LibShooter wrote: 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".

No doubt, but if we use your standard, we have had two liberal presidents in the entire history of the US; Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, possibly JFK. I don't think attaching Wilson to a tradition that values the common good more highly than personal gain (that's an oversimplification of this discussion) glosses over his hideous and reprehensible shortcomings.

Libshooter,

The original intent of mine in this thread was to argue that the writer of the article did not know his elbow from his clavicle about the ways of the South. He made grand assumptions about the quality of wealthy people based on which side of the Mason- Dixon line they resided and made statements that were absolutely untrue about the social structure of certain cultures.

You have claimed that I have spoken of the benevolent slave holder and how good the slave had it. If you would please reread all associated posts you will see that I neither stated nor implied anything like you claim. I did say and historical documents will support that life in the North for the northern immigrant SUCKED. I did say that the slave was housed, fed, clothed, and even given minimal medical care by his owner because the slave was a financial investment of substantial worth. I never said or implied anything that would infer that the slaves life was desirable or that the institution was anything but evil. Just reread all the posts and you will see you have interjected something that was not there and then laid the weight of it upon me. Very unfair of you.

The article was prejudiced from it's very first paragraph. Ideas about both the North and South as presented are false. My father is from the deep South and my mother is from Pennsylvania. I am very familiar with the cultural differences and similarities between North and South. I have first hand experience with everything that was written in the article. As I said, the writer is an intellectual debutante and should study his subjects more.

Since emotions are running high and I am now "folks like you" I will sign off of this thread and wish everyone well.

Two comments.

LibShooter, please refrain from personal attacks. Like,

I don't care what it sounds like to you. I know you're full of bullshit with that non-sense...

In fact, your communication would be much more effective if you removed the word "you" from your posts. Address the issues, not other posters.

Punkinlobber, you make a strong defense of your region and its history.

But I think if I was from Tennessee, in particular, I would take pride that people from that state, especially from the mountainous east, led the South in their fierce opposition to slavery and secessionist rule by the rich white planter class. Now that is a heritage to celebrate and be proud of (but I'll bet it has been mostly written out of history textbooks in modern Tennesee!).

punkinlobber wrote:I did say and historical documents will support that life in the North for the northern immigrant SUCKED.

A good read on this subject is "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

Fukshot wrote:

LibShooter wrote: 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".

No doubt, but if we use your standard, we have had two liberal presidents in the entire history of the US; Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, possibly JFK. I don't think attaching Wilson to a tradition that values the common good more highly than personal gain (that's an oversimplification of this discussion) glosses over his hideous and reprehensible shortcomings.

Yeah ... my standards are pretty high and you're correct, there aren't that many former Presidents, if ANY, that I would put on a pedestal. Many many years ago, I remember reading a piece about a Jewish woman who ripped into some fellow who had allegedly done some research on the findings of Josef Mengele's hideous experiments on twins. The guy, no doubt in an attempt the achieve some sort of clinical detachment, found some merit it the information turned up by Mengele. Well, as expected, the Jewish woman didn't merely take issue with this guy, she rightfully went ballistic. Her point being, come hell or high water, you don't reward some people. Another example comes to mind, i.e., J.William Fulbright ... an avowed racist supporter of the KKK AND mentor to Bill Clinton. Guess what, many people considered this man to be a Leftist, given many of his positions on various issues. You would no doubt give him high marks for his scholarly
approach to certain Left leaning issues. Few blacks from Arkansas would agree with you.

Hmmm ... I wonder how you'd react if some influential bastard, who hated gay and lesbian people and who engaged in actions hurtful/harmful to gay and lesbian people, was awarded a lifetime achievement award because he championed some cause. I sincerely doubt you'd be so "detached" in your assessment of the worth of that person.

LibShooter wrote:Guess what, many people considered this man to be a Leftist, given many of his positions on various issues. You would no doubt give him high marks for his scholarly
approach to certain Left leaning issues. Few blacks from Arkansas would agree with you.

Hmmm ... I wonder how you'd react if some influential bastard, who hated gay and lesbian people and who engaged in actions hurtful/harmful to gay and lesbian people, was awarded a lifetime achievement award because he championed some cause. I sincerely doubt you'd be so "detached" in your assessment of the worth of that person.

I'd be right up near the front of the line to call bullshit if someone wanted to give Wodrow Wilson a lifetime achievement award (or whatever) now.

I tend to assume the worst about historical figures when it comes to the things I value most in living people, especially living people in power. Whether I do or don't know the evils a historical politician was guilty of, those evils do not make me incapable of discussing broader tendencies (in relation to the base-line evil of their time) or policy priorities. I'm not detached. I'm resigned to the fact that most people who lived before 1950 and had any history of their life or work recorded would likely consider me the lowest form of filth not even to be spoken of. I'm not assessing their worth as a person. I'm assessing the worth of a specific set of policies or priorities.

An example of my approach:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/2012/0 ... -and-dead/

I adore some of Thomas Jefferson's writings, but I rarely write about him without mentioning that he was a slaveholder and a rapist. That does not make the Declaration of Independence any less great a document. We live in a world where it has been less than a century since people who hold views like yours and mine have even existed in significant numbers. Does that mean we can only discuss US government since 1960? I would prefer to fight the world for what I think is right without handicapping myself.

It's not detachment. It's resignation.

larrymod wrote:Two comments.

LibShooter, please refrain from personal attacks. Like,

I don't care what it sounds like to you. I know you're full of bullshit with that non-sense...

In fact, your communication would be much more effective if you removed the word "you" from your posts. Address the issues, not other posters.

Punkinlobber, you make a strong defense of your region and its history.

But I think if I was from Tennessee, in particular, I would take pride that people from that state, especially from the mountainous east, led the South in their fierce opposition to slavery and secessionist rule by the rich white planter class. Now that is a heritage to celebrate and be proud of (but I'll bet it has been mostly written out of history textbooks in modern Tennesee!).

Libshooter, the story you tell me about beating a slave I find a little fictitious. In other words, I'm lying or at best, embellishing. My response was, "I don't care what it sounds like to you. I know you're full of bullshit with that non-sense..." I believe my response was, indeed, appropriate. Ahhh ... but perhaps it was my use of the term BULLSHIT that offended you sensibilities. ( perhaps I should have said, your assessment of the institution of American slavery is inaccurate) If so, then that's very interesting because I've heard that and worse on this form. If I'm to be admonished for my choice of words, I believe you need to be consistent and apply these rules across the board.

"Address the issues, not other posters." I don't know where you've been but people address other posters all the time on this forum.

[quote="LibShooter
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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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".[/quote]

My point was that Wilson was considered a liberal- it wasn't a stamp of approval.
Stop trying to find an fight that isn't there.

The personal sniping needs to get dialed back here.

Fukshot wrote:The personal sniping needs to get dialed back here.

Well I'm done with it; however, I stand by my contention that the slavery issue WAS being cast in a less harsh light than it should have been AND anyone who knows anything about history would not cast W.Wilson as a Liberal. Hell, if you know Clinton, you'd realistically call him a moderate rather than a Liberal. Now if those two positions constitute "picking-a-fight", then I proudly plead GUILTY as charged.

When are we getting that popcorn eating smiley again?