Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 21, 2009
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
Where Does the South End?
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Dear Old Friend,

It was wholly a pleasure to hear your theory about where the South ends, probably because any theory about the South will get a conversation going around dinner tables, at barber shops, in graduate seminars on Southern history, and just about anywhere else in these talkative latitudes.

Your theory is that the South ends where the last monument to the Confederate soldier can be seen. This would mean that Bentonville, up in the far northwest corner of Arkansas, and known far and wide as the capital of Wal-Mart, qualifies as Southern. This might comes as a surprise, or even an unwarranted claim, to folks in Arkansas farther south, who think of the northwestern corner of the state as Midwestern. Or at least Oklahoman.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

If you think being considered Midwestern is a step up from Southern (and I am rather fond of Midwesterners myself with their open, friendly manner), then you're not a Southerner. If you think of it as a step down, then you're a Southerner no matter where you live. Or at least you're someone who prefers the distinctive to the bland.

I know where the South ends in Arkansas. Or begins, depending on which way you're traveling. It's at the Mammoth Orange diner in Redfield, Ark., colloquially known as the Big Orange. Check it out. You can have one of those big burgers while you're there. I wonder if they still serve Grapette sodas. An RC Cola and a Moon Pie might be too much to hope for in these all too advanced times.

The South ends at Redfield because Southernness is a function of mean elevation above sea level: the lower the altitude, the more black folks and black soil, the more traces of the plantation economy and culture, the more Southern. Which is why the Arkansas delta is more Southern than the Arkansas hills. Redfield is just before the hills begin, therefore it's on the uneven line of demarcation between North and South. Q.E.D.

I've often thought the Big Orange ought to put up one of those markers like they have out west to note the continental divide. Only this one would say: "Here the South Ends, May the Lord Be With You. (At Least as Far as Little Rock.)" On the other side, the marker would say: "Welcome to the South, Y'all." The welcome wouldn't be complete without that second-person plural. Not just geography and climate change when you enter Dixie, but the language.

So how come you find pockets of deep-dyed Southernness in unlikely places like the hills of eastern Tennessee or in the middle of Missouri? The then-little town of Columbia, Mo., where I went to school for a couple of idyllic years, was in Boone County, which at the time used to be called Little Dixie.

My explanation: Southerners on the periphery of the South have to be the most aware of their Southernness in order to hold on to their identity. The way you might find the most ardent nationalists of any stripe on the outskirts of the nation. See George Orwell's essay, "Notes on Nationalism."

Southernness, it turns out, is a moveable feast, for Southern is more than a geographical designation; it's a cultural one. Folks in Mississippi don't have to talk about being Southern; they just are, while the baneful tribe of professional Southerners seems to crop up most conspicuously in the outer reaches of Dixie.

There's also a Southern diaspora, which knows no bounds; you may run into representatives of it on New York's Upper East Side or in Paris' fashionable Sixteenth Arrondissement. Or in a simple little pension in Florence. Just listen for an accent that sounds like home and there the South will be, for the South extends far beyond the South,

The other Great Question of our time, or any American time, is: Where does the West begin? That's a column for another day. But one sure nominee would be Kansas City, Mo., though I've heard it said that Fort Worth is where the West begins while Dallas is where the East peters out.

As someone who's been lost more than once on a Dallas freeway, I can testify that Dallas certainly isn't the South. Indeed, those who claim the South fought the Civil War to keep Atlanta from happening may never have considered the possibilities of Dallas.

To be truly Southern, there must be something agrarian about a place even if it's a city. It must have at least a long-lost connection with an agricultural society to qualify.

Grits, black-eyed peas, hurry back, and all that.

Inky Wretch

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Ignorance is Bliss for Some!!!
If ignorance is truly bliss, the libs on this site must be ecstatic.

Patty
Not only do you spew bigotry, but you seem to be completely ignorant of racial tensions in the North (and elsewhere). Consider the Jackie Robinson story... Major League Baseball was a game for white's only until JR "broke the color barrier." When he did finally start playing MLB, he was shunned and subjected to merciless racial slurs and other disgusting displays of bigotry as the Dodgers went from city to city. This ALL occurred in the North - the barrier & the racism. (BTW, as another side topic, I submit it was "the Greatest Generation" mostly engaged in this shameful bigotry.)

Anyway, the anti-black sentiments and racial incidents directed toward JR were happening in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Massachusetts. There wasn't a Southern team in the league at that time.

Speaking of which, haven't you ever heard about the extreme racial tensions which still exist in "enlightened" and "progressive" places like Boston?

Tinsldr2
Even after the South seceded, the North grossly underestimated the strength of southern militias. One northerner (I believe it was a Congressman) offered to wipe all the blood with a handkerchief.

As Shelby Foote observed, it would be an interesting study to find out how many handkerchiefs it would take to wipe up all the blood spilled in the Civil War. That would be a LOT of handkerchiefs.

After the first Battle of Manassas (or Bull Run), the North realized just how formidable the South was. Thanks to "geniuses" like George McClellan, they went to the other extreme and constantly overestimated the South's strength. That's one of the reasons the war lasted so long.

Patty the bigot
Your posts regarding the South are over-generalized and based more on your negative presuppositions than on facts. Thus, by definition, they are bigoted.

Why are you such a bigot?

An apology to Robert
Sorry about calling you a "revisionist" in my last post. Yesterday was a bad day, so I was in kind of a snarly mood. I've seen some of your other posts, and we seem to agree on a lot of things politically. This is no time for conservatives to pick fights with each other!

That being said, you DO seem reluctant to assign any blame to the North. I'm not defending the institution of slavery. I'm saying there was blame to go around for the Civil War.

Patty in TEXAS
Slavery,lynchings,segregation,White Only. You do know that these things occured in the North also,don't you? I'd say your memory,like your education,is poor at best.

Reply to Akagi!!
Akagi, I agree. I used to live in North Georgia, and in fact, spent about 10 days out of every month for a three year period in the late 1980's, on the Appalachian Trail in Georgia as part of my work as a wilderness therapist working for the Georgia Mental Health Institute. On several occasions, I passed the Spring from which the Mighty Chattahoochee River boils up from a spring from amongst the rocks in the side of a mountain. I would stop my group, and we would make our way down the steep slope to witness the Birth of the Chattahoochee, and we would kneel and drink from the pure spring water, fill our canteens and move on. I would then tell my campers the story of the Chattahoochee and also give the warning that once you get to Helen, Ga. and forward, not to drink from the river again, and especially do not drink the water from the Hooch downstream of Atlanta, since Atlanta was routinely dumping raw sewerage into the River, thereby polluting this majestic waterway. We need to protect water resources, and to keep it as clean as is possible. With todays technologies, it is not that difficult to treat waste before releasing to waterways. The problem in the 1980's and now, is that Government Spends too much money on Non=Governmental Programs such as Welfare, Endangered Species and other areas that are not governmental responsibility, and not enough money on legitimate government projects such as sewerage treatment plants, border securities, port protections and national defense generally.

As for Lake Lanier and Alatoona, they are beautiful lakes that I have spent some fun times on water skiiing and canoeing. Long Live the HOOCH and Long Live the South, and I look Forward to the DAY That All Americans say Good Riddance to the Nanny State and to the EPA and other Far Left Agencies that Serve the interests of Far Left Environmental Eco-Terrorists.

WV-- a *Red-Headed Step-Child"??
It must have Interesting, to say the least, around here during *The War*..
Most of my ancestors are interred in a privately owned/maintained Cemetery a few miles from where I was born/raised in the Hills.Interesting to note is that six Civil War Vets buried there; ALL are denoted as CSA, 2 Officers, 3 Sgts aand 1 Grunt..I know for a fact that my G-GrandPa's brother was killed in the Union Army, but I have no idea as to his *resting place*..Been a LONG time since WV History Class, but I seem to recall that *secession* was over refusal to pay Taxes of some sort..Not to Worry!! I've paid a H1ll of a bunch of 'em since..CHEERS

Regional differences...
hogwash! People are first and foremost individuals, not collective entities, and their individuality defines them more than anything else. I'm from Tennessee, but I take no pride in the fact. LuLu you are kuku.

Ken Point well made
I will agree with that 100% Ken. The state militias were as much ceremonial as they were anything else in the early 1850s.

It was the Brown raids and fear of rebellion that made the southern Militias train more serious.

Just the militia concept is tied to our Guard History (especially before it was federalized) and closely to rights like the 2nd amendment.


Greyhawk
I bet if Georgia did the same with our water sitting in Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona and the like you and many of the residents of Alabamastan would take a different view. Many here have suggeted the Governor order the Georgia National Guard to seize the dams at Lanier and Allatoona and stop of idiotic fools at the US Army Corps of Engineers (why don't you all go find mines and IEDs in Iraq or something...the hardway)for sending the vast majority of Georgia's water supply so worthless shellfish won't go thirsty. While the Purple Bankclimber was getting its drink, millions of common shellfish in lake Lanier were dying, let along the people it was forcing out of business.

It has been Fish and Wildlife and federal judges that have been forcing us to send more water for f'ing inedible shellfish. Y'all like our water so much, perhaps we can send more downstream the next few days, we got plenty to share right 'bout now.


Revolt at State Level Now!!!
When the federal government refuses to do it's job, it is up to the states to look after their and their citizens well being. It is about time that responsible states take back their states and enforce laws and make policies that are in the best intrest of the state and it's citizens.

A good case in point is the state of California. The U.S. government has shut off the water to farms at the behest of a bunch of lunatic environmentalist terrorists who got the EPA to enforce an endagered species act law to protect a minnow, while tens of thousands of farmers are out of work and about a quarter of the nations food supply is not being produced. As governor, The Governator needs to say "to hell with the EPA and the environmental kooks, and turn the water on and let the farmers grow crops." The Federal Government and it's bureaucratic machinations has just about destroyed this nation, and Obama and Pelosi, et.al. are promising even more of this worthless bureaucracy. It is time for States To Revolt.

Apocryphally, it was said
"The South ends at Canada", which had a ring of truth.

West Virginia, considered part of the South juts past the southern tip of OH and PA; morOntario's southern tip lies south of Detroit and not far north of WV's northern extremis.

(BTW, the attitude of morOntarians is far worse than any I've encountered in The South--living in Memphis, Dallas and Atlanta and visiting or passing through many other towns/cities).

Tinsldr2
"State Militias were around before the revolution and well established before John Brown's raid on harpers ferry."

Okay, that's a fair point. I should have chosen my words a little more carefully. State militias didn't begin with John Brown's raid, but most states in the South really built up their militias after Harpers' Ferry. Most historians agree it was the biggest catalyst to the Civil War.

gretske
Mrytle Beach and Hilton Head come to mind for the "non-Southern" parts. I must say I love Edisto. I have relatives in Clinton.

Prepare for the Cocks to get smashed this Thursday. And I don't mean in a good way.

Southern Il Pat
"As far as being polite, from my experience it has more to do with urban vs. rural. Urban people just seem to be a lot ruder than rural people, regardless of what part of the country you are in."

100% correct, never been up north (and no plans to ever venture there--well been to the airports, but that doesn't count and Baltimore once), but Atlanta is a rude as any place you'd find up north. Basically Atlanta is a crude mix of NY and LA, but go to Americus, Georgia. They must be the nicest people on the planet.

Ken in VA on militia
Ken, I would challenge you on "No, it wouldn't have. The South didn't have the means to fight the war until after John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. That's when they began organizing militia units."

State Militias were around before the revolution and well established before John Brown's raid on harpers ferry.

The Citadel mil school of SC, whose students fired the first shots in the war, was founded in 1842.

http://www.petersons.com/collegeprofiles/Profile.aspx?inuni d=5699

The state militias fought in the war of 1812, http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Gr oup=53&ID=989

and in the mexican American war
(Site hard to read)http://www.tnmilitary.org/MainPages/history.htm

So the South had the Militia prior to the harper ferry raid of 1859. In fact it was the local militia that suppressed the raid before Robert E Lee showed up with Regular Forces.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2940.html

Now undoubtedly the raid provoked the South and was certainly a cause of strife between the States.


Southern
Far north Georgia had few slaves as the Blue Ridge is unsuitable for slave-based agriculture, the soil is rocky and thin and those living there were poor as dirt. Today I live on the edge of the piedmont and can see the most southern spur of the Blue Ridge from my home.

Many in the far reaches like Union County (named for a political party in the 1830s not the Union Army)fought for the Union, there were Southern versions of Orphan Brigades from places like northern Alabama who fought for the Union.

Ironically, these former pro-Union strongholds are the most southern of them all--the "Confederate" flag flying from houses and businesses--a sight you never see in most of metro Atlanta which has been overrun by Yankees and people whose ancestors in the 1860s were in Mexico and running from the French.

Where does the south end? When you no longer can see the "Confederate" flag flying which would include vast areas people think are in the South--like Cary, NC or Atlanta, GA or most of the state of Florida.

Robert the revisionist
"These are all examples of Northern politicians caving in to Southern demands."

So you're saying the North didn't have the backbone to oppose slavery? Gee, that's admirable (sarcasm intended).

"If the North had maintained opposition of the unrestricted extension of slavery into new territories or refused to ratify the Fugitive Slave Act, the Civil War might have come sooner."

No, it wouldn't have. The South didn't have the means to fight the war until after John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. That's when they began organizing militia units.

I might point out that Zachary Taylor was a Southerner, and he OPPOSED the Compromise of 1850, which included the Fugitive Slave Act. If he had lived, he would have vetoed it. He vowed to hang any Southerners who had a problem with that, and he said he would start with his own son-in-law, Jefferson Davis. Too bad his successor, Millard Fillmore of New York, didn't have that kind of fortitude.

You act as though all people in the North opposed slavery, and that's hogwash. Many of them were quite blase about it. It was easy for Northern abolitionists to denounce slavery because their economy didn't depend on it.

You just can't assign ANY blame to the North, can you?

Stop waiting ROBERT
The "Torries" of the FIRST American Revolution.
For you not to know that brings into question all your other brilliant takes on Reconstruction.

The South begins
At the point where you can't find a decent pizza or italian beef, what they call "dumplings" are nasty solid lumps of flour and water, and you have to specify "unsweet tea" if you don't want to be gagged by the syrup they call "sweet tea".

As far as being polite, from my experience it has more to do with urban vs. rural. Urban people just seem to be a lot ruder than rural people, regardless of what part of the country you are in.

Next Fight !

Where Does The Bible Belt Start ?

Commence Fightin' !

What the heck?
What a waste of an article by a usually good columnist. Another rush to meet a deadline I guess.

Disappointing column Mr Greenberg, I expect better from you.

I love the south having the misfortune to be born a Yankee I got here as fast as I could and will spend my days fishing for redfish, snapper grouper and black sea bass and Kingfish. Swimming In Nov and enjoying the tidal marshes filled with Dolphins.

Both the climate and people here tend to be friendlier in my experience. But that is a generalization.

Personally I am more upset about New Orleans beating the Eagles this week then about lingering signs of the Civil War. (Dang StDenis lol)

Earth and Enemas!!!
If the Earth needed an enema, God Would Insert the Syringe in Chicago, Illinois. And to clean us that cespool of a city would require a long lasting enema to remove the decades of defacation that is concentrated there.

South Represents Common Sense
The traditional South represents common sense and decency, and this quality can be found all over America in every state in almost every farming community or small town. Where you find Radicals and Radical Governments are in Large Metro Socialist Cities who have large pockets of Deadbeats who have a right to vote and continue to Re-Elect Incompetent, Corrupt, Ignorant Socialist politicians who continue to destroy the places they govern. And, they do it all for Power. They can always count on the Deadbeat Vote by promising more Taxes on Workers, Businesses and Property Owners, so that the Irresponsible Politicians and Bureaucrats can Re-Distribute to the Do Nothings who receive the Largesse of those who work and produce. Birmingham, Alabama does not look very much different than Boston, Mass, Chicago, Il, or other Deadbeat Socialist City in anywhere USA. The Heart of America is in Small Towns and Rural Areas in all states. In that respect, we are all Southern and Proud of it.

The jerk Uber
This was a great discussion, loads of fun, and very informative about what "the South" means today - until that total jerk Uber put in his negative two cents worth, dredging up the Civil War (which ended 140 years ago), slavery (which ended 140 years ago), racism (which was not and still is not confined to the South or to white people), and all the rest. None of it had anything to do with Greenberg's article, but nonetheless it slowly and surely perverted the discussion, turning it into an exercise in name-calling and quite offensive sweeping generalizations about various groups of people. What a shame. Uber, you really are a contemptible fool.

THE SOUTH
The South is south of the Mason Dixon Line and
east of the Mississippi. The Deep South is any state that borders the Gulf. Fla is not considered a southern state because, it is more like it's own geographic location.

Expand the South to NJ
I'm from the north and I must admit the south is the better part of America, especially politically.

SFA1973
Still waiting for an example of the defeated party in a bloody rebellion getting a better deal than the South did after the Civil War. I expect to wait for a long, long time.

Tom
Why do people still get excited about the Civil War? Because liberals want to use it as a stick to beat conservatives with, and racists want to play the South as a victim of the nasty old North. In short, it's a useful tool for idiots of all persuasions.

From The Tenth Amendment Center !

" What if the legislatures of “the States” sent delegates to a convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not homeschooled, it may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, and joined into the new union.)"

Link : http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/secession/

The South Today
Many of the comments here tie the South to the War Between the States. Why? That was a long time ago. Someone here actually suggested that east TN is not Southern because of local attitudes about the War 145 years ago. Get Real.

Are we talking about the South, or the Southeast? Because geographically speaking the South would include such states as TX, NM, AZ & part of CA. So, I think we're talking about the Southeast. The Southeast ends at the NC - VA border, as well as the TN - KY border. There may be some twang in the speech of folks in KY, but geographically, that not South. I traveled through there a few years ago in December, and it was 2 degrees F. That's not Southern!


SFA1973
Thinking further on the subject, there were hundreds of people, usually Black, lynched every year in the South for nearly a hundred years. Even this adds up to thousands. I know. My great-grandfather ran for Sheriff on an anti-lynching ticket. He lost to the Democrat.

SFA1973
Between 1866 and 1877. The Klan and other paramilitary organizations killed an awful lot of people. They killed Blacks, whites, elected officials, a Federal judge, and a lot of other people. Wasn't that covered at Magnolia U.?

And this massacre
of thousands of blacks and Republicans would have occured when?

SFA1973
I don't pay much attention to professors, although I do note that the ones I appreciated the most were two conservatives and a moderate Democrat. I studied all sides of the issue, from Foner's revisionism to the Southern apologists. Then I formed my own opinion. I recommend this process highly.

It is a little hard to consider the massacre of thousands of Blacks and Republicans and the disenfranchisement of millions, including many whites, to be preferable to Reconstruction.

Robert,
That's not how I read it. Then again, I didn't have a bunch of leftwing loons for profs.

SFA1973
Then you know that Reconstruction was probably the mildest treatment of the defeated in a bloody rebellion in the history of the world. Or don't you?

No, Robert,
I have never read GWTW. I learned the history of the period as an Undergaduate History Major, and as a Masters Candidate and Graduate in History.

SFA 1973
I allegedly learned about it as a history major in college and followed it up by reading hundreds of books about the Civil War. Where did you learn about Reconstruction--"Gone with the Wind?"

Robert:
Just exactly where did you allegedly learn about Reconstruction?

uber
"It was Liberals who went to fight fascism in Spain before American Conservatives were ready to fight." By the time the Republican General Franco rebelled against the government, it had already become a tyranny, fixed the elections, suborned the military, engaged in massacres of religious leaders, conservatives, and others, and effectively destroyed any hint of democracy in Spain. Franco rebelled not to end democracy, which was already gone, but to stop the government sponsored violence that was wrecking Spain. As I have said before, your knowledge of history is immature and Manichean. Try to study history instead of learning the slogans.

Reba
I quite agree. Recovering the Tenth Amendment is an honorable course of action which Arizona is indeed taking the leadership role. However, the meanderings about the legitimacy of secession I often read here are immature foolishness if hot air and dangerous treason if serious.

younger
Ignorance is no excuse. The Freedman's Bureau, sponsored by the Federal government sent many, many teachers south, for example. Furthermore, your history of Reconstruction is basically just plain false. Again, I challenge you to name a civil war ended with less acrimony and retaliation than our Civil War.

Southern
I was born in Atlanta, raised in Charlotte & never met a Yankee until I moved to Florida at age 22. Guess I lived a protected life. The accent is the secret password. As my Mother always said- "save your Confedrate money boys, the South is going to rise again!"

The Mason Dixon Line !

The boundary between the two states,Pennsylvania and Maryland , along the Mason-Dixon line came into the spotlight with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Compromise established a boundary between the slave states of the south and the free states of the north . However , its separation of Maryland and Delaware is a bit confusing since Delaware was a slave state that stayed in the Union.

Lilly
I lived in Illinois for one year, you can have it. I'd live in any state in the Union except Illinios. It's cold and corrupt.

Midwestern?
Now I'm not a Southerner, so I can't rightly speak about where the South ends. Maybe it doesn't include north Arkansas, that's none of my concern. But I can say, no part of Arkansas is Midwestern. If it's not Southern, fine. But it's not Midwestern.

Robert in Arizona @ 5:01 pm
I am sorry that you have evinced ignorance and boorishness in your response to my post. For shame, sir.

The people who came south to truly help the former slaves were sent by organizations other than the Federal government.

Lily:
Having lived in the Chicagothugland area, Filthydelphia, and other unpleasant Yankee cities, you can have them. They are cold, dirty, in need of massive amounts of sandblasting, street repair, honest politicians, and full of rude crude, socially unacceptable anal orifices posing as people. And those are their good points.

To Reba
























Two quotations:

"I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization." ---Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

"If I owned Texas and hell, I would rent out Texas and live in hell." General Phillip Sheridan

I agree with both.










GOD LAND UNION
Is not States Sovereignty is a moot point if the National Sovereignty is in peril? Although, I do support the process I believe each state must protect their integrity with Right Principles.

The Father of our Great Nation George Washington's Admonition

http://americanvisionary.ning.com/profiles/blogs/george-was hingtons-admonition

To Sandy and Julie
It's interesting that you bring up Illinois---it's actually two states in one. Look at history: Southern Illinois was settled first, starting right after the Revolution, by Southern people---Virginians, Kentuckians, Carolinians---who crossed the Ohio River or floated west on it. They brought Southern culture and attitudes which persist in Southern Illinois to this day. Northern Illinois was settled later and brought people from New England and New York State, many of them using the new Erie Canal to travel part of the way west. As a consequence of this history, Northern and Southern Illinois were at odds from the beginning, for example regarding slave-holding. (If you are interested, there is an excellent book, "Frontier Illinois" by James E Davis---I just checked; amazon.com has it used for $7.90)

This split still exists. Chicago is diverse and multicultural, a big city that in some ways resembles New York. It is maximally different from the rest of the state it's in. I spent part of my childhood in Southern Illinois; it might as well have been Alabama. The town where my grandmother lived did not permit black people to rent or own property or even to be in the town after dark. Many of the people there spoke Southern English, cooked Southern foods, and followed Southern customs.

The only PROPER definition of 'the South
If they went for the Confederacy, That's South. Otherwise, that's North. WVa is North, Maryland is North, Virginia is south, Take it from there, etc...

Robert - AZ @ 5:05
Agreed, "The question of secession has been decided."

However, states sovereignity is still an issue.
There are currently 8 states which are re-enacting states sovereignity and more are looking at it, including Arizona.
Arizona's new law that allows them to "opt-out" of national health care. This bill can be found at : http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?format=normal&inDo c=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2014h.htm.

Our Texas Governor Perry has mentioned doing the same.
This does not mean secession, only enforcement of the 10th amendment. Nullification was a hotly discussed issue for 30 years prior to the civil war. Hopefully, we'll never go there again.


Thank you
Ladies and Gentlemen, especially Robert in AZ, I thank you for an enjoyable debate. Many interesting facts and perspectives were thrown around, but mainly, no insults. Thank you all.

Robert !

So , Why Ya Tellin' Me ?









Socialist must Fight for Democracy
And yet it was Liberals who supported the war in Vietnam, World War I and World War II. It was Liberals who went to fight fascism in Spain before American Conservatives were ready to fight.

I understand that it's hard to forgive the actions of Liberals who made some poor choices regarding supporting Americans returning from the war in Vietnam.

But I would put it to you that not all Liberals are the same, though we came to our understanding of the world threw a similar set methodology we do not all come to the same understanding.

I as a Socialist apologize for the way Socialists older than I am treated returning American solders from Vietnam. They had no right to not extend the same grace and dignity that their Socialist parents received after fighting fascism in Europe.

The USSR was a fascist state not a Socialist Utopia and America had to defeat it. America was better off fighting Communist fascism even as it does Islamo Facism today.

Socialism must be Democratic not Fascistic and Socialists must support all those who fight for Democracy.



Lulu
Geez, did I say I thought Virginia wasn't Southern? Hmm... seems to me I said it was, in my opinion, Southern. Maybe... since Virginia didn't secede until after the war started, you were thrown off by the phrase "other secessionist states?" I don't know - I wouldn't try to put words in your mouth.

The liberals' flags
"America must come first and I put it to you that it is Liberals to day as in the past who have put America first." Nonsense. I recall that when I have seen mutilated versions of the American flag, it is liberals who have flown them. When I saw the flags of the enemy flown during the Viet Nam war, it was liberals who flew them. When people sneered at those who wore American flag lapel pins, it was liberals that did the sneering. And of course, it is leftists who burn flags.

Bringing up flags is probably not a good strategy for liberals given their past performance.

cause and effect part deux
Dear everyonesfacts; I don't want to play the semantics game about leader versus leading spokesperson. If by leading spokesperson you mean most prolific speaker, you may be correct. If by leading spokesperson you mean that he spoke for most people, I disagree. The fact that he announced on numerous occasions before and during the war that blacks were inferior to whites and that the society was based on slavery still does not mean that people were fighting over slavery (which is what he said after the war). That is like saying that anyone who opposes President Obama's ideas is racist; some may be racists, but others clearly are not, ergo the connection is artificaial and not a factor in cause and effect.

As for uber in NY, the WWII analogy is spot on in that freeing slaves/Jews was not the intention, but the result, not the cause, but the effect.

uber
"This flag is not going to be flown by anyone other than Nazis. Battle or otherwise it is a Nazi flag first that for most even as the Confederate flag is a Flag of the Confederate Army an Army which was a war with the USA." Do Nazis fly the Confederate battle flag? Sure they do. They also fly the American flag.

First, there weren't even such a thing as Nazis at the time of the Civil War. Your conflation of the confederacy with the Nazis is especially ironic since Judah Benjamin was Secy of War, Secy of State, and Atty General in Davis' cabinet.

Second, nobody (except a handful of nitwits) is in favor of slavery or Jim Crow. That's not what the Confederate battle flag is about (always excepting the few nitwits). Your saying that it is does not make it so, a lesson most people learn early in life.

Your Manichean black and white view of history is a sign of political immaturity.

Reconstruction
Younger says, "How many of you have read Margaret Mitchell's opus, "Gone with the Wind?" She wrote of what she learned from people who had lived through the events of that time, and she wrote of the great injustices visited upon the people of the South." I would caution anyone about getting their version of history from any novel.

Reconstruction, which lasted a minimum of two years maximum of 12 years, sat very lightly on the South for the most part. Remember that the South had made two serious mistakes-- they started a rebellion and they lost it. I would ask for examples in history where the defeated rebels in a bloody rebellion had better treatment and a more rapid total reintegration back into the society as ours. There are none.

Seriously Robert
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:2eqH2UHs5sH4HM:http://ww w.ns88.com/shop/images/kriegsmarine-flag01.jpg

This flag is not going to be flown by anyone other than Nazis. Battle or otherwise it is a Nazi flag first that for most even as the Confederate flag is a Flag of the Confederate Army an Army which was a war with the USA.

We do not honer those colonists who fought for Briton against the USA and we should not honer those who fought against the USA in the Civil war either.

America must come first and I put it to you that it is Liberals to day as in the past who have put America first.

We are not the new left, or the old left, we are Liberals in the traditional sense and Conservatives seem daily to place themselves along side conservatives in the traditional sense.

That is those intent on protecting tradition against reason.

The defense of values on the grounds that my just claims are an attempt to divide Conservatives is not a defense at all.

I respect that of all those here you alone are willing to confront the myth of the confederate morality.

Do I attack conservatives on this issue and others. Yes. But defend conservatism on it's merits. And it does have merits, though few, not on it's many downfalls.

If Conservatism is to be saved, it will have to do so by reforming it's own moral logic.

Robert
ok I was with you to you brought Stonewall into it.

I still tear up when I drive past Stonewall's shrine.

I have a friend who is a flaming liberal but every lee-Jackson day she flies her battle flag in the heart of liberal Washington.

We take Stonewall, Lee, and Stuart very seriously.

Bill
"Having lost Two Federal Troopers in The War Between The States ,we respect the valor and understand the Constitutional views of those Opposing Confederates ." My family also lost two soldiers in the Civil War. In honor of their sacrifice, we and all real Americans have always vowed that if any group of dangerous nitwits tried to secede again, we'd crush them just like the first time. Why? Because we are all Americans, and real Americans intend to keep it that way. The question of secession has been decided.

A Southerner by Choice
Paul has to include another group of Southerners - those who choose to be Southerners. - sort of a mental and moral diaspara TO the SOuth.

I came from another country - legally, I might add - and settled in the south. I love the people here, polite and charming, with a love of hunting and history and an openess that is completely foreign to a Yankee.

I adore grits and turnip greens and corn bread. I admire the honor and political independence that despises Washington's spending and authoritative thuggery.

I have read the Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote and consider it infinitely better written than anything to come out of the north.

When a professor of history from University of Virginia said that the War of Northern Aggression would be forgotten in fifty years, I thought "No. The British people still consider the Normans of 1066 as "them" versus "us". It shall be so in the South, as it should be. The very best of America is here.

Jeff
Goodness and here I am living surrounded by battlefields, Confederate cemetaries, and the Confederate whitehouse. I literally look out my windows on a battlefield and drive down Jefferson Davis Hywy everyday, but I'm sure you're right the Commonwealth really isn't Southern.

Younger
Most statements about the South by Southerners on this thread are reasonable. Yours, however, are both stupid and dishonest. Among other things, the North sent teachers south to educate not only Blacks but whites. The idea that Reconstruction was like "Birth of a Nation" with its evil stupid blacks and its courageous defenders of white virtue is absurd to the point of idiocy. It's bad history-- simply untrue. By your own stated standards, the KKK was just a social improvement organization fighting crime. Your beliefs represent a tiny minority that is a gift to Northern liberals who would castigate the South and a bane to those who love not only the South but all America and want to make it even more united around its common values.

For shame, sir. For shame.

I always thought the South ended...
Where you no longer find people who cringe when they hear "He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored" part of Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Really, I don't know many Southerners who took kindly to that characterization.

ken
"If Stephen Douglas of Illinois had not sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the expansion of slavery might not have become an issue. If Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire had not signed that bill into law, the Missouri Compromise would have continued to restrict slavery. If the Compromise of 1850 had not been supported by Daniel Webster of Massachussetts and signed by Millard Fillmore of New York, the Fugitive Slave Act would not have become law."

These are all examples of Northern politicians caving in to Southern demands. If the North had maintained opposition of the unrestricted extension of slavery into new territories or refused to ratify the Fugitive Slave Act, the Civil War might have come sooner. Stiffening Northern resistance to slavery frightened the South. There was no probability of abolition as long as Northern politicians were willing to buy a little peace at the cost of angering Northern public opinion.

Bottom half of Delaware was Dixie
Years ago, and I mean several years ago :-), I'd say Dover Delaware was the dividing line between the North and the South. Dover South, or the bottom half of Delaware, was as Southern as anywhere in the Carolinas. Maryland was definitely the South back then, perhaps with the exception of Baltimore North of Dover was rural but was more like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I live in Georgia now.

Confederate States' Secession Rights !

Since States had to secede from The Articles of Confederation to establish The Federal Government ,many Constitutional experts ,at that time viewed Secession as a States Right.

Having lost Two Federal Troopers in The War Between The States ,we respect the valor and understand the Constitutional views of those Opposing Confederates .

Jim Crow laws
How many of you have read Margaret Mitchell's opus, "Gone with the Wind?" She wrote of what she learned from people who had lived through the events of that time, and she wrote of the great injustices visited upon the people of the South.

After WWII, even though Genrmany had attacked our country in accord with an agreement with the Japanese that Germany would declare upon upon the United States once Japan had declared war upon us, we sent much real help to our former enemy.

What did the United States send to the South after April of 1965? Carpet Baggers, and a military rule that made it a crime to lift a hand against a criminal of black ancestry. It is no wonder that there was a reaction to the rule that had oppressed the white population to the extent that the lives of many were in danger from an unrestrained criminal population.

As to the attack on Fort Sumter ("Sumpter" has been an accepted alternative spelling; the name of the town, now city, named for the "Gamecock" has been spelled that way), why did not the Supreme Commander not order his forces to leave an foreign country?

Peggy - YOU ARE RIGHT
Yep pardner, that's why we say, "Deep in the heart of Texas". It's a feeling not a geographical location. We're Texans, no matter what state we are in or how long we are there.

Read my post at 11:37 - Texans and Southerners

uber
"Are you saying that the use of the Confederate flag by Americans is justified in any way?" I guarantee it won't be used by me in any way. I also would not use it as a bath towel. My ancestors were on the other team. However, what you call the Confederate flag is in fact the battle flag, not the national flag. It doesn't stand for slavery, but for the courage and ability of the Southern soldier. Veteran's organizations in Germany still use their battle flags the same way.
In Viet Nam, I learned that many Southern soldiers who were undoubtedly patriotic, not racist, and so on carried the Confederate battle flag on their person to invoke the valor of their ancestors.

Your demonizing of an entire region of America and your belittling of the positive aspects of their history is part and parcel of the liberal necessity to divide and antagonize us, separating us in order to win elections. Conservatives say we are one people-- liberals need divisions in order to rule.

Lulu
I've read your opinion on which states are southern and figure you must not have had the opportunity to visit much of Florida. While it's not the size of Texas, Florida is fairly large and definitely diverse. And though it's been certainly affected by mass migrations of northerners and islanders, I'd still have to say your description of this state is pretty much backwards. Apart from the large city and some coastal pockets, Florida is mostly still Southern.

I found your state-by-state descriptions amusing because, in this part of Florida (Tallahassee area), I have friends who define the South like you do but with different results. Generally, their view of the South contains only the original secessionist states minus Texas - South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida. Virginia, being that it's not even a border state by that definition, is so far from being "Southern" in their minds it might as well be Pennsylvania.

Personally, though... in terms of "southernism" I've encountered, I'd include the other secessionist states (incl Texas), KY, Southern Illinois, and parts of Maryland.

Reba
"By 1865 over 180,000 black men were serving in the Union army."

I'd be interested in knowing how many of those were actually former slaves. The movie "Glory" gives the impression that the 54th Massachussetts Regiment was made up mostly of former slaves. In fact, most of them had never been in slavery.

Of course, you're correct when you say the Emancipation Proclamation encouraged blacks to fight for the North. Lincoln's motive in issuing the Proclamation was primarily political. Mind you, it was a brilliant stroke on his part. In my opinion, it was the single factor that sealed the South's doom.

To be Southern
There is an old saying down here and it is: We call northerners that come down to visit "Yankees"! Those that come down to stay, we call "Damn Yankees". Sure wish there were more Yankees than Damn Yankees down here.

Southerners are born and breed! Southern comes from the heart and can be taken were ever one chooses to live.

Robert
"Can anyone imagine an America which had kept slavery? No. It had to end."

I haven't seen anyone on this thread who would dispute that. I certainly wouldn't.

"If the South had accepted its restriction to the existing slave states, it would have ended later and with less blood."

That "what if" thing cuts both ways. If Stephen Douglas of Illinois had not sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the expansion of slavery might not have become an issue. If Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire had not signed that bill into law, the Missouri Compromise would have continued to restrict slavery. If the Compromise of 1850 had not been supported by Daniel Webster of Massachussetts and signed by Millard Fillmore of New York, the Fugitive Slave Act would not have become law.

I repeat, there was blame to go around.

Let's Not Be So Serious!
This all happened a long time ago. If you're still furious about it, you might try getting a life.

I recall my experience at Fredericksburg ten years ago. One of my ancestors died there, and the huge monument on the battlefield has his name on it. While I was there, two unreconstructed Southerners laughed at it and said, "Just another monument to Southern marksmanship." I called them jerks, and was admonished by the guide for being abrasive-- me! The same group then proceeded to the monument down the road where Stonewall Jackson was accidentally shot by Southern troops. As the Southerners solemnly came forward to lay a cheap bouquet on the monument, I said loudly, "Yep, just another monument to Southern marksmanship." They went berserk and I was thrown off the tour and got my money back. Well, it was funny when they said it.

Do I know how to have a good time or what?

Decodiva. Location Texas
I cannot say where the South begins or ends but I can tell you that this Southerner was born & has lived almost all my life in Texas. "Southern" has less to do with geography than with the heart.

Robert
Are you saying that the use of the Confederate flag by Americans is justified in any way? How can it stand for anything other than the values and ideology of the Confederacy? And if it does can one not say that those who fought under the Nazi flag have the same reasons for proudly flying it to commemorate their daring deeds?

Are you saying that battle monuments, memorialize battles with out memorializing the values for which those battles were fought? Can you imagine memorials to British solderers of the revolution on American soil?

It seems to me that Memorial are ultimately political in nature more so than historical.

But perhaps that is just my liberal bias speaking

uber
have you read books about the battles, visited the battlefields, or even read a biography about Jackson, Davis, or Lee?

Just read the accounts of Pickett's charge, or the writings of Davis, or a biography of Lee.

Pickett's charge brings a tear to my eye just to think of it. Union and Confederate soldiers met for years after the war in Gettysburg as friends and countrymen and it is the Union troops who were witness to Pickett's charge that honored it so.

You have a very childish and limited view of history and humans. Your public school did you no favors, but maybe I'm wrong to blame the schools when you show your unwillingness or inability to learn or think with every post you make on TH.

on quickness
The E.P. at least the preliminary E.P. was issued on 9/22/1862 a year and five months
after Sumter and a year and two months after
Bull Run.

This to me was rather quick. And yes the E.P.
was also a foreign relations move. Forgot to
mention that.

Of course, not nearly as quick as it took
SC to attack the feds after Lincoln became
Pres. - 1 month.

Just A Thought
Can anyone imagine an America which had kept slavery? No. It had to end. Unfortunately, the way it ended cost at least 600,000 lives. If the South had accepted its restriction to the existing slave states, it would have ended later and with less blood. Unfortunately, when the South chose secession and fired on Fort Sumter, it guaranteed that no such solution would be found.

Kirby - Tx
Your figures are correct on the percentage of Confederate soldiers who were not fighting for slavery, but to protect their homeland. Only 10% of the Conferedeate military had been slave owners.

Another consideration that has been missed here, but again debated by historians, is the motive of Lincoln to provide an emancipation proclamation almost two years into the war, at the very time the war was going against the North. After the proclamation, the prospect of pro-Southern intervention by Britain faded. The proclamation also marked a fundamental shift in Union military policy. Initially opposed to enrolling any blacks as soldiers, Lincoln authorized an aggressive recruitment campaign immediately following the issuance of the final proclamation on 1 January 1863. The 13th amendment was not ratified until 1865.

By 1865 over 180,000 black men were serving in the Union army.
We never know what a President is thinking or his motives in proposing bills and laws, so we can only make a conjecture on their real motives.
We'll probably debate the issues for another 145 years.


Yes, Kirby there's the rub
Lincoln wouldn't have and couldn't have gotten
rid of slavery if the South had not seceded.

His main goal was to maintain the union but
the war gave him the opportunity to get rid of
slavery too - good for 2 reasons: 1) black
soldiers and 2) though widely debated - he
believed in it. It needs to be noted that
Lincoln's views are a moving target. I would
say they progress during the war. One reason
John Wilkes Boothe shot Lincoln was because
he mentioned black voting rights in his last
public speech.

On Stephens he made many speeches not just
one and was the leading spokesperson of the
South, like Calhoun before him not only during
secession but after. In his history of the
war he takes pains to argue that the war was
not about slavery. Obviously, he wasn't aware
of that treasure trove of sources his own speeches and writings!

uber
Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, not the other way around. That legitimized WW11 very neatly.

Robert
"However, at the heart of it all was the institution of slavery."

I repeat, I don't deny that slavery played a significant part in it. However, it's simplistic to say that slavery was the "heart" of it. Lincoln certainly did not consider it to be the central issue; he said so on many occasions.

I must also emphasize that it's simplistic to blame the slavery problem on the South. If the North's economy had been as dependent on slavery as the South's, I'm not sure they'd have thought it was so bad.

Many Northerners, in fact, were quite blase about slavery. Stephen A. Douglas, who was from the North, certainly had no problem with extending slavery into the territories. The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing the further extension of slavery. That act was signed into law by Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire.

The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the infamous Compromise of 1850. Zachary Taylor, who was from the South, vowed to veto this bill. He favored bringing California into the Union, but he thought the Compromise made too many concessions to the South. He died in office, and the bill was signed into law by his successor, Millard Fillmore of New York.

I don't defend the institution of slavery, but it's simplistic to blame it all on the South.

Antislavery in the United States
The American side of my family began arriving in 1683, the first wave of German immigration. They issued the first public condemnations of slavery in 1685, criticizing the Quaker government of Pennsylvania for allowing it. This sentiment grew for the next hundred and fifty years. The North gradually abolished slavery by law, but only had small numbers of slaves. At least two of my ancestors at the time of the Civil War were active abolitionists, and the rest were mildly opposed to the institution. This fairly proportionately represents the Northern attitude. There was a lot of antislavery sentiment in the South. Washington was against slavery, and freed his slaves upon his death, providing them with assistance from his will. Jefferson wanted to, but was such a poor manager of money he was never able to. As previously mentioned, Lee was disgusted by slavery and wanted it abolished, as did Jackson and some other Southern leaders. The problem was how. What could be done with the enormous uneducated and (according to scientists) inferior population when they were free? Who would pay for all the lost 'property'? What would happen to the cotton economy on which America depended on, South and North? Southern opposition to slavery declined, however, since the South (or at least its leaders) increasingly saw their area's prosperity indissolubly linked to slavery. That is the tragedy that produced the greater tragedy of the Civil War.

NO SLAVERY NO WAR?????
Then tell me when were the states gonna lie down and let the FEDS become the dominate power they are now.There is no 10th AM
to the Constitution because of that war.When were states gonna give up their sovereignty
Without a fight? For the record let it be known that VA,NC,TN,and ARK voted to remain in the Union until Abe demanded they send troops South and kill Southerners so they would remain loyal.Ya know,like if the wife tries to leave and you beat her to make her stay,and then take credit for saving the marriage! And Ol' Honest Abe wanted 75,000 men for 90 days.He got 4yrs and over 3000,000 dead Union.And people say he was the greatest Prez.

Intent is not a Moral End.
"I agree with you that the majority of Northerners disagreed with slavery. However, most also believed they had no right to invade another state, simply to free slaves. Lincoln fell into this category."

America did not enter WWII to liberate Jews. Did that not make that cause any less just, and our involvement in WWII any less justified. After all we were attacked by Japan not Germany.



LuLu
I couldn't agree with you more. I think maybe TV and the fact that we travel and move more than our folks did a couple of generations ago have helped to homogenize our language, foods, and customs. We have lost the charm of regionality. We may be as likely now to find a good plate of Pad Thai in a small Southern town as we are to find chicken & dumplings. I certainly believe in making everyone welcome everywhere, but---at the same time, we've lost something.

I have seen this in Canada, just recently. Up until 15-20 years ago department stores in Canada were sort of the way they were in England 20-30 years earlier, sort of dowdy and comfortable, not glamorous. Snack bars served Eccles Cakes and Bath buns and you could buy a tea cozy (and a lot of other English products). Then the stores began getting glitzier and trying to look like US stores. No more Eccles Cakes: now you got pizza and hamburgers. And, gosh, England too---sweet little old shops in London that had windows with wooden panes gradually disappeared and were replaced by many-many GAP stores.

Globalization: a mixed bag.

Alexander Stephens
"You also cite Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Address" which is notorious for its statement that the Confederacy is founded upon the Cornerstone that "the black is inferior to the white," and contend that "Stevens" (sic) was the leading spokesperson of the South. First, Stephens was clearly not the leader, or else he'd be president, not vice president (and Jeff Davis, who legally adopted a black boy into his household, was the leader). Second, Stephens' apparently racist remark is quite unremarkable when compared to Lincoln's own comments that the black was not equal to the white man, nor should he have equal rights: should not sit on juries, vote, nor hold public office."


1. Stephens was the leading spokesperson for
the South. I did not say its leader I said
its leading spokesperson.

2. What Stephens said and how much he said it
in no way compares to Lincoln's views. If
Lincoln's views were the same or worse than
Stephens then the South would have remained
in the union.

"Basically EVERYONE, of all races in 1860, was a racist by 2009 standards."

I don't know if everyone of all races was
racist in 1860 - it is taken as a given that
nearly all whites including abolitionists were.

everyonesfacts from MA
I apologize. Uber from NY posted that and I erroneously attributed it to you. I'm sorry.

uber
"the evil that occupied their psyche during that time" Now that's plain silly. As all thoughtful posters here have noted, the motivation of most of the people who fought was simple local patriotism. The southern soldier did not fight primarily for slavery whatever his leaders might have had in mind.

Pride in southern battle success is indeed like the pride my German relatives felt about their participation in WW11. None of them were Nazis and very few voted for Nazis-- they were monarchists-- but the comradeship, patriotism, and courage of the German soldier is still worth celebrating. The idea that to celebrate that is to celebrate Nazism or to celebrate the southern struggle is to celebrate slavery is dubious. Can it happen? Sure-- but that's not what it is basically about. It's about your neighbors, friends, and family celebrating your local patriotism-- period.

uber the bigot
Speaking of the KKK, I recall reading about some cases of voter intimidation in the last election. Some people actually stood outside polling places with nightsticks, and they were clearly trying to harass voters. They were even caught on video. The scene was certainly reminiscent of the "Jim Crow" era.

Except the perpetrators in this case were not Klansmen. They were Black Panthers. Interestingly enough, President Obama's Justice Department decided not to investigate this matter. I've not heard any outcry about it from any liberals.

I guess racism isn't so bad when it's directed against "whitey", eh?

Cause and Effect
To everyonesfacts-- Alexander Stephens was an unapologetic supporter of slavery, and his speech indicates it. But that does not make him the leading spokesperson for the South. The fact that he says slavery is the basis of Southern society is irrelevant. Lincoln , the actual leader of the North (unlike Stephens, who was uniformly disliked among his own countrymen), specifically stated he did not wish to eradicate slavery. If Southerners' principal aim was to preserve slavery, they should have stayed in the Union-- by seceding, they onlt succeeded in threatening that practice.

By the way, there were 19 free states and 15 slave states in 1860. With the cloture rules in effect in the US Senate (not to mention the taking clause of the Constitution), the South was not in danger of losing slavery-- so long as they remained in the Union.

North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas only seceded after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South (after Sumter) because they believed that the already seceded states had the right to secede and the Federal government was trampling on those rights. Kentucky specifically stated they were neutral, would not provide troops per Lincoln's request, and would not support either side until Gideon Pillow (moron that he was) actually invaded that state, driving them into the arms of the North.

To Robert in AZ-- my family is from the North, and I have at least two ancestors that fought for the Union. I believe they were right in doing so. Their stated reasons were to preserve the Union, which is in keeping with the vast majority of Union soldiers.

I agree with you that the majority of Northerners disagreed with slavery. However, most also believed they had no right to invade another state, simply to free slaves. Lincoln fell into this category.

ken and kirby
You both raise excellent points. The pressures that produced the Civil War are indeed complex and not as easy as a high school textbook might indicate. However, at the heart of it all was the institution of slavery. By no means do I minimize the other pressures-- what I do disagree with is the efforts of some (not you) to gloss over or minimize the impact the institution of slavery had on the country. Even when it was not mentioned, it was the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that nobody wanted to talk about.

My father was a German refugee from first Russia and then Germany just before WW11. He was a decorated officer veteran of WW11. He always said that millions of honorable, good, patriotic men had fought for Germany to defend their home and family-- but that their virtues did not cleanse the stain from their cause.

Ratas y Ratones
"Reckon" is in contemporary use in England, as you can hear just by watching English mystery shows on PBS, where folks in present times are reckoning right and left. In the US it's mostly a regional Southern usage, like addressing women as "Ma'am"---heard much more in the South---and "right good and well" as in "I know right good and well it's going to rain". That uses "right" as an intensifier, like "very"---traces straight back to 18th Century English. My great-grandfather, born in Ohio in 1860 to Kentucky-born parents, used to put the a- before a verb, as in "I'm a-going to mow the lawn"---current in 16th, 17th, and 18th Century England.

When speakers of a language take it to a new nation, they keep speaking it but are isolated from the mother country so, back home, the language changes but in the new place (American Colonies in this case) it tends to stay the same as when it was imported---this is called "Colonial lag". If you go to the English-speaking Caribbean islands you will hear a machete called a "cutlass", 17th-19th Century, another example.

Contemporary Southern American English has retained more examples of Colonial lag than Northern American English. I think it's nice. (I reckon it's right nice.) One reason language is so much fun is that it gives us a road map of where our folks before us have been.

To Kirby
I did not post what you responded to below.

I would recommend The Known World by Edward
Jones, a fictionalized account of the most
famous black master and arguably the greatest
American novel (ever!).


Everyonesfacts from MA part two
"Black Servants with White Masters."

Certainly this was the typical slave pattern, but not the exclusive one, as Native Americans and African Americans also owned slaves.

The 1860 census reveals some interesting ficures fro Charleston, SC, that hotbed of secession. Its population was roughly 40,000, half of whom were black. Of the 20,000 blacks, about 2,700 were free. Of the 2,700 who were freed, about 400 (individuals, consisting of about 900 free blacks) owned about 1,500 slaves. So 20,000 whites owned about 15,800 slaves and 2,700 blacks owned about 1,500 slaves. The statistics reveal that about one in three white families owned slaves, and about one in three black families owned slaves. So while it is fair to say all slaves were black, it is not fair to say all masters were white.

texas tea party @ 2:33
Amen to your comments. I recently heard Gov Perry say that 1,000 people are moving into Texas every day. They are coming from those high taxes, unionized and over entitlement states that are going broke. Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country and Texas has created 70% of all new jobs in the USA in the past two years.

The Tort Reform bill passed in Texas in 2003 have encourage 6,000 new doctors to move to Texas and liability premiums have dropped by 30%

So much for your Liberal states, what have you done to help someone lately? I'm sure you Liberals love all the taxes you pay.

some more facts
in response to Sandy from IL

"Just an observation...
The Confederacy was made up of States that removed themselves from the Union. The discussion as to whether they had the right to do so still exists. Nevertheless they did not do it by fighting, but by forming their own government. As such it was never a "civil" war. That is defined as factions trying to take over the same government. The North was trying to eliminate the Confederacy, and the Confederates wanted to be divorced from the Union. Not a "Civil" war."

That is one definition of civil war.
An on the ground historian definition is a
civil war the government in power before the
conflict remains after the conflict. In a
revolution the government is changed. A
rebellion is still the best word for it.

"New York was not fighting Virginia. Delaware was not fighting North Carolina. So it is not a "war between the States"."

Actually state militias did do the fighting
but at the behest of their larger governments.

"The Union wanted to take over the Confederacy and tell them what they could and couldn't do. Since they won they did just that. Look up carpetbaggers. They still do to this day."

All fine and good but it was rebels in SC that
shot at federal territory not the reverse.

"The end of that war eliminated the States part of the United States."

The Compromise of 1877 and Jim Crow Laws
disproves this assertion for most of the
history after the war.

Right and Wrong
The fact is, unlike Germans after Nazism, the South has never accepted the basic reality that they were part of an Evil against humanity. Germans do not glorify Nazism and erect statues deafened flags and otherwise create narratives to excuse the evil that occupied their psyche during that time, Southerners do.

More disturbingly some Conservatives act as enablers to score cheep political points. That the Confederacy was Evil to the same extent as Nazism is not an exaggeration and is reflected in the tight nit modern and historical alliances between KKK and Neo-Nazism on the far right.

uber the bigot
"It's not Liberal propaganda which frightens non White conservatives. It's white conservatism itself."

Is that so? I can name a number of black conservatives who would take issue that statement - such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, Suzanne Fields, and many others.

Of course, according to most liberal bigots, black conservatives aren't "really" black.

Robert
"However, the South did not just up and decide to secede one day to exercise their states' rights. They seceded because they saw that the institution of slavery was threatened because of a new political constellation that would put a firm stop to further expansion of slavery."

Go back and read your history. The fuel on the fire was not Lincoln's election, but John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. That was no "political constellation." It was condemned in both North and South as a lawless act. His raid prompted southern states to form militias to protect themselves from what they saw as an invasion by reckless insurgents.

I'm not denying that slavery was a significant cause of the Civil War. I'm saying the issues weren't as cut-and-dried as some people would like them to be.

You correctly pointed out that some southerners supported the North. Likewise, some northerners supported the South. Indiana had a large population of "Copperheads." That's why Andrew Johnson campaigned there so heavily when he was facing impeachment.

White Cons vs. Non White Cons
"The United States is basically a centrist-conservative country. There are almost twice as many conservatives as liberals. The liberals need to continually reinforce the idea of the dominant political philosophy in the country as racist in order to keep their hold on the Hispanic and Black minorities."

Robert, you are right that accusations of Racism benefit Liberals in forming collisions with Hispanics and Black.

But lets be frank. White Conservatives seem unable or unwilling to reach to to these Conservative populations by systematically alienating.

How does "anti Immigration" play in Conservatives hands? How does disparaging the first Black American further the cause of Conservatives to fold in the Majority Conservative African American community.

Day in day out Conservatives pander to a white conservative base.

It's not Liberal propaganda which frightens non White conservatives. It's white conservatism itself.

Robert in AZ part two
Yes, the South handed the war to Lincoln. Massive screw up on their part. But they tried in other ways, too, like the treason of Twiggs in Texas.

But the real drumbeat to war occurred before the 1860 election. As you will recall, the Democratic party had nominated Stephen Douglas of Illinois as their candidate. But the Southern Democrats wanted to be in charge again (something that hadn't happened since Jackson in the 1832 election). So they walked out on the Baltimore convention, and reconveneed in Charleston, where they nominated Breckinridge from Kentucky and the sitting Vice President. This effectively split the vote of the only national party in existence, which virtually guaranteed that no Democrat would win the election. And everyone knew it. When the Republicans met in Chicago, they knew that whoever received the nomination would be the next president. Before anyone knew the results of the election, secession movements began in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi (all of which, plus Texas, seceded before Lincoln ever took office). So, was Lincoln set up from the beginning?

Thank you Robert
"Sorry, revisionists-- no slavery, no secession, no Civil War."

I joined the Republican Party because of it's history as an Anti-Slavery Party. And I have never registered as a Democrat when I left the Republican Party because of that same history.

As a Liberal my heart belongs to the Republican Party even if The Party no longer embraces its Liberal past.

Civil War Letters
Civil war letters, of which I have read thousands, are heavily concerned with preserving the Union at the beginning of the Civil War, and increasingly concerned with slavery by the end of it. Seeing slavery first hand or reading the reports in Harpers and other journals turned the anti-slavery sentiment in the North to strong abolitionist feelings. The Civil War changed Northern attitudes about slavery enough that the 13th and 14th amendments immediately followed the cessation of hostilities.

Of course the Southerners were concerned about the 'Northern invasion.' My Southern ancestors fought for the Union because they were against secession as much as anything. They saw their country as bigger than the town and state they lived in, and secession was an attack upon it. That is how Americans would see it today, so they were just ahead of their time.

However, the South did not just up and decide to secede one day to exercise their states' rights. They seceded because they saw that the institution of slavery was threatened because of a new political constellation that would put a firm stop to further expansion of slavery. Often, they felt guilty about the institution of slavery and their writings reflect this. Lee is a prime example of this.

Again-- no slavery, no civil war.

Libbies need the Old Confederacy
The United States is basically a centrist-conservative country. There are almost twice as many conservatives as liberals. The liberals need to continually reinforce the idea of the dominant political philosophy in the country as racist in order to keep their hold on the Hispanic and Black minorities. Without it, they are basically finished. If they did not have that myth of conservatives as racist, (or more racist than the liberals) they would have no political future.

Their desperation to do so is shown most clearly by their attempt to turn a rather innocuous article about Southern culture and attitudes into a condemnation of conservative and Republican policies. This here article is basically about grits, magnolias, and pleasingly elaborate courtesy, not about theories of race and government.

Not only to liberals love the race card, they rely on the Stainless Banner card as well.

Robert in AZ
"The idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery would have come as a surprise to Americans . . . in 1860."

Severl years ago, noted historian James McPherson studied thousands of letters written by Union and Confederate soldiers. His finding was that only about 20% of Confederate soldiers even mentioned "favorable views of slavery" let alone a desire to fight for it. The vast majority of Confederates were fighting to defend their homes from invasion by the North. Similarly, he found only about 30% of Northern soldiers claimed they were fighting for, among other things, the freedom of slaves. Again, the vast majoity (more than 90%) stated they were fighting to preserve the Union.

"When they talked about states' rights, they were talking about the right of the state to maintain slavery and extend it into new territories, period."

Actually, the principal meaning of State's Rights was the right to secede from the Union. Yes, there was consistent objection to federal meddling in internal states' affairs (as today), but the actual source of that term refers to the right to secede.

"No slavery, no Civil War."

You may be right on this one, as slavery completely screwed up the Southern economy: no venture capital (all the money was tied up in land and slaves) hence no industry, no immigration hence no expanding voter base and a shrinking impact on Federal government immediately come to mind. But that in no way means they were fighting over slavery.

Oops!
That's "Fort Sumter". Where "Fort Sumpter" is I have no idea.

RickV404
If you are from FL you may not be from the South this is the point of the column. What in the world is wrong with having a column that doesn't deal with policy once and awhile?

There are a bunch of other columns on here to discuss those things. I for one was happy to see a column that wasn't about healthcare at this point. What's the point? No one's mind is being changed that posts on here I see the same sentiments day in day out. Not to mention the 3 or 4 posters who show up regularly to apparently give us an update, via their level of incoherence, on their mental health.

I personally love regional differences such as accents, food, and things like if you say pop, soda, seltzer, or coke for soft drinks.

I would hope their is still a distint Southern culture in years to come just like I wouldn't want to lose the NY boroughs uniqueness or say Maine. I'm sick of the homogenization in this country.

balanced
"The real point in that story about southern states is that the loudest and harshest voices against health reform, and those who seem to be allergic to helping those who are underserved, are coming from those very states."

Really? I don't think you've been paying much attention to how universal and widespread the opposition to Obamacare is. Town Hall protests are big in every part of the nation.

Everyonesfacts from MA part two
"Black Servants with White Masters."

Certainly this was the typical slave pattern, but not the exclusive one, as Native Americans and African Americans also owned slaves.

The 1860 census reveals some interesting ficures fro Charleston, SC, that hotbed of secession. Its population was roughly 40,000, half of whom were black. Of the 20,000 blacks, about 2,700 were free. Of the 2,700 who were freed, about 400 (individuals, consisting of about 900 free blacks) owned about 1,500 slaves. So 20,000 whites owned about 15,800 slaves and 2,700 blacks owned about 1,500 slaves. The statistics reveal that about one in three white families owned slaves, and about one in three black families owned slaves. So while it is fair to say all slaves were black, it is not fair to say all masters were white.

Slavery and the Civil War
I have ancestors in the Civil War from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. They all fought for the Union. The Virginian and Pennsylvanian ancestors were also against slavery, as reflected in their writings and their political allegiances. The sentiment against slavery in the North had been nascent since the Revolution. By the time of the Civil War, anti-slavery sentiment was very strong and the majority opinion. However, no-one saw an easy solution to the problem. Most preferred the solution the British used in 1837, which provided some compensation for the slave owners. The North was adamantly against extension of slavery into the new territories, just as the South was adamantly for it.

When the South Carolina battery fired on Fort Sumpter, they sealed the death warrant of slavery. Since the desire to extend slavery had caused the war, it was against reason and human nature to think that the institution could survive the resulting bloodbath to prevent that.

Sorry, revisionists-- no slavery, no secession, no Civil War.

To balanced
Wow!! That's some real layered thinking there, coming from a person who obviously is SOOO intellectually superior to those of us who happened to be born south of the Ohio River.

It's hilarious to read some of these posts about the South, from people who probably have not spent 10 minutes there and get their info from hearsay or the travel channel. Some of these posts aren't exactly cementing the conventional wisdom that non-southerners are more sophisticated and intellectual.

Don't read Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks. This book shows red states, many being southern states give more to charity and give FAR more as a percentage of income. It may throw off your entire world view.

The reason people from the north are leaving like rats from a sinking ship and coming south is that they are sick of the gov't STEALING 50% of their income in order to give it to such outstanding people such as ACORN.

lilly
you are so very parochial. You should bring some diversity into your life and associate with anyone who is different from you.

This isn't politically correct but has it occurred to you that the South has more blacks and thus higher rates of venereal disease? The rates of stds are much higher in the gay male community too but I don't see you worrying about that because it doesn't serve your purpose.

And seriously what does VD have to do with a discussion of regional boundaries?

and I have no idea what your point is about the HPV vaccine is many people from all over the country are not getting it because it has not been proven safe and it is not the same thing as getting vaccinated against polio. I know very well educated Northern parents who don't vaccinate at all as well as your organic food eating types and the Amish.

I'm from the South...
and I still think Greenberg needs to get the subject off his mind. No wonder his political notions are wrongheaded, thinking in such social terms. Being from the South or North does not define one's character. It's meaningless. In a hundred years most people in this country will probably be speaking Spanish!

balanced
you're bringing healthcare into this column -- that I might add should have been treated as light-hearted.

Let me say as someone from a Southern state who is opposed to the current healthcare bills I'm opposed to paying for the abortion of white, black, purple, pink, or any other color baby. I'm, also, opposed to rationing care to black, white, blue, green, or any other colored elderly or disbled person.

Further I'm opposed to forcing black, white whatever color person to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Same goes for businesses of all colors.

Sorry healthcare really has very little to do with a discussion of where a region begins and ends. This should be a discussion about dialects, accents, geography, and food.

Northern Conservatism worse than Souther
Robert

You have a valid point. After all Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter all come from the North East. Glenn Beck hales from the dreaded liberal State of Washington. And Rush Limbo, he is from Missouri.

I admit that Conservatism and Conservative values are alive and well in their worst form. And that many of the Ivy league Conservatives such as Coulter are unrivaled in their ideological attachment not to American values but to real scary European conservative values.

We are talking about Conservatives who are on a war path with Liberalism and the Enlightenment itself.

Robert
"Because we only maintained the loyalty of the border states by not raising the issue of slavery there in the middle of the war."

Not quite. Maryland's "loyalty" was maintained by martial law.

Illbay
I would agree that for the South the war was partially about slavery but for the North not so much.

Sorry people on either side just weren't that altruistic.

The vast majority of whites in the South did not own slaves and were not fighting for the few elites. In the North those that weren't fighting for the income like recent immigrants and others who took money to take other Northerners places were certainly not going off to die and/or fight for years for anonymous slaves.

The North spins history as much as the South.

And as for the time since the war ended until today the saying that Northerners love all blacks but hate them imdividually is unfortunately proven true by their actions. Personally the only racist words I've ever heard from whites have been out of the mouths of Northerners. Not to mention that Northern states have less blacks per capita and are filled with whites that live in segregated neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, etc.

Robert
"The victory of Lincoln did not frighten the South because of tariff problems or interference with local laws, but because he and the Republican Party were adamantly against the extension of slavery into new territories."

Yes, and Lincoln pledged not to interfere with slavery where it already existed.

"The South wanted some of the new states to be Slave states and the Republicans were sworn to prevent it."

You act as though the South was dedicated to extending slavery throughout the nation. Most Southerners owned no slaves at all. Many Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, favored extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific.

I might point out that the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were signed into law by presidents from the North.

Ken
I've read the debates here on the Civil War and only a few mention the tariffs that the North imposed on Southern products and exports. This debate started in 1828 and President Jackson was concerned about nullification, especially by South Carolina, when he took office.

Calhoun was opposed to many of Jackson's dictatorial policies and said that he worried about the South's ability to protect it's interest and already was in a state of things that left open possibilities of further taxation and even the abolition of slavery.
Slaves were considered property and a tax was imposed on them.

Because this debate was pursued for over 30 years before the civil war, I don't believe Lincoln's aim was freedom of slaves at the onset of the War. Of course, this has been debated by many historians on Lincoln and the Civil War. On taking office Lincoln declared
a pledge to maintain slavery by enforcing the federal fugitive slave law.
The emancipation Proclamation came at a later date into the war.

State's rights was the bigger issue against the federal government then and it may be again someday.



ROBERT - A BROADER POINT
The real point in that story about southern states is that the loudest and harshest voices against health reform, and those who seem to be allergic to helping those who are underserved, are coming from those very states.

It's just an odd coincidence that Joe Wilson comes from SC, for example. The guy who said, "it'll be his Waterloo" comes from the south, etc.


Robert
"Because we only maintained the loyalty of the border states by not raising the issue of slavery there in the middle of the war."

So preservation of the Union was more important than abolishing slavery? Yep, I think that was pretty much Lincoln's argument.

The Civil War
It was, of course, completely about slavery. Anyone who denies such is simply a revisionist historian doing the work of Jubal Early and those Confederacy apologists who tried to rewrite the histories of their day - and have great succeeded.

Here, it's simple. At least five of the seceding states - Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas, if memory serves - published declarations as to the reasons why they were leaving the Union. These are readily available on the internet, look them up and go read them.

You will find the reasons that these men say - not that other people writing years afterwards CLAIMED - that they were taking such a radical step.

You will find that - surprise - it was to protect the institution of slavery, and for no other reason.

Why we have such a hard time facing up to the truth of the past is hard for me to understand. They were different times, and the people of those times saw things very, very different from the way we do. They looked at slavery as a righteous institution, good for the slaves as well as the slaveowners. That's what they convinced themselves was the truth.

Sorry if you can't accept that, but it does no good for you to continue in your silly assertions that the secession and the resulting war were "not about slavery." Just as stupid as modern Leftists who lie about reality to justify their beliefs.

lilly
"Last week on TV they showed a map of the states with the most venereal disease and another map of the states where girls are least being vaccinated against HPV. Both maps looked like a map of Confederate states." Too dim for words. They are also the location of the highest percentage of Blacks, who have the highest rate of venereal disease and the lowest rate of vaccination against HPV. A lot of other statistics follow the same pattern. Social problems that are endemic in the Black population are more common in the South, where there are the largest Black minorities.

I'd like to see a map of the South showing the number of Democrats who have a venereal disease compared to the number of Republicans. It would be equally susceptible to false interpretation, since it would show that Democrats were overwhelmingly more likely to have a venereal disease or be convicted of a violent felony.

Kirby
Here you go (EMPHASIS MINE):

"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. THIS IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other."

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Kirby: Yes and No
Your statement that basically everybody was racist in 1860 is largely true. After all, it was the science of the time. People who believed in abolition or any form of racial equality were the evangelical religious movements and Quakers. However, the Civil War was still about slavery. The main platform of the Republican Party was to prevent the extension of slavery into the new states that were being formed. The South feared that without new slave states, slavery was doomed. If you read the journals and speeches of the period, this is the central problem. It had to do with a perceived state's rights to create new slave states, which the Republicans denied.

The South handed Lincoln a reason for war on a platter when it fired on Fort Sumter. The so-called War of Northern Aggression began with a Confederate attack on a Federal military post. As such, it made an appeal for preservation of the Union a central reason for the war, which was wildly popular, rather than opposition to slavery, which was still a divisive idea.

North-South
I have seen monuments to the Confederate dead in both northern Maryland and Chicago, Illinois, always with the statue of a soldier facing South, so it doesn't make sense to say that the South ends where the last Confederate monument stands. My understanding is that a lot of Confederate dead were buried where they died.

Last week on TV they showed a map of the states with the most venereal disease and another map of the states where girls are least being vaccinated against HPV. Both maps looked like a map of Confederate states.

The South has a certain culture, which is not to say that some individuals in the North don't have a Southern attitude. But, also last week, somebody posted on AlterNet that where he lives in the South, every time he goes into a store or bank or any business, either FOX TV is on or right-wing talk radio is on. You don't find that in the North, and that shows a cultural difference.

I grew up in 'Bama...
...but I've lived the last 15 years in Houston, Texas. I feel very much at home here, despite the fact that Texas - a former Confederate state - is like "a whole other country," to repeat a tourism motto from a few years ago.

It really is all about culture and attitude. Language (dialect), food, family ties and such are all a part of the equation.

But in a cosmopolitan locale like Houston (or Atlanta, or Charlotte for that matter), you've got a LOT of influx - hence influence - from elsewhere as well. Some are from other parts of the country, some are from other parts of the world - there are a good many Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Southeast Asians, and folks from many Latin American countries here for example, such that their cultures are very evident.

But still, this guy who grew up in Birmingham fells pretty much at home. Of course, Birmingham (with it's world-class medical, dental and other professional schools) isn't a sleepy southern town any longer.

I think they've definitely moved the yardsticks.

ken
" If slavery was the central issue of the Civil War, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to all slave states?"

Because we only maintained the loyalty of the border states by not raising the issue of slavery there in the middle of the war. Doing so would have split those states right down the middle and created serious military problems. Slavery was the central issue of the Civil War. The victory of Lincoln did not frighten the South because of tariff problems or interference with local laws, but because he and the Republican Party were adamantly against the extension of slavery into new territories. The South wanted some of the new states to be Slave states and the Republicans were sworn to prevent it.

The result of the Emancipation Proclamation was the eventual freeing of about 90% of the slaves in the United States. The increasing repugnance the troops and their Northern families as they encountered actual slavery in the South made it politically possible for the Republicans to continue their campaign against slavery final in the constitutional amendments banning it and established the freed slaves as citizens.

Everyonesfacts from MA
I read with interest you allegations that Lincoln's 1st inaugural stated slavery was the cause of the War. I didn't remember it that way, so I just read it again. Lincol specifically says the opposite: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no intention to do so." He also promises to enforce the fugitive slave act. Therefore, IF the South was solely or even primarily concerned with slavery, they could have stayed in the Union with no fear of interference from the Federal government.

Next, Lincoln proceeds with a cogent analysis of States's Rights, that is, the theory that the individual states retained their full and complete sovereignty, and that they could seced at any time. Lincoln claims that theory holds no water and that secession is therefore illegal. Therefore, by Lincoln's own words, the Civil War was not about slavery, but over states Rights.

You also cite Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Address" which is notorious for its statement that the Confederacy is founded upon the Cornerstone that "the black is inferior to the white," and contend that "Stevens" (sic) was the leading spokesperson of the South. First, Stephens was clearly not the leader, or else he'd be president, not vice president (and Jeff Davis, who legally adopted a black boy into his household, was the leader). Second, Stephens' apparently racist remark is quite unremarkable when compared to Lincoln's own comments that the black was not equal to the white man, nor should he have equal rights: should not sit on juries, vote, nor hold public office.
Basically EVERYONE, of all races in 1860, was a racist by 2009 standards.

uber the bigot
"Desegregation ended whites having black maids by and large."

Is that so? I know quite a few people who still hire black maids.

"Why? Because desegregation and affermative action gave blacks other, better options."

Then why are so many blacks still blaming their lack of achievement on racism?

"Race is an issue only because whites believe in race and believe in the supremacy of whites over others."

ALL whites? That statement is over-generalized, and it's based more on your preconceived notions than on actual fact. Thus, by definition, it is bigoted.

Why are you such a bigot?

AMERICANS MUST UNITE NOW
Americans must stop the obsession promoted by the media regarding race and UNITE - America is under attack by the far left liberals who are taking away your freedoms and under the Patriot Act are still using it to do so - news reports say they're planning mass surveillance - they shut down the water supply to farmers in California and destroyed their food crops, trees, land, farming business and they're planning on mass graves and deaths in America according to WHO and have laws in place for forced vaccinations that contain carcinogenics such as formaldehyde; ethyl glycol; squalene, mercury, and many more accirding to health care reports that can cause paralysis, neurological disorders and death which happened in 1976 and in the Gulf War after vaccinated and touted as safe - RACE? What will it matter if food is rationed? What will it matter if everyone's unemployed? What will it matter if people are injured or die because of a fast track testing without long term studies of a vaccine that has alleged carcinogenics dangerous to the health of Americans for the alleged population control agenda?

Reba
"Lincoln was born in Hardin County, Kentucky."

Yes, I'm aware of that, but he moved away from Kentucky when he was a little boy. He grew up in Indiana, and lived almost his entire adult life in Illinois.

"I believe that [KY] was a Southern state even then."

Kentucky was a slave state, but it remained loyal to the Union. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to that state.

This raises another question: If slavery was the central issue of the Civil War, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to all slave states?

uber
"You want to live in a world with out race? It is simply done. Because an American and give up your southern "culture" "

Having lived in both New York and the South, I would prefer that you gave up your New York "culture", such as it is. I found fewer racists in Tallahassee and its rural environs than I did in New York, as well as much more friendliness, courtesy, and common sense. Significantly, I also found far more Black elected officials, often even in majority white areas.

uber
Having lived in the South, I'm aware of the rather annoying Southern habit of portraying themselves as victims of Northern aggression. It's an equal with the Northern habit you exhibit of conflating current Southern behavior with racism and slavery. They are peas from the same pod. Both work against the idea of us all being Americans with common values and a common purpose.

I recall a conversation with a Southerner when I mentioned the Civil War. He replied, "We prefer to call it the War of Northern Aggression. You Yankees should learn that." I
responded, "We Northerners and Westerners prefer not to be called Yankees." He asked, "Then what would you like to be called?"
I responded, "Why, the winners, of course."

The victory of the Union in the Civil War settled one serious question; were we to be a Balkan hodgepodge of quarreling independent states, the victims of outside and intramural aggression, or one united, strong country.

Christy: Sothern Culture Unamerican
"I wish people would not be so headstrong is defining everything by race."

Give me a break. Desegregation ended whites having black maids by and large.

Why? Because desegregation and affermative action gave blacks other, better options.

Race is an issue in the south because southern Whites made it an issue. If southern whites had not segregated their society and economy down racial lines. If Sotherners whites had respected the emancipation proclamation, then race would not be an issue.

Race is an issue only because whites believe in race and believe in the supremacy of whites over others.

It's that simple.

You want to live in a world with out race? It is simply done. Because an American and give up your southern "culture" as you demand Mexicans give up their Mexican "culture."

Southern culture is after all not American, it is Confederate is spirit.

Just Realized....
When my two uncles were dispatched by the Marines to fight in the Korean War, they were sent to fight for the South.

When Uncle Sam sent me to Vietnam, I was fighting for the South.

We were all fighting to protect a peaceful people from being overrun by agressors from the north. Sorta worked in Korea, the politicians scuttled Vietnam.


Glad to leave Uber Alone
As a true Southerner, I take quite offense to Uber's statements. Your comments are another example of making something a race issue. What does race have to do with where the South stops? How completely stupid. I was born and raised in the South. I have carried my traditions of southern courtesy, manners and love of the South whereever I have ever lived. I find the people in most cities outside the traditional "Southern realm" to be cold, rude and unentertaining. Now, on the subject of race, my Grandparents had a Black maid. So what, Emma needed a job to pay her bills and feed her family. She did nothing more or less than my Grandparents did on a daily basis. I loved Emma. She always had open arms to hug me and a good story to tell me and my brothers. I respect Emma then and still do. My Great Grandmother had a Black personnal maid for over 40 years. Her name was Opal. The one thing my GGrandmother demanded from her was that she contribute to Social Security. Because of that one mandatory thing, Opal was able to retire after my GGrandmother died. Again, I loved Opal with all my heart. She loved me, as well. She cooked the best Grits I've ever had in my life. I would beg Opal to sit down at the table with us to eat lunch. She would not do it. The purpose of me telling these stories is to illustrate that just because a "white" family had a "black" maid does not mean we were racist. I am so tired of this color war. For years, Blacks have had every opportunity to go to school for free, priority on jobs, first in line for affordable housing, etc. I do not feel regretful. The South is where you want it to be. I do not live in the so-called South now, but I promise you I live by my Southern roots. If you visit my home, you will sit down at the table to southern food and cloth napkins. I wish people would not be so headstrong is defining everthing by race.

The Moral Question
Robert

There are lots more conservatives in communities of color, but how does that change the facts that White conservatives identification with the south is of a south whose history is one of Jim Crow and Slavery.

One in which the Confederate flag has more resonance than the American Flag, one in which America greatest General's are the Losers of a treacherous secession predicated on sustaining the immoral economic conditions of slavery.

White Conservatives who aggrandize the South love to say that the Civil War was fraught over States Rights. But what right are we talking about? We are in fact talking about the right of a state to deny another human being Liberty.

White Conservatives who aggrandize the South love to say that the Civil War was fraught over Economics. But what economic policy are we talking about? We are in fact talking about the right of a state to deny another human being the right to a wage.

The facts remain the Civil War was fought in whole on Moral Grounds. The North was right and the South was wrong. In this war unlike many others.... Morality won and Immorality lost.

Over a hundred years latter, Some White Conservatives still hold on to evil values which denigrate other human beings.

Ken
You said, "I might point out that neither Lincoln or Douglas were from the South."

Lincoln was born in Hardin County, Kentucky.
I believe that was a Southern state even then.

I know you are referring to his state of residence. Just as Obama was born in Hawaii, so is he a Hawaiian, but represnts Illinois, or is that a Kenyan representing Socialism?


Just an observation...
The Confederacy was made up of States that removed themselves from the Union. The discussion as to whether they had the right to do so still exists. Nevertheless they did not do it by fighting, but by forming their own government. As such it was never a "civil" war. That is defined as factions trying to take over the same government. The North was trying to eliminate the Confederacy, and the Confederates wanted to be divorced from the Union. Not a "Civil" war.

New York was not fighting Virginia. Delaware was not fighting North Carolina. So it is not a "war between the States". The Union wanted to take over the Confederacy and tell them what they could and couldn't do. Since they won they did just that. Look up carpetbaggers. They still do to this day.

The end of that war eliminated the States part of the United States.

Leave Uber Alone
Let him hold onto to his bogotry, maybe he and his kind will confine themselves to their urban rat holes and stay away from us 'po little 'ol
hicks.
If only their politicians would leave our freedoms alone.

uber
More conservatives live in the North, Midwest, and West than live in the South. Your argument relies on bigotry just as much as that of any other racist. When I visit my obnoxious liberal in-laws, they sneer at conservatives because of their racism, but themselves live in an all white world-- not counting the help, of course. Of course, their neighborhood is integrated-- there is a black doctor and a Korean dentist.

Where in the world is Burt Prelutsky?
Click on my name for more info.

Conservatives Project their Immorality
Slavery would have defeated itself in a few more years, as machinery was being invented that would have financially forced slavery out of the market.

Ratas y Ratones, If that were true Jim Crow laws would not have reinstated a de facto state of slavery for another hundred years.

And if the Black Liberation movement had not forced the Southern Hand, the south would be no different today as it was in 1945.

In fact much of the Conservative movement in the south is a direct reaction to Black Liberation. It it's dark heart it yearns to reestablish the the southern way of life.

Black Servants with White Masters.

Even today the fear that Conservatives propagate is predicated on the deep sense of guilt they feel.

Reverse racism, Getting even with whites.... those are the fear mongering words.... used by Conservatives to rile up the base.

If the moral truth of the Southern conscience was not legitimate, then fear of retribution would be unthinkable.

But the fear of conservatives is not predicated on the reality of black feeling towards whites, but on conservative southern white feelings towards blacks...

It's all just Projection.



War of Northern Agression. lol.
"If idiots knew their history, they would know that the "War of Northern Aggression," had nothing to do with slavery!"

This idiot knows enough about history to have
read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Address
and Abe Lincoln's 1st Inaugural - the leading
spokespeople for each side of the War of the
Rebellion. They both thought the rebellion
was focused on slavery. Btw, it was never called the War of Northern Aggression while it was happening.

"It was about economics and States' Rights."

Which were connected to slavery

"The more Northern and more populous States, wanted the Southern States to fund all their "Pork Projects", much as we have today."

Ummm, I don't think an analysis of $ put into
taxes and gotten out would support this assertion. Please prove.

"South had agriculture. North had manufacturing."

And they were connected.

"If it had been about slavery, all slaves in the Nothern States would have been freed imediately. They were not."

Says you. The Civil War was about slavery
among other things at the beginning of the
war and increasingly during its duration and
surely at its end.

"Slavery would have defeated itself in a few more years, as machinery was being invented that would have financially forced slavery out of the market."

The history of sharecropping in the U.S. and
Jim Crow Laws tell a different story.



Another thing... The best Military People went South, the North kept the losers.

If the South had anything near the number of people, and manufacturing capabilities as the North, this Country would be very different today, than the mess it is in.

amos and andy
Were taken off the air,because it was demeaning to blacks.Personally I find movies like barbershop more offensive.

CARL - TX @ 10:41 TEXANS & SOUTHERNERS
Having been born and reared in Texas, I never considered myself a Southerner. I identified myself as a Texian, first and foremost. Most of the original settlers in Texas were from over yonder in the South, but I reckon they got over that heritage purdy quick. Jest ask Davy Crockett and James Bowie.



More non-Southern racism...
Lincoln Perry (aka "Stepin Fetchit") was often ridiculed for the stereotypical characters he played in movies back in the 1930's. Perry defended such roles. He said Hollywood in those days was "more segregated than Atlanta."

Funny how the Hollywood elite doesn't like to talk about those days.

Speaking of racism...
Has anybody ever read the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Douglas openly challenged Lincoln on whether he regarded blacks as equal to whites, and Lincoln did some serious waffling.

I might point out that neither Lincoln nor Douglas were from the South.

uber the goober
"That in 2009 racism still is rearing it's ugly head one hundred and fifty years after the emancipation proclamation, is a disgrace to our country."

Yeah, that Jimmy Carter sure is a racist. He not only called the President a liar, he also called him a "boy." Why do the Democrats tolerate a racist like that in their ranks?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!




Southernity and Slavery
The idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery would have come as a surprise to Americans who were discussing the issue with such vehemence in 1860. When they talked about states' rights, they were talking about the right of the state to maintain slavery and extend it into new territories, period. It is revisionist history to think otherwise. There were other reasons given for the rebellion, but slavery was at the heart of it. That's the short answer to a lot of historical research.

A little thought exercise to prove this would be to imagine the Civil War occurring in 1860 without the existence of slavery. No slavery, no Civil War.

renny...




renny
Location: NJ
Reply # 31
Date: Sep 21, 2009 - 10:09 AM EST The Mason-Dixon Line runs
through South Jersey, and you can tell northerners from southerners by speech habirs, as the South says, *I reckon* and the North says, *I think.*...

~~~

renny,

I had to chuckle at this one.

"I reckon"...

I asked my Fifth grade teacher if she 'reckoned' that dialects from various areas had to do with the Country they moved from to become Americans.

Without answering my question, she responded that she had never heard the word "reckon". It is a valid word, and I used it correctly, as I looked it up in the dictionary when I got home.

Well, once I realized that I knew more that my fifth grade "teecher" ( in 1952),
I was done with school.

From then on, I read a novel a day for many years, and seldom paid any attention in school. I did pay attention in the Science courses, and Math courses, but ignored most of the rest.

By a strange twist of fate, I never went to the same school, more than one year, until High School, and we only moved three times. Perhaps I was hard on schools. They were always shut down the year I left. One school was a WW II army barracks, and another was an 1880s 'one room school house'.

Therefore, I am self educated, and admittedly have some gaps, but at least I was NOT indoctrinated into communism.

Oh, and I still graduated from High School with a "B" average. Had I studied the lessons, I would have doubtless earned an "A" average, but might have become a communist.


I made a good tradeoff in my estimation.





southerness
Okay, I'm a born and bred eighth generation southerner (deep south) and have never called it the War of Northern Aggression. It was always the Civil War or the War Between The States. And yes, Texas did have soldiers fight for the south in the Civil War but there was little fighting IN Texas, therefore, they're the west - same with Arkansas.

By the way, if the Civil War was fought over slavery, why then did General Grant's wife, who traveled with him, have her very own slave who also traveled with them? Read up on the Raid of Holly Springs, MS. Holly Springs was occupied by Grant and his forces and while they were away, Mrs. Grant, her infant son, and her slave were sent packing by the southern raiders who came to burn the Union supplies stored in the city. States Rights was the reason for the war - taxation, sort of like today. Slavery is horrible, morally wrong, and an abomination to God, but that was not the reason for the war.

As a transplanted Yankee since 1972,
I have thoroughly enjoyed living in all parts of VA, NC, and now East TN. I can not imagine living anywhere else in the country. I would NEVER go back to NY,CT,NJ, for love nor money. I have been graciously accepted down here, even if I didn't say y'all(still don't but my kids do).I hope the easy-goingness of the South never changes, and if the Yanks who come here want to make it more "efficient" or bring in more tight controls(like complaining to city hall if Joe Smith's grass is higher than 3 inches) then I say, turn around and go back where you came from! :)

The South
Texas not in the South ? The last state to stop fighting in the Civil War (for several weeks)-not in the South? Are you nuts? Maybe far west Texas like El Paso but I would not even go into Amarillo and tell those folks they are not Southern. They are as much Texan as the Texans in Beaumont and Southern by definition. Missouri was divided and about half in the South and the rest in the North but now the northern part wants nothing to do with the Midwest. Are there differences between Atlanta and Houston, certainly, just like the differences between New Orleans and
Memphis, or Birmingham and Savannah. But by God they are still all Southerners.I know parts of Missouri that one lacking the ability to duck would be foolish to refer to them as midwestern. Yankees in Michigan refer to themselves as Midwestern and they are a lot closer to New York than Kansas City, in all ways. I refer to them as Mideasterners.

The South Ends Where...



The South Ends Where People stop being Southern !

As long as you Are Southern, Act Southern, and Breathe Southern, you are the center of a piece of the South !

I admit that North of the Ohio, and excepting a few bastions west of the Mississippi, your portion of the South may be small.

Many of my ancestors came North around 1800 from Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky, for free land in the Territories.

My other ancestors, here for thousands of years, greeted them, made war with them, and sometimes married them.


Oh, That old saying, "The South Shall Rise Again" ? The details may vary, but THAT SPIRIT is very much alive and well.


A woebegotten Southerner stuck in YankeeLand. I know I talk funny, but my heart is in the right place.






Hey UBER
Educate yourself.Look up Abe's Emancipation Proclamation and read it.Not the condensed version,the entire proclamation.Notice how slaves were NOT freed in some areas.And what were these areas?Yankee occupied.Forget what they taught you in the 4th grade.It ain't true.

The Mason-Dixon Line runs
through South Jersey, and you can tell northerners from southerners by speech habirs, as the South says, *I reckon* and the North says, *I think.*

Bork Congress. Call early and often and remember, they are not forgetting to bork you. 202-224/225-3121.

Southerness
You are correct. The entire state of Arkansas is not considered southern by real southerners, and as a native Memphian, neither is far east Tennessee. In certain areas of east Tennessee, the people sided with the north. To born and bred southerners, the area and people had to have seen action in the civil war or have been occupied by the Union forces. I live in Dallas now, and the people here actually think they're southerners but we consider them from the west. The south pretty much ends with the Mississippi River, with the exception of all of Louisana and parts of Arkansas. Florida is not a southern state really and neither is West Virginia. Sorry, Missouri is not a southern state but Kentucky is. The south pretty much ends in Virginia. And yes, when we're alone with each other, we still call people Yankees and we all know what that means - not as many manners or social graces, and well, just different. Ladies and women are two different things - ladies are made, not born.

LuLu, you're right
It is hard to keep the Great Northern rodents from infesting any land adjacent to beach fronts, just look at Florida.

Southern ideals
The South exists in spirit wherever people believe in States Rights and the tenth ammendment.

Roger
Amen, bro! You are right on!

I am a native Minnesotan, but between my time in the service and working for a national firm for 13 years, have lived in many places. In the military, I was exposed to people from all walks of life, across the country and other countries. Other than MN, the states in which I reside the longest were CA and TX. While living in TX, I covered the southern half of that state, LA, MS and Western AL. I ran into blatant and the category that I like to call "covert racists," which I define as one that smiles to the faces of a minority, then disparages them behind their backs!

Numerous times on this forum, I have attempted to tell people that MN is a covertly racist state. I can't tell you how many times that I have witnessed my definition. One of my employees, who happens to be black, had a discussion about this one day over lunch. Coincidentally, he moved here from TX to start over. When I relayed my observations to him, he replied that in a way, he respected someone that actually called him the "n" word to his face, because at least he knew their agenda up front. On the other hand, he felt that the "covert racists" were the most evil.

I believe that 99% of liberals are covert racists!

To The Congenital Idiot...


I do not, normally respond to congenital idiots.

I make an exception here.

~~~

uber
Location: NY
Reply # 21
Date: Sep 21, 2009 - 9:18 AM EST "The South" an imoral ideal
The fact that there is a South is a blot against America. If by South we mean pride in the immoral policies of racial discrimination, slavery and a war to keep them in place.

The Civil War was a moral war. It was a war with a good side and an evil side. Not in the sense that the people on one side or the other were better people, but in the sense that is was a war fought in no small part for a moral objective, the objective of abolishing slavery and the slave holding mindset.

That in 2009 racism still is rearing it's ugly head one hundred and fifty years after the emancipation proclamation, is a disgrace to our country. That any "hero," or flags would be honored of this immoral legacy is unconscionable.

That Americans do not acknowledge that evil itself was defeated in the civil war is haunting us today.

~~~

If idiots knew their history, they would know that the "War of Northern Aggression," had nothing to do with slavery!

That is correct. Nothing to do with slavery!

It was about economics and States' Rights.

The more Northern and more populous States, wanted the Southern States to fund all their "Pork Projects", much as we have today.

South had agriculture. North had manufacturing.

If it had been about slavery, all slaves in the Nothern States would have been freed imediately. They were not.

Slavery would have defeated itself in a few more years, as machinery was being invented that would have financially forced slavery out of the market.



Another thing... The best Military People went South, the North kept the losers.

If the South had anything near the number of people, and manufacturing capabilities as the North, this Country would be very different today, than the mess it is in.

Starting vs finishing
The objectives in war can change. The initial northern objective under Lincoln was to preserve the Union. When the battles proved to bloody to sustain that objective, a new one arose, end slavery.

Lincoln and others may have considered slavery immoral but also knew that northerners, though they disagreed with slavery, were initially not ready to accept that as a war objective.

The war was going to be costly in its human toll. A higher calling, one which elicited the ideals of the Constitution and later reinforced with the Gettysburg Address was needed.

More prejudice exists against the South than exists in the South. To understand this all you have to do is read the posts in this article. Times have changed.

uber
you need to take your meds.

When I think Southern I think sweet tea, fish fries, hushpuppies, barbecue, chess pie, hot humid Summers, cotillions, bourbon, good manners, love of history, self-sufficiency, healthy cynicisn about government, and actual respect for women.

Not to mention Jamestown and the founding of our country, George Washington, Patrick Henry,James Madison, Jefferson and his Monticello, are great generals Lee and Jackson, the fabulous difference that is New Orleans, the beauty of the Carolina low country, the beginnings of country music in SW VA and NC, the blugrass region of KY, Memphis and its sultry seediness, the great natural beauty of MS the amazing architecture of Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah, the beaches, and too much else to list.

And lets not forget the diversity of dialects and accents: Florida's swamp accent, rural GA and Alabama's endless colloquialisms and the almost indecipherable accent of their working classes, the old Charleston accent, the lovely accent of VA horse country, the NY type accent any many differences of New Orleans natives, the wonders of the many localisms throughout Appalachia, and the accent of the AR delta which is like nothing else.

The South is a wonderful place that's why so many yankees keep moving here and unfortunately ruining it.

Uber, I feel sorry for you
You have no clue. As if New York was a bastion of racial harmony. That's funny.

Yankee transplant
I am a Yankee who transplanted to the south 9 years ago after spending my first 40 up north. I will never leave the southern states. I laugh at what I used to be...what I used to believe. I talk to people now in places I used to live, places like Minnesota who think they're enlightened because they have a black acquaintance. Everyone in Minnesota has one black acquaintance. Nobody has two.

That's not enlightened.

Race relations in the south aren't perfect, but by and large they are no worse than in the north, and in many cases better. After living in a totally segregated midwestern suburb, I live in a melting pot in Texas. I am so much richer for it. My neighbors are so much more tolerant of each other's differences than my neighbors up north ever were.

I love the south, and so does most anyone who has ever lived here or visited with eyes wide open. There is a civility and decency between people here that is long gone most places. There is an openness and welcoming spirit that was sadly lacking in other places I lived....places like Colorado.

I like it here. The weather's okay. The views aren't as nice as other places, but the people more than make up for it. God Bless the South. God Bless Texas.

"The South" an imoral ideal
The fact that there is a South is a blot against America. If by South we mean pride in the immoral policies of racial discrimination, slavery and a war to keep them in place.

The Civil War was a moral war. It was a war with a good side and an evil side. Not in the sense that the people on one side or the other were better people, but in the sense that is was a war fought in no small part for a moral objective, the objective of abolishing slavery and the slave holding mindset.

That in 2009 racism still is rearing it's ugly head one hundred and fifty years after the emancipation proclamation, is a disgrace to our country. That any "hero," or flags would be honored of this immoral legacy is unconscionable.

That Americans do not acknowledge that evil itself was defeated in the civil war is haunting us today.

The South
We used to have this discussion on the Big E. Most Yankees believe that the Mason-Dixon line is the divider while the Southerners claimed that Virginia is a Northern state. I don't know where the line lies. I live in central PA and met a man from Georgia that settled here. He remarked on all of the confederate flag stickers on pickup trucks and about how central PA is not all that different from Georgia- rural, good hunting, great place to raise a family and an inherent distrust of government. So where does the line lie- I think the article covers it well. And the proper term is "The War of Northern Aggression".

Walter
I'm with you I think that NOVA should secede from the rest of the Commonwealth alas they not only stay they spread their influence throughout the state through sprawl and their large numbers in the assembly. I don't know how old you are or if you are a native, but believe it or not NOVA used to be more southern but with the growth of the federal government so many non Southerners settled there...

Sandy I too have had others say VA is not Southern - primarily Northerners who have been to the DC suburbs or don't know their history.

Gretske I say mostly for SC because y'all are getting Northern encroachment by retirees in your beach/resort type areas.

Paleocon I've met a number of native Washingtonians over say 65 who have a Southern accent and black residents of the District have definate Southern tendencies.

I'd suggest you are still in the South if you have to ask to get unsweetened tea.

Little trivia
What was the last state admitted into the Union as a slave state? If ya said MO.,congratulations,you paid attention in school.But wrong answer.West,By God,Virginia wins that dubious honor.Also,they came in 6 months after 'Honest Abe's proclamation.Kinda puts a damper on that "fighting to free the slaves" mantra.

"The War Between the States."?
That's the polite term for the "War of the Northern Aggression"

and while we're on the subject, here in the Asheville, NC area (the Berkeley/Boulder of Appalachia) they try real hard to deny their Southern heritage.

SFA1973
Yeah, I'm surprised Hal hasn't weighed in on this one (such as he is able, since he is a lightweight). If the South is so rotten, why do so many Pennsylvanians relocate to Virginia? Probably to get away from idiots like Hal....

A southerner at heart
In some respects the South fought the right war for the wrong reason. Now that I have your attention, think for a moment don't