Stereotyping the Old South

Ice Dancer said:
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
Click to expand...
Good fucking lord. All hail the lost cause! I can't believe morons like this are still arguing over an issue that was settled over 140 years ago. Well now we know where Dixie gets some of his absurd ideas.
 
King of Hoops said:
Yeah, the mountain folk, great to hear it...
Click to expand...

Lookie, lookie, an article in today's paper about the racist Democrats after the Civil War murdering Republicans, both white and black, then impeaching the GOP governor who sent the militia after their terrorist wing, and modern Democrats still trying to cover it up. Once more proving my point that 3D is ignorant of Southern history...

A resolution absolving Gov. William Woods Holden for acts that included calling out the militia against the Ku Klux Klan in 1870 was sidetracked last month after senators found papers on their desks repeating criticism from nearly a century ago.

Senators objected to the unsigned documents, which are against Senate rules. Security cameras inside the Senate chamber that might have captured the act didn't work.

...

The poison-pen papers cited a nearly 100-year-old book by a UNC Chapel Hill history professor that accused Holden of running a corrupt administration and supporting carpetbaggers and scalawags.

The combination of the anonymous notes left for senators and an email campaign by historical groups in the counties where Holden sent a militia in 1870 led legislators to sideline the pardon.

Holden was the first governor removed from office in the United States. Contemporary historians said he was a target of Reconstruction-era Democrats, who had favored secession in the Civil War. The Democrats were unhappy with Republicans like Holden, who promoted equality for freed slaves. Holden had been named North Carolina's provisional governor in 1865 after the war and was viewed as a turncoat.

Holden called out the militia in 1870 after the Ku Klux Klan hanged a black Republican near the Alamance County courthouse and stabbed a white Republican senator to death in neighboring Caswell County.

His contemporary opponents believe Holden jailed citizens without due-process rights, an action deserving impeachment and removal from office on March 22, 1871.
Click to expand...
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/apr/06/WSMAIN02-mystery-of-poison-pen-letters-solved-ar-923270/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good fucking lord. All hail the lost cause! I can't believe morons like this are still arguing over an issue that was settled over 140 years ago. Well now we know where Dixie gets some of his absurd ideas.
Click to expand...

I would love to have someone explain to me why this topic is so important to so many people. Does the issue really warrant as many arguments as we have had?

Whether the American Civil War was fought over slavery, states rights or the cost of linen napkins seems irrelevant to me except as a historical footnote to one of the bloodiest times in the USA.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, the mayor's recommendation of secession is very much related to riots going on at the same time in NYC, over their involvement in this war of aggression against one of their leading business and trade partners, the southern states. Let's not sugar coat things, people didn't really give two shits about black people being "free" in America. Not in the South, but also, not in the North, East, West, Southwest... that idea was not prevalent in this country. It's sad.... I wish I could say it was different, but it simply wasn't. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was controversial for the time, it was carefully crafted to free the slaves in states which were technically not under US jurisdiction anymore. duh!
Click to expand...

The speech is from early 1861, and the riots occurred in 1863 during mid-July, when Wood was no longer in office. Lincoln's EP is consistent with the belief that the South is in rebellion, and not a separate country, in which case he can make bizarre rules for the territory. Once the Southern states were brought back into the Union, and slavery abolished there, the border states (MO, KY, MD, WV, DE) would find themselves surrounded by free states, and would have to quickly abandon slavery, as it would no longer be profitable for them (DE basically no longer had slaves as it was).
 
Damn Yankee said:
Lookie, lookie, an article in today's paper about the racist Democrats after the Civil War murdering Republicans, both white and black, then impeaching the GOP governor who sent the militia after their terrorist wing, and modern Democrats still trying to cover it up. Once more proving my point that 3D is ignorant of Southern history...

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/apr/06/WSMAIN02-mystery-of-poison-pen-letters-solved-ar-923270/
Click to expand...

SM, I studied the time period of the Civil War under a professor who specialized in slavery, and had just finished his dissertation at the UW in that field. I naturally was aware of the class and attitude differences of the piedmont regions. My attitude, however, is that they clearly represented a small minority, and had no influence on Southern politics. As individuals, I can congradulate them for their principles, as I'm sure their God has, as well, but they don't represent mainstream thought. In fact, if one considers their class differences as a reason for why they were against the established order, then why was class outside of the piedmont regions not a factor? Clearly the poor farmers elsewhere walked in lockstep with the ruling class.
 
King of Hoops said:
SM, I studied the time period of the Civil War under a professor who specialized in slavery, and had just finished his dissertation at the UW in that field. I naturally was aware of the class and attitude differences of the piedmont regions. My attitude, however, is that they clearly represented a small minority, and had no influence on Southern politics. As individuals, I can congradulate them for their principles, as I'm sure their God has, as well, but they don't represent mainstream thought. In fact, if one considers their class differences as a reason for why they were against the established order, then why was class outside of the piedmont regions not a factor? Clearly the poor farmers elsewhere walked in lockstep with the ruling class.
Click to expand...

I don't care what your professor specialized in. What matters is what you know vs. what you claim to know. You've learned a simplified version of Southern history which is the source of these stereotypes that you perpetuate.

Here's some actual facts to contemplate, specifically with regards to North Carolina:

In the South as a whole, there were only 300 owners of more than 300 slaves, and only four of those slave owners were North Carolinian.

There were 85,000 farmers in North Carolina in 1860, and less than 27,000 of them owned any slaves at all.

Among slave owners on the North Carolina Coastal Plain, about 1 in 20 had 20 or more slaves.

Among slave owners in the North Carolina Piedmont, about 1 in 50 had 20 or more slaves.
Click to expand...
http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumd/index.cgi/md/read/id/3459/sbj/attention-north-carolina-researchers/

This exemplifies what I have been saying all along, that wealth, and hence political power, was concentrated in the eastern region. They were decedents from the English, and were Democrats. They looked down on the descendants of Germans, Scots and Irish in the Piedmont and Mountain counties, who were mainly Republican with little or no political power.

When the Civil War broke out it was supported by rich, powerful Democrats and resisted by Republicans.
 
King of Hoops said:
The speech is from early 1861, and the riots occurred in 1863 during mid-July, when Wood was no longer in office. Lincoln's EP is consistent with the belief that the South is in rebellion, and not a separate country, in which case he can make bizarre rules for the territory. Once the Southern states were brought back into the Union, and slavery abolished there, the border states (MO, KY, MD, WV, DE) would find themselves surrounded by free states, and would have to quickly abandon slavery, as it would no longer be profitable for them (DE basically no longer had slaves as it was).
Click to expand...

Regardless of when Wood was in office, the issue of New York supporting the conscription for the Civil War is well documented. It also doesn't matter what Lincoln's 'belief' was... the EP didn't free slaves in any state other than Confederate states, which were not under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time. It would be the equivalent of us passing a law that you must be given a fair trial in Cuba. I'm sure no one would disagree with such a law, the problem is, we couldn't enforce it. That's sort of why we had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments, but even then... for decades to come... the United States Supreme Court (not the CSA) would uphold Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, segregation... this simply isn't the fault of the defeated Confederacy.

Look, I have absolutely no problem condemning slavery or the racist viewpoints of our forefathers, I don't want anyone to think I am trying to defend the indefensible here. It was a deplorable time in American history, and one we should try to glean wisdom from, rather than refuse to accept the truth and live in denial of it. It's really easy to put all the blame on the Confederacy, as if the South and Southern people were somehow solely responsible for slavery and discrimination against blacks in general. You read Chicklet's remarks, he believes people are inherently born racists because they are born in a Southern state! Liberal mush-brains want to pick up a history book and examine history through the perspective of today, as if people in 1860 America were closely-divided over whether blacks and whites were equal. That just was not the case back then, sorry... wish I could make that be the case, and pretend Lincoln was like MLK... but that isn't the truth. The Civil War didn't have anything to do with civil rights for black people. To try and make that distinction, you have to completely ignore the context of the times, and apply modern understandings. That is a viewpoint of ignorance and not supported by the facts.
 
Yes, according to Lincoln, the Plebe States were under his jurisdiction.

As for the slaveholder statistics, most everyone in the South at the time who could not afford a slave, planned to own one later in life when they could afford the investment. Much like young people in the US today rent apartments and own used cars, but plan to own a house and an expensive new car by the time they reach middle age.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I don't care what your professor specialized in. What matters is what you know vs. what you claim to know. You've learned a simplified version of Southern history which is the source of these stereotypes that you perpetuate.

Here's some actual facts to contemplate, specifically with regards to North Carolina:

http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumd/index.cgi/md/read/id/3459/sbj/attention-north-carolina-researchers/

This exemplifies what I have been saying all along, that wealth, and hence political power, was concentrated in the eastern region. They were decedents from the English, and were Democrats. They looked down on the descendants of Germans, Scots and Irish in the Piedmont and Mountain counties, who were mainly Republican with little or no political power.

When the Civil War broke out it was supported by rich, powerful Democrats and resisted by Republicans.
Click to expand...

By the turn of the 19th Century, the only region that was still majority English was New England. The Middle and Southern states had already been taken over by immigrants. Oddly enough, it was the ruling class in NE which typically created the best circumstances for poor and minority residents.
 
King of Reason said:
By the turn of the 19th Century, the only region that was still majority English was New England. The Middle and Southern states had already been taken over by immigrants. Oddly enough, it was the ruling class in NE which typically created the best circumstances for poor and minority residents.
Click to expand...

Cite. I doubt your data breaks it down into he distinct regions of the Carolinas.
 
Yeah, typically the Scots-Irish went out West so they could hide away from all English authority. I'm still waiting on the 1800 Census to load so I can look over it. :cof1:
 
King of Reason said:
Yeah, typically the Scots-Irish went out West so they could hide away from all English authority. I'm still waiting on the 1800 Census to load so I can look over it. :cof1:
Click to expand...

I couldn't find a county-by county summary. All I found was a list of mountain counties in 1860, with a total population about 13% of the total state. I was surprised it was that high.
 
WinterBorn said:
I would love to have someone explain to me why this topic is so important to so many people. Does the issue really warrant as many arguments as we have had?

Whether the American Civil War was fought over slavery, states rights or the cost of linen napkins seems irrelevant to me except as a historical footnote to one of the bloodiest times in the USA.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. It is hugely significant. The Civil War helped to define us as a nation. It's most significant aspect was that the old South landed aristocracy was eliminated and the south was dragged into modernity kicking and screaming the whole way.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I beg to differ. It is hugely significant. The Civil War helped to define us as a nation. It's most significant aspect was that the old South landed aristocracy was eliminated and the south was dragged into modernity kicking and screaming the whole way.
Click to expand...
Ohio however has continued to languish in the dark ages.
 
Dixie said:
Wow, two major firms in NYC were caught being racist.... I didn't realize NYC was part of the Confederacy.

Oh wait.... Didn't New York have a fairly vibrant secession movement of their own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned ugly and degraded into "a virtual racial pogrom, with uncounted numbers of blacks murdered on the streets". The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[7] The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children.[8]


WOW..... THEY MUST HAVE ALL BEEN BORN IN THE SOUTH AND SUFFERED FROM "CONGENITAL RACISM!"
Click to expand...


The Dixie Dunce strikes again, folks. Note how our intellectually bankrupt Dixie stubbornly maintains his lie (or his misunderstanding), as I stated as I stated that congenitial racism permeates the Southern States (with regards to this absurd defense of the Confederacy and such). Big difference than stating that all Southerners are congenitally racists. Somebody near and dear to our Dixie Dunce explain the difference to him.

Also, as with all knee jerk defenders of the Confederacy's racist mindset, our Dixie Dunce automatically points to a documented case of racism in the history of the City of New York.....our dumb Dixie did this AFTER I gave more recent contradictions based in FACT that his erroneous previous statements professing that racist practices IN THE USA or dated at best (60 years was a number thrown about, I believe). One of my references was NYC, of which our Dixie Dunce just ignores (Dim folk like Dixie usually ignore facts that contradict their race based mantras).

As I stated previously on this thread, I have never stated that racism was not or is not present THROUGH OUT the 50 states....but that does NOT REMOVE the FACT that you have a history where Southern States that used slavery as a major factor to support their agrarian based economy, that they formed a Confederacy.....and that the heinous attitudes of racism were a cornerstone of those mindsets resulted in Jim Crow laws that lasted a century after slavery officially ended and the Confederacy lost the war, ending just under 50 years ago.

Notice folks, how our intellectual coward the Dixie Dunce ignored the following:

2) Rather than go point for point with our Dixie Dunce, I'll let the reader examine a better, more accurate viewpoint of the Confederacy and slavery relation to and after the Civil War http://car0lesc0tt.tripod.com/clopton.html

3) For our Dixie Dunce to say that the Jim Crow laws are in no way a relation/off shoot to the Confederacy and it's mindset is pure revisionism. Here's a little accuracy that derails our silly Dixie's revisionist train http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/segregation.html

4) Obviously, Dixie is unaware that the law that guaranteed my right to an education anywhere in the USA that my parents chose for me is just 4 years older than myself. He's probably also unawares of such blatant acts of racism as red lining and how in NYC in the 1980's 2 major corporate personnel firms were found not considering black candidates at the behest of some of their more notable clients. Just a few easily researched references that put our Dixie's rhetoric in the rubbish heap.

5) All Dixie has to do is just copy and paste where I supported or defended a society that had white folks as slaves and Jim Crow laws against them, and then his accusation of "racisim" might hold some water. Until then, my previous declaration stands.

Now, let's watch our Dixie Dunce dance his usual BS.
 
King of Reason said:
Yes, according to Lincoln, the Plebe States were under his jurisdiction.

As for the slaveholder statistics, most everyone in the South at the time who could not afford a slave, planned to own one later in life when they could afford the investment. Much like young people in the US today rent apartments and own used cars, but plan to own a house and an expensive new car by the time they reach middle age.
Click to expand...

So if sometime in the distant future, the country decides to make owning a new car and home against the law, will the kids of today be condemned for having such a desire now? I'm trying to wrap my mind around your logic here. Slaves were legal property, as decided by the US Supreme Court (again, not the CSA). Owning slaves, or wanting to one day own slaves, was not a crime in America, or viewed as abhorrent. It's viewed that way today, in today's perspective, but it wasn't that way in 1860 America. As I pointed out before, not one soldier who died fighting for the Confederacy in the Civil War, owned any slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top