does it? So why did all those fine young men go off to die?

(the purpose is to counter the argument that the northern wealthy are superior to the southern wealthy because they were puritans and didn't own slaves, even thought they made billions off the institution of slavery and defended it in Congress)

ErikO,

The history of the South does have much violence and racial wrong doing, but so does the North and West. It is just more politicized in the South. We have struggled fiercely in the South trying to overcome the sins of our past and create a new and brighter tomorrow. We don't see the rest of the nation doing much at all. We don't see much in the way of making amends to the Japanese American community for the evil that the west coast and Hawaii did to them. We don't see the western states trying to overcome the treatment of native America and help them put themselves back on a good Red Road. We in the South see a bunch of people pointing fingers at us so they don't have to point to themselves. The North is just as guilty for promoting the institution of slavery as the South is. We admit our guilt and try to do something positive. The North doesn't look at their problems. They just point out ours and feel very superior doing it. Those folks who talk about the South rising again all seem to hang out with nazis and skinheads. They are all just a bunch of racists who fly different flags. They don't represent the South any more than Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum represent the North.

This is freakin' hilarious!
We are discussing whether Rich Northern MEN were morally superior to Rich Southern MEN.

That's like discussing the Moral Superiority of these 2

punkinlobber wrote:ErikO,

The history of the South does have much violence and racial wrong doing, but so does the North and West. It is just more politicized in the South. We have struggled fiercely in the South trying to overcome the sins of our past and create a new and brighter tomorrow. We don't see the rest of the nation doing much at all. We don't see much in the way of making amends to the Japanese American community for the evil that the west coast and Hawaii did to them. We don't see the western states trying to overcome the treatment of native America and help them put themselves back on a good Red Road. We in the South see a bunch of people pointing fingers at us so they don't have to point to themselves. The North is just as guilty for promoting the institution of slavery as the South is. We admit our guilt and try to do something positive. The North doesn't look at their problems. They just point out ours and feel very superior doing it. Those folks who talk about the South rising again all seem to hang out with nazis and skinheads. They are all just a bunch of racists who fly different flags. They don't represent the South any more than Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum represent the North.

Touche'. I can't lie and say I saw less racism growing up around Chicago than I do raising my son around St Louis. I also won't say that Pullman Car Co. was better than Tanglewood.

John Brown was branded an Outlaw in the North long before Harper's Ferry. More Northern land holders returned escaped slaves than helped them get to Canada. While southern folks where hanging black men and women in the streets, the Northerners were happy with escaped slaves 'haning themselves' in jail cells.

Aside from the accents, there was little difference in King's marches in Cicero and Selma.

Our shared history of incarceration is a stain on all American's hands. Makes me glad that the earliest member of my family didn't get here until 1894.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:This is freakin' hilarious!
We are discussing whether Rich Northern MEN were morally superior to Rich Southern MEN.

That's like discussing the Moral Superiority of these 2

The vipers were both superior, neither species of snake wanted to stop women's sufferage or equal rights.

punkinlobber wrote: We have struggled fiercely in the South trying to overcome the sins of our past and create a new and brighter tomorrow.

22 years ago when I went to Parris Island to videotape a segment for "Sound Off!", I had a discussion about southern racism, with a cab driver who had more melanin in his skin than paleface moi.

He was an older gentleman, in his 60's I guess. He told me just what you said.


********************************************

Shout out to the world, the entire fucking world!

To those who's obsession over a time before you were born rules your lives,

Stop the fucking war please!! Don't forget it. Stop fighting over the past. Use it.

Discuss it like the LGC does. Learn from it. Just put it in that smaller place or you may realize,
in that moment just before death, that you didn't get to live in the moment during your life.

We got enough problems. Everybody's just another shade of brown.

Anyone mentions Albino's, I'll shoot em with brown ink.

Y'know the OP wasn't about racism or slavery as such. It was about power structures and styles of government and the ethical and educational priorities of differing groups among the elite. That is a worthwhile discussion. Is the absolute correlation between what the article's author describes as "southern" and "northern" and reality tenuous? Of course it is. Is there some historical truth to what the author describes? you bet your butt!

Slavery and other authorotarian structures were used as examples of the social style of one group of ruling elite, comparing it to another style. If those examples send you off in to a tizzy, then perhaps consider other sorts of comparisons. You do know what the author is describing whether or not you agree with the "northern" and "southern" terminology. This is a shift in US culture that is pretty real and recognizable regardless of how one chooses to label it.

Maybe we can call out the errors as we see them without destroying the rest of the conversation.

This doesn't have to be the "Tell everybody how not-racist you are" thread.

punkinlobber wrote:Libshooter, the story you tell me about beating a slave I find a little fictitious. I abhor slavery or the subjugation of humanity for any reason. I must remind you that in the 1850s, a slave cost two thousand dollars to replace. Then you had to cloth him, feed him, house him, and provide at least some form of minimal health care. The average American probably did not earn two hundred dollars a year and so what you are talking about is a little massa beating tens years of average annual income and a loss of very valuable labor. It doesn't make sense and it would be akin to a modern lad wrecking daddy's porsche and then asking daddy for another one. Don't forget that slavery has always been about the control of labor and if one destroys one's labor source, one destroys one's wealth.

Since you like to talk us southerners down please observe the skid marks in your own undershorts. It is because of the northern rich that the federal government outlawed child labor. The Yankee rich worked children to death for ten cents a day. The Yankees built the nastiest slums and ghettos to house their labor source. You crushed the Irish immigrants and after them the Swedes, Poles, Germans, Italians, and etc. Oh, let's not forget what your railroad tycoons did to the Chinese! It is the northern rich who inspired the creation of unions because they were such bastards towards those who built their fortunes. You lovely noble rich hired Pinkertons to break up strikes with cannon and fully automatic weapons. Oh joy, put that in your pipe and suck on it.

And if you truly believe what you preach, you will vote for that Yankee rich guy in November.

I don't care what it sounds like to you. I know you're full of bullshit with that non-sense about the caring and generally benevolent slave owner. BULLSHIT. I truly wish that every slave owning bastard had been forced to live as a slave for the rest of his life; and, force his fucking children and grandchildren to live in that wretched condition as well.

As far as the north was concerned, I'm under no illusions about them. They were about preserving the Union -- either all slave or all free. Many northern white workers hated blacks and did not want to fight in the Civil War AND; initially, the north refused to allow blacks to fight in that war -- referring to it as a disagreement between white men.

As far as voting for the rich white guy, NO ... he's only about creating wealth for himself and for others in the top 1%. Obama, though no fearless fighter for the middle class, is far less offensive than Romney. I'll vote as I have for years, i.e., for the lessor of two evils. Not voting or voting for some third party candidate is a vote for Romney, plain and simple.

When I encounter people like you, it re-enforces my firm belief in the importance of teaching the truth when teaching history (or science) because revisionist historians are popping up all around; and, with the blessing and encouragement of the Right, they're gaining ground.

Fukshot wrote:Y'know the OP wasn't about racism or slavery as such. It was about power structures and styles of government and the ethical and educational priorities of differing groups among the elite. That is a worthwhile discussion. Is the absolute correlation between what the article's author describes as "southern" and "northern" and reality tenuous? Of course it is. Is there some historical truth to what the author describes? you bet your butt!

Slavery and other authorotarian structures were used as examples of the social style of one group of ruling elite, comparing it to another style. If those examples send you off in to a tizzy, then perhaps consider other sorts of comparisons. You do know what the author is describing whether or not you agree with the "northern" and "southern" terminology. This is a shift in US culture that is pretty real and recognizable regardless of how one chooses to label it.

Maybe we can call out the errors as we see them without destroying the rest of the conversation.

This doesn't have to be the "Tell everybody how not-racist you are" thread.

This ^.

the comedian wrote:

LibShooter wrote:

the comedian wrote:The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals is not something that started back in the 1960s. As this article points out, it has been going on since the Revolution:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/souther ... s_revived/

The labels " southern" and " Yankee" are a simplefication, of course. There have been, and continue to be, Southern leaders commited to the liberal ideal ( Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, etc. ) and the " Yankee " ideal of the rich serving their community oftentimes rang very hollow, e.g. Andrew Carnegie's gifts of libraries to New York City- given at a time when he connived with his ruthless partner Henry Frick to break an ongoing strike with Pinkerton goons and bullets. But the basic premise holds up.

I suggest you do a little more research on Woodrow Wilson before you include him among the ranks of Liberals or define what you mean by Liberal.

Yeah, Wilson was a strict segregationist. But he was also an internationalist and fought for the right of national self determination in Europe and wanted easy surrender terms for Germany after WW1.
People back then do not fit in the neat little " conservative"/ " liberal" boxes we have today.

Jesus ... I can't believe the shit I'm reading. I'm going to attribute your comments to your age (45) which means "segregation" is just a word from your history class to you. I lived through it. Segregation was NOT merely about keeping races separate. It was about unbelievable abuse (lynchings, beatings, rape, etc) and discrimination in every conceivable form. Yeah, Wilson was a pioneer in international relations but he was an asshole, from my perspective, on the domestic front.

As I said to someone else, on another but related topic, we really need to teach the truth when we teach history (or science) in this country. Yes, the founding fathers wrote a remarkable document in The Declaration of Independence; however, it was written for the benefit of white male property owners. They talked of freedom for themselves while denying that same freedom to others. And by the way, there were contemporaries who called them on this inconsistency; however, they -- those who believed in freedom for all -- were out numbered and out voted. American history is full of these inconsistencies and this should be pointed out with honesty rather than being swept under the rug or otherwise "soft peddled".