Stereotyping the Old South

Canceled2

Banned
by Jack Hunter

The older I get the more I despise racism. Not the Left’s cartoon version, in which it is assumed that every conceivable human thought or action must contain some sort of prejudicial racial motive, but the genuine article in which knuckle dragging morons try to dehumanize their fellow man based on nothing more than the color of their skin. Life is too short for such needless hatred. Life is too special to diminish it to mere biology.

This is not to say that acknowledging race, discussing racial issues, or even holding certain attitudes about race is necessarily wrong. In fact, it’s unavoidable.

But there’s a world of difference between being merely politically incorrect and being racist. The greatest mistake made by hardcore racists and anti-racists alike is that both tend to believe that race must mean absolutely everything or it must mean absolutely nothing. Both positions are as extreme as they are absurd. Race unquestionably matters; it’s just not all that matters and rarely what matters most.

This is particularly worth noting when discussing the Civil War. My entire adult life I have defended the Old South and the Southern cause in America’s bloodiest war. Not because I support slavery or racism, but despite it. The positive parallels between what the Confederacy was fighting for in 1861 and what the American colonists fought for in 1776 are many and obvious—republican democracy, political and economic freedom, national independence, defense of one’s homeland. But these causes are never obvious to critics who can only see the other parallel—that both the Old South and the thirteen colonies were dependent upon, and protective of, the institution of slavery.

In the United States today, the very concepts of states’ rights, nullification, secession and other examples of Jeffersonian democracy are routinely dismissed as racist double speak, even in their modern forms. When a number of states declared in recent months that they might attempt to nullify Obamacare, critics immediately put more emphasis on the fact that there seemed to be a high degree of hostility toward America’s first black president. Of course, this was coupled with the establishment’s permanent narrative that allowing states to make their own decisions is what the Old South was all about, thus eternally making America two steps away from segregation if not slavery.

Rest here
 
1) The South didn't win the election of 1860, so the claim about republican democracy is a joke. If the South really wanted to win, they wouldn't have run Breckinridge against Douglas.
2) The South's political freedom was not at stake. They had dominated Washington since the election of Jefferson, and ran away the moment a Northern-oriented president was elected.
3) Economic freedom? This, from the region that hated free markets, commercial investment, banks, and industrialization, and which had created a feudal society in which commercial agriculture had destroyed the family farm and made the lower classes entirely dependent upon the plantation farmers. ROFL
4) National independence - I'll give him that, as I flat-out reject the concept of Unionism. I actually believe the South had a right to secede. The US had a right to declare war, of course, and should have done so as it did with Mexico prior to the Civil War, rather than declare an "insurrection."
5) Nullification is unconstitutional. This is another reason why I hate Jefferson and Madison, as they gave us the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Either secede, win at the ballot box, or STFU.
 
1) The South didn't win the election of 1860, so the claim about republican democracy is a joke. If the South really wanted to win, they wouldn't have run Breckinridge against Douglas.
2) The South's political freedom was not at stake. They had dominated Washington since the election of Jefferson, and ran away the moment a Northern-oriented president was elected.
3) Economic freedom? This, from the region that hated free markets, commercial investment, banks, and industrialization, and which had created a feudal society in which commercial agriculture had destroyed the family farm and made the lower classes entirely dependent upon the plantation farmers. ROFL
4) National independence - I'll give him that, as I flat-out reject the concept of Unionism. I actually believe the South had a right to secede. The US had a right to declare war, of course, and should have done so as it did with Mexico prior to the Civil War, rather than declare an "insurrection."
5) Nullification is unconstitutional. This is another reason why I hate Jefferson and Madison, as they gave us the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Either secede, win at the ballot box, or STFU.

Where did you learn these things?
 
Where did you learn these things?

I have a Bachelorette in history. #4 is just my personal opinion, as most people will argue that secession is a violation of the constitution. It is true, however, that Lincoln won the Election of 1860, and his name didn't even appear on the Southern ballots. Yet, immediately after being elected (and yes, the South shot itself in the foot by running an alternative Democratic candidate to the one the national party selected), South Carolina seceded, and most of the rest of the South had joined it before Lincoln even took office and began "oppressing" them. Bunch of fucking neanderthals.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how people constantly think it's logical/rational/historicly accurate to treat the whole backbone of the Southern States (later the Confederacy)...SLAVERY...as some sort of trivial afterthought. And it's offspring Jim Crow was what....of little consequence?

Bottom line: that BS that the Southern States would settle the issue of slavery in it's own time and way didn't mean a fucking thing to the slaves. Period. Jim Crow laws didn't end until the early 1960's. 'Nuff said.

Fuck the Confederacy and the mentality behind it and the BS rationalization people us to defend it to this day.
 
I have a Bachelorette in history. #4 is just my personal opinion, as most people will argue that secession is a violation of the constitution. It is true, however, that Lincoln won the Election of 1860, and his name didn't even appear on the Southern ballots. Yet, immediately after being elected (and yes, the South shot itself in the foot by running an alternative Democratic candidate to the one the national party selected), South Carolina seceded, and most of the rest of the South had joined it before Lincoln even took office and began "oppressing" them. Bunch of fucking neanderthals.

I don't agree with you on a few things 3D, but you're you, so I'll just leave it at that.



So what do you think about the UN?:)
 
It never ceases to amaze me how people constantly think it's logical/rational/historicly accurate to treat the whole backbone of the Southern States (later the Confederacy)...SLAVERY...as some sort of trivial afterthought. And it's offspring Jim Crow was what....of little consequence?

Bottom line: that BS that the Southern States would settle the issue of slavery in it's own time and way didn't mean a fucking thing to the slaves. Period. Jim Crow laws didn't end until the early 1960's. 'Nuff said.

Fuck the Confederacy and the mentality behind it and the BS rationalization people us to defend it to this day.

It never ceases to amaze me how many ignorant people out there, blame the South for slavery, as if it were the South who insisted on slavery against the will of the North, or the rest of the country. Our Founding Fathers did NOT abolish slavery when they forged the Constitution and this great nation. They certainly COULD have done so, if they had wanted to. Or the US Congress, for nearly a century, before the Civil War, COULD have abolished slavery...they DIDN'T! The Supreme Court, COULD have ruled slavery unconstitutional, cases were brought before the courts, time and time again, only to have the SCOTUS uphold the institution of slavery. The Confederacy hadn't even been formed yet, and these things were happening, so how in the hell do you blame it all on the South?

I guess hate mongers need a scapegoat for their hatred and vitriol, and the South makes a good one for the ignorant. The Victors write the history books, so I guess we have to live with our children being taught revisionist versions of the war, and what it was about. Most people believe the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, and that is simply not the truth. Slavery was indeed a big issue of the time, and the vast majority of slaves were in the South, because that is where you grow cotton. The practice of importing slaves to the US, had stopped several decades before the Civil War, the world was changing, views were changing regarding slavery, and I can't help but think, many a mind were 'uneasy' with slavery in light of our Constitutional principles of freedom for all. Even Southern plantation owners must have known slavery was on its way out, and eventually the practice would end. To pretend that Southerners merely wanted to cling to slavery at all costs, because they hated black people or didn't want to free them, is just deplorable and sickening claptrap.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It never ceases to amaze me how people constantly think it's logical/rational/historicly accurate to treat the whole backbone of the Southern States (later the Confederacy)...SLAVERY...as some sort of trivial afterthought. And it's offspring Jim Crow was what....of little consequence?

Bottom line: that BS that the Southern States would settle the issue of slavery in it's own time and way didn't mean a fucking thing to the slaves. Period. Jim Crow laws didn't end until the early 1960's. 'Nuff said.

Fuck the Confederacy and the mentality behind it and the BS rationalization people us to defend it to this day.


It never ceases to amaze me how many ignorant people out there, blame the South for slavery, as if it were the South who insisted on slavery against the will of the North, or the rest of the country. Our Founding Fathers did NOT abolish slavery when they forged the Constitution and this great nation. They certainly COULD have done so, if they had wanted to. Or the US Congress, for nearly a century, before the Civil War, COULD have abolished slavery...they DIDN'T! The Supreme Court, COULD have ruled slavery unconstitutional, cases were brought before the courts, time and time again, only to have the SCOTUS uphold the institution of slavery. The Confederacy hadn't even been formed yet, and these things were happening, so how in the hell do you blame it all on the South?

I guess hate mongers need a scapegoat for their hatred and vitriol, and the South makes a good one for the ignorant. The Victors write the history books, so I guess we have to live with our children being taught revisionist versions of the war, and what it was about. Most people believe the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, and that is simply not the truth. Slavery was indeed a big issue of the time, and the vast majority of slaves were in the South, because that is where you grow cotton. The practice of importing slaves to the US, had stopped several decades before the Civil War, the world was changing, views were changing regarding slavery, and I can't help but think, many a mind were 'uneasy' with slavery in light of our Constitutional principles of freedom for all. Even Southern plantation owners must have known slavery was on its way out, and eventually the practice would end. To pretend that Southerners merely wanted to cling to slavery at all costs, because they hated black people or didn't want to free them, is just deplorable and sickening claptrap.

And right on cue is our Dixie Dunce...the dishonest, intellectual Dixie coward who doesn't have the stones to acknowledge his own Dixie dumb prejudices and racism...right on cue to try and smoke screen/deny/justify/diminish/distort the reality of the Southern States congenital racism.

1) No one stated that slavery wasn't legal and acceptable to the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. That doesn't excuse the FACT that the Southern States had unsuccessfully tried to hold onto the backbone of their economy...slavery....when the time came for it's legal ending via the creation of the Confederacy. Dixie's little diatribe tries to smokescreen this little reality by stating moot points.

2) Our Dixie Dunce won't dare touch the FACTS regarding Jim Crow laws a century or so after the South lost the war and slavery was officially ended.

3) No one denys that there has been and is racism throughout the 50 states. And no one can BS away the facts of the intrenched racism and bigotry against black folk in the Southern States that at one time depended upon them being slaves to sustain an agrarian society on cheap labor. They weren't indentured servants, they were bought and sold slaves. Big difference.


Fuck the Confederacy and the mentality behind it and the BS rationalization people us to defend it to this day. That means YOU, my Dixie Dunce.
 
Ignorant assholes paint all Southerners as one group. It was the Southern Democrats who were slavers, then segregationists, now just racists and those too dumb to understand what their party's about.
 
Yeah, except that was ALL Southerners for a very long time. Since the condition of the GOP has weakened considerably since Nixon's strategy, I would say I'm still suspect of the New South. While it has clearly embraced industrial free market capitalism, I still see it lagging in other areas.

In response to Liberty's earlier question to me: Fuck the UN/League of Nations V2.0!! :cool:
 
And right on cue is our Dixie Dunce...the dishonest, intellectual Dixie coward who doesn't have the stones to acknowledge his own Dixie dumb prejudices and racism...right on cue to try and smoke screen/deny/justify/diminish/distort the reality of the Southern States congenital racism.

Congenital racism? Wow, never heard that one! So, according to Chicklet, the mere fact that you are born in the South, means you are born a racist, and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what "congenital" means, and he chose the word, not me. I actually read this long sentence a few times, I wanted to fully appreciate the level of sheer hate displayed by Chicklet for his fellow man... read it again... can you feel it? It's a deep-rooted seething hate. Now Chicklet doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about me, but he has devout hatred in his heart for me, because I am someone who was born in the South, and that means I am a congenital racist, I can't help that. He goes on to accuse me of being dishonest and lying or distorting the facts, when everything I pointed out is absolutely true. That's why he failed to specify what I was lying or distorting.

1) No one stated that slavery wasn't legal and acceptable to the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. That doesn't excuse the FACT that the Southern States had unsuccessfully tried to hold onto the backbone of their economy...slavery....when the time came for it's legal ending via the creation of the Confederacy. Dixie's little diatribe tries to smokescreen this little reality by stating moot points.

What? The creation of the Confederacy marked the legal end to slavery? Is that what you learned in public school? When the Confederacy was created, slavery was still legal. In fact, just months before the Confederacy was created, Abe Lincoln was busy trotting out alternative ideas, like keeping slavery legal until 1911... rounding up the slaves and shipping them off to Haiti and Central America, or back to Africa. Yeah, that Abe really did believe black people should be equal to whites, that's why he said "The negro will never be able to occupy a place in society with whites." Slavery would remain legal in America until Congress and the people amended the Constitution after the Civil War!

You seem to ignorantly think that Abe Lincoln abolished slavery, and the South got mad about that and formed the Confederacy to fight for slavery, but that's not what happened, and it's a gross misunderstanding of history to believe that's what happened. There was a great deal of concern that Lincoln would free the slaves, and there were many Southerners who had no problem with that, the sticking point was compensation for property owned. Now, I know you don't like to think of slaves as property, but the Confederacy didn't make them property, the Supreme Court ruled that, long before anyone ever thought of the Confederacy. So we have these people who owned legitimate property, according to the Supreme Court, and the Bill of Rights already in existence, says that government can't seize your property without compensation. Naturally, these people felt like they had a legitimate complaint, and there was a great deal of money invested in slaves. But that was still not the reason for secession, it was clearly about states rights versus federalism. Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.

2) Our Dixie Dunce won't dare touch the FACTS regarding Jim Crow laws a century or so after the South lost the war and slavery was officially ended.

Jim Crow laws were enacted as early as 1866, shortly after the war. They were the basis for what became known as 'segregation' and while we currently have a negative connotation of segregation, a great many Americans believed segregation to be a legitimate way to assimilate blacks into society. Much of their belief was based on ignorance and bigoted prejudice, and it did last way too long, but again... The Confederacy had been defeated before the first Jim Crow law was passed, and for a century, the SCOTUS upheld the Jim Crow laws... the Confederacy didn't force them to do that. The South didn't make the SCOTUS rule as it did, and they didn't make Congress become complacent and disinterested in civil rights for black Americans. It's amazing how you attempt to tie Jim Crow laws to The Confederacy, when they didn't come about until after the Confederacy was no more.

3) No one denys that there has been and is racism throughout the 50 states. And no one can BS away the facts of the intrenched racism and bigotry against black folk in the Southern States that at one time depended upon them being slaves to sustain an agrarian society on cheap labor. They weren't indentured servants, they were bought and sold slaves. Big difference.

I haven't denied there are racists throughout the 50 states, but I refuse to accept some idiocy that Southern people are just natural born racists because they happened to be born below the Mason-Dixon line! There is no "intrenched racism" in the South, or anywhere else in America, that was maybe the case 60 years ago, but not today. No one currently alive in the South, ever owned a slave or knew any relatives who owned a slave. It doesn't matter what people who were here before us did, how can we be responsible for what they did? If we're going to live vicariously through history, maybe we can stick a bone in your nose and send your unhappy black ass back to Africa, where you can be the ignorant little jungle bunny history intended you to be?


Fuck the Confederacy and the mentality behind it and the BS rationalization people us to defend it to this day. That means YOU, my Dixie Dunce.

Fuck YOU, and the mentality behind the BS rationalizations for your OWN racist beliefs.
 
Yeah, except that was ALL Southerners for a very long time.
Not so much. You again show your ignorance of Southern history. Slavers were mainly in the flatlands. Piedmont folk rarely owned slaves, and Mountain folk almost never did. Piedmonters and Mountain folk resisted or outright fought the Democrat slavers during the Civil War and the geographic partisanship still exists today.
 
Not so much. You again show your ignorance of Southern history. Slavers were mainly in the flatlands. Piedmont folk rarely owned slaves, and Mountain folk almost never did. Piedmonters and Mountain folk resisted or outright fought the Democrat slavers during the Civil War and the geographic partisanship still exists today.

People like Chicklet want to envision the South as a bunch of racists who all owned slaves, against the will of the rest of the nation, and that's why they fought the war. In actuality, only 2% of the Southern population owned slaves, most didn't even own substantial property. I've made this statement before, and it always draws ire from the haters... Not one single Confederate soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, ever owned a slave. Before you jump on that, remember this, it was legal to send someone in your proxy to fight, if you were a property owner. It was also common for the influential to have their sons assigned to officer status, so they didn't have to do the dirty work. The few who actually owned the slaves, didn't fight and die under the Confederate battle flag.

Now why would hundreds of thousands of men go and fight a war over something that didn't effect them? Does that make sense to anyone other than Chicklet? I doubt this sentiment was ever considered by those who fought in battle for the Confederacy, the issue of slavery was likely the furthest thing from their minds. They were fighting for their homeland, for their family, for their country... just like every soldier. When a soldier dies in Iraq, do we say they died so that BP can make more profits at the sake of the environment? Did they go and die so that women can have the choice to abort their babies? Or maybe it was so we could give tax breaks to the rich... that seems a noble cause to give your life for in Iraq, doesn't it?

What happens is, nitwits and ignorant fools like Chicklet, want to apply issues facing the country at the time, to the motivations of the people who fought the war. That's unfair, because we are all individuals, we all have differing opinions on the issues facing our country. The South supported slavery because they had a great deal invested in slaves and slave labor, and it was vital to their economy. Was it their fault? Did they do something illegal or under-the-table, and hope they could continue to get away with it? Nope. They did what the law allowed them to do, they bought and invested in what the courts deemed as property. It wasn't the South's fault that cotton grew well in the South, and couldn't be grown up North... if that had been the case, there would have been just as many slaves up North as down South. But ignorant bigots like Chicklet, want to believe that people born in the South, were just born racist, and couldn't help it... they would have enslaved people whether they grew cotton or not, because they "congenitally" hated black people.

And just for the record, because I know Chicklet will chime in with his usual claims of me being racist... My grandmother raised 8 children through the Great Depression, by herself. She managed to do this by the grace of a black man who owned a modest cotton farm, which was handed down to him from his 'freed-slave' ancestors, who were given the lands after the Civil War. She picked cotton for 12 hours a day, often with kids in tow, helping to drag the cotton sack. Had it not been for this man, they would have starved to death. So when someone starts yammering nonsense about me being "racist" it bothers me a bit, because if it hadn't been for a black man during the Great Depression, I would not even be here today.
 
People like Chicklet want to envision the South as a bunch of racists who all owned slaves, against the will of the rest of the nation, and that's why they fought the war. In actuality, only 2% of the Southern population owned slaves, most didn't even own substantial property. I've made this statement before, and it always draws ire from the haters... Not one single Confederate soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, ever owned a slave. Before you jump on that, remember this, it was legal to send someone in your proxy to fight, if you were a property owner. It was also common for the influential to have their sons assigned to officer status, so they didn't have to do the dirty work. The few who actually owned the slaves, didn't fight and die under the Confederate battle flag.

Now why would hundreds of thousands of men go and fight a war over something that didn't effect them? Does that make sense to anyone other than Chicklet? I doubt this sentiment was ever considered by those who fought in battle for the Confederacy, the issue of slavery was likely the furthest thing from their minds. They were fighting for their homeland, for their family, for their country... just like every soldier. When a soldier dies in Iraq, do we say they died so that BP can make more profits at the sake of the environment? Did they go and die so that women can have the choice to abort their babies? Or maybe it was so we could give tax breaks to the rich... that seems a noble cause to give your life for in Iraq, doesn't it?

What happens is, nitwits and ignorant fools like Chicklet, want to apply issues facing the country at the time, to the motivations of the people who fought the war. That's unfair, because we are all individuals, we all have differing opinions on the issues facing our country. The South supported slavery because they had a great deal invested in slaves and slave labor, and it was vital to their economy. Was it their fault? Did they do something illegal or under-the-table, and hope they could continue to get away with it? Nope. They did what the law allowed them to do, they bought and invested in what the courts deemed as property. It wasn't the South's fault that cotton grew well in the South, and couldn't be grown up North... if that had been the case, there would have been just as many slaves up North as down South. But ignorant bigots like Chicklet, want to believe that people born in the South, were just born racist, and couldn't help it... they would have enslaved people whether they grew cotton or not, because they "congenitally" hated black people.

And just for the record, because I know Chicklet will chime in with his usual claims of me being racist... My grandmother raised 8 children through the Great Depression, by herself. She managed to do this by the grace of a black man who owned a modest cotton farm, which was handed down to him from his 'freed-slave' ancestors, who were given the lands after the Civil War. She picked cotton for 12 hours a day, often with kids in tow, helping to drag the cotton sack. Had it not been for this man, they would have starved to death. So when someone starts yammering nonsense about me being "racist" it bothers me a bit, because if it hadn't been for a black man during the Great Depression, I would not even be here today.

TaiChiLibtard called me racist long ago, and I formally challenged him on it. He of course failed to accept my challenge and continues to repeat his unjustifiable attack.
 
They sell "Bubba Teeth" here for the sole purpose of fooling you ignorant northerners into thinking that they are real. The fact is that we don't want you moving down here, at least not until you've become more knowledgeable or open-minded.
 
Back
Top