Skip to comments.Why Do They Hate The South?
Posted on 09/01/2012 10:59:57 AM PDT by Davy Buck
The online version of the WSJ recently (August 10) did a review of Better Off Without Em, a Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession. The article reminds me of the golden boys in the Civil War blogosphere and their blind spot when it comes to who is advocating secession and who promotes an "us vs. them" perspective. They're just missing so much. Of course, most mature readers are aware of the agenda-driven analysis being vomited out by academia - let 'em believe their own propaganda; I think a lot of Americans have moved on. But, it's really sociology, not history . . .
Because we have the most guns of any part of the country and know how to use them?
The South aren’t liberals by nature.
They hate the South because it is usually a solidly Republican bloc. They hate the South because the people tend to be religious and skeptical of new liberal ideas. On the late night shows and sit coms they constantly portray Southerners as dumb incestuous yokels. As a lifelong Kentuckian, my state probably gets it the worst of all. Though people in Arkansas and West Virginia might argue with me about that.
According the demographics, the libs would get the west coast and a few New England states (and maybe one or two mid-western states), but the rest would be a pretty contiguous, solidly conservative nation.
The only sticky point I see is getting the libs in conservative-land to go to the new liberal-land, and getting the conservatives out who would be stuck in liberal-land. A house and/or job swap database set up to help expedite things?
“The South arent liberals by nature.”
That’s right. They hate how you vote and live your lives. Keep it up!
Divide and conquer, remember that. The dixiecrat mentality still exists among the sniveling politicians of the old school. Time to introduce them to the new school of REAL equality.
Oh, and by the way....
#1 It wasn't a Civil War; it was a War of Secession. A civil war is between factions who want to take over the government. The South wasn't after that; it wanted to leave and be independent.
#2 Slavery was not the main reason for the War of Secession. While it was certainly one of the issues, the primary reason was states rights: the sovereignty of the states, and the powers of the states versus the encroaching federal powers.
As a Southerner, I'm tired of these myths.
Well it looks like this blog was a review of a review - but be that as it may - looks like an awful book based on sophomoric misunderstandings and cliches.
They hate us because they can't aspire to our confidence and competence, with their weak, fashionable, pretty men and black-clad, foul-tempered leftist women.
They hate us because we pray, we believe, we preserve our traditions. We stand against the efforts to destroy our nation and the culture of Western, Christian civilization.
They hate us because darkness hates the Light.
Thread winning post!
I think some of the reasons are (regardless of order, relevance, importance, or even truth):
- South fought a war against the union. This is the big one.
- South’s history is filled with racism and xenophobia. Again, this is another big one.
- South is seen as economically backwards. This is changing for sure.
- South is seen as hypocritically self-righteous. This is so subjective, I don’t think it will change.
- South is seen as feudal society with masses of simpletons controlled by evil elites. When/if South overtakes the crumbling North, South will be seen as just evil.
Because they have never been there and tasted BBQ..
I’m in the south as well and I say to you BRAVO !
Chuck Thompson is trying to sell a book. The more outrageous he makes it, the more copies he'll sell in certain markets (and the easier and more fun it is for him to write -- without all that tough, troublesome stuff like accuracy or fairness).
Richard Williams has a blog to promote, and this is good fodder for him to get people's juices flowing (it's nice that he hasn't exploited this as much as he could, though).
Anybody who gets worked up about this is just playing into the hype. It's not real, folks.
Outlaw every form of wealth redistribution - right in the new Constitution. Libs would run screaming to their precious welfare state. The problem would take care of itself.
When we sit for too long without a common threat, we start fighting with each other. It even came to blows in the mid 19th century. We're in another such period now. This could happen again unless something new comes along to unify us.
As the nation's fiscal situation worsens, the harder it will be for states to leave without triggering a fight. Today, it sounds like the libs would consider it worthwhile just to see conservative electoral votes go away. In 20 years, they'll want to fight over every oil well, hydro dam, industrial park and anything else of value.
Yes and no it's like the abortion argument ..is it really about freedom of choice or a child?
The prewar conflict between the states was Slavery...
The Fed claims the right to control and or ban Slavery in the new territories going back to the Northwest Ordinances (not in existing states)(see Lincoln's cooper union speech)
Also the non slave states would not enforce Slavery in there own states..so no return of run away slaves and or if a slave owner and his slaves enter a non slave state...the non slave state did not recognize or enforce a slaves owner claim and the slave was free (Dred Scott issue)
The Slave states and slave owner expected they had the right to go in to other states and territories and have their rights enforces..and by the Fed if needed ...
Your slave ran to a non slave state and the non slave state would not return them..then the fed was to go in to that non slave state and enforce the slave owner right...(so much for we are for "states rights" claim)
Lincoln first inaugural address speaks of this he was not going to use the Fed to enforce slave owner right in non slave states and territories and foot drag on the Supreme Court/Dred Scott ruling the slave states had won....This is the split..
The slave state were not getting their property rights to their slaves enforce by the Fed in the other non slave states and territories
The south can say "states right" all day long but it was only when it was their ox being gored ...
They wanted a Fed that enforce slavery outside of their own states and any territories... The Confederate Constitution required a member states to enforce slavery...their was no "state right" not too
Also ..for the non slave states to say in was about "The Union"...
The non slave states were ready to secede from the union if the Fed did try to enforce slave state rights in non slave states and territories...again "Save the Union"was only when it was their ox was being gored
The war was going to happen between the states no matter what path the Fed took...
And really there was the idea that even if a peaceful split between the slave state and non slave state they would be a war soon enough over of all the new territories and land in the west
Because that goes back to the original problem of slavery in all the new territories and new farm land in the west..
And THAT really goes back to the idea was that new farm land going to be smaller settler owned farms ....Or vast big plantation worked by one big owner with lot of slaves...
Slaves workers allows one person to own and work more land then freeman owners...And desire not to have big new plantation is in part be a race based on the free states part
Because freeman farm = Lots on White settles in new territories as new US Citizens ...VS....big slaves plantation = lots of blacks & few whites...think middle America as a giant "Haiti" with no desire to be connected to the US
Again Yes and no it like the abortion argument, is it really about freedom of choice or a child in a human being and has rights to life...what does the Fed enforce or not enforce on the states
“A civil war is between factions who want to take over the government”
Is this any sort of official definition? Because I was under the impression that we call some wars civil to distinguish them from foreign wars. The war for independence, for instance, was a civil war from Britain’s perspective. From ours it was foreigners trying to impose their will on us.
Most abolitionists thought good riddance at the time. And they had a point as regards their obsession, since without the Fugitive Slave Act the peculiar institution would die sooner. However, the North absolutely wouldn’t have been better off. They’d.have been plunged into a depression precipitously with a free or quasi-free trade zone to the south. Trade would jump from New York to Charleston, etc. And without revenue from King Cotton and the tariff as assessed at southern ports goodbye to most of the protective scheme for northern industry and the massive redistributionism that was “internal improvements.”
Methinks that’s why Lincoln really went to war. For the same reason among others we’re so dang interested in the Middle East these days: national defence construed as national interest construed as economic interest construed as the economic interest of some powerful faction of society.
Such was the short and middle term interest of the North, anyway. As for longterm, maybe they would have changed their ways and been better off.
Your analysis is fine for what it is, but misses many, great big shiny issues. Fist there was the Fugitive Slave law and the Dred Scott decision, neither of which were in danger of being overturned. The South already had what you claim as their disiderata: that is a means of making slavery legal in every state. As for the much balleyhooed Westward expansion issue, that’s a red herring. There wasn’t really anywhere for slavery to expand into, unless we conquered Canada or set up colonies overseas.
No, the South had all the slavery chips in its hand. Aside from the radical and unpopular abolitionists nobody ran in 1860 on upsetting the balance. Lincoln even proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act with an unrepealable constitutional amendment. Not that such a thing is possisble, unless perhaps you amend the amendment process itself. But there was the promise.
So why did the South secede? If you listen them it was slavery. But why do we choose this instance of all instances to take politicians at their word? We don’t believe Obama when he says he’s going to go through the budget line by line, nor really Mitt when he says he’ll restore he nation to its former whatever. Slavery was to milt mind the symbolic issue. Standing as it did for the Southern way of life it did a lot of political arguing for itself. The masses can grasp slavery in peril immeasurably easier than agriculture versus industrialism and free trade versus protectionism, for instance.
The South seceded because for the first time a president was elected without winning a single Southern state. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitiinist, but it wasn’t outlandish to think abolitionists, perhaps with a bit of the John Brown in them, could take over he Republican or any other popular Northern party at some point. And that was the motive for secession: deep fear for the future now that the section of the country they’d been griding win from the beginning would permanently hold the upper hand. The easiest way to communicate this was via its danger to slaveholder.
Much likelier a means of the North dominating the South was the way it had been dominating it for decades: that is, the tariff and internal improvements. The way Lincoln put it in his inaugural was basically that the South had to choose taxes or war. And though no new tariff was passed to spark secession, after some States left Congress passed the Morill Tariff, which is exactly the sort of thing the South feared.
Is it any wonder that the war started over ownership of a fort in Charleston harbor, where among elsewhere the North would have to assess taxes to prevent the collapse of its protectionist system. Is it any wonder that his response to he South’s attack, and what SCOTUS later determined to be the start of the war was to blockade Southern ports? Britain’s perspective at the time, as with other foreign powers, was that taxes, not slavery, provoked the war. And who can honestly argue against them? What with slavery as strong as or stronger than it ever had been, the “preserving the union” argument having no place in American, English, or international law as justification for war, and the response of total war and unconditional surrender being so divorced from the “first shot” of firing on Sumter.
I rambled a bit above, so let me get down to brass tacks:
“They wanted a Fed that enforce slavery outside of their own States and any territories.”
They already had that via Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act. Secession took it away. So tell me how that fits in with them seceding over slavery.
It doesn’t. They seceded because the North elected a president on its own, and this was seen as foretelling the North’s ability to legislate, execute, and decide whatever it wanted over the objections of the South. One of which issues it thought the North could impose its will upon being slavery, yes. But that would be the most difficult issue for the feds to reverse themselves on, as they would have to wait for a new SCOTUS.
being slavery, yes.beingbeing slavery, yes.
“Is this any sort of official definition? Because I was under the impression that we call some wars civil to distinguish them from foreign wars. The war for independence, for instance, was a civil war from Britains perspective. From ours it was foreigners trying to impose their will on us.”
Latter - no. Not foreigners, but sovereigns treating birthright British as mere colonials (i.e., conquered peoples).
A civil war basically is simply in-fighting. In some ways, indeed, it’s hairy calling the “CW” such when basically 1 side just wanted to part ways.
And really, “Revolution” isn’t really good for the British-American war, because THAT absolutely implies someone wants to take over. Perhaps simply because they wanted to “take over” the land they lived on rather than letting far-away kings have ultimate rule.
In any case my take is:
Insurgents win - revolution
Insurgents lose - civil war.
Great post! ottbmare.
You’re absolutely right in that both the American colonists and the Southern States, or some of them, had declared independence before the wars got into full swing. So according to them they were a foreign nation, and it took the Americans winning to prove it and the Confederates to lose it.
Which isn’t to say what’s civil is always a matter of who you ask, who wins, or it being a fight between two or more factions to control the whole. It can, also, be between a sovereign and lesser internal power for less than independence but more than they have. And probably other scenarios I can’t think up, too.
The hate the south because the south used to be solid democrat. A republican in office in the south was a very rare bird.
They hate the south because they lost all those votes.
Because we had the audacity to challenge federal authority at one time and we have threatened to do it again. Many Southerners still have that mindset; you know, independence.
Also, we have the greatest number of guns and people who know how to use them, plus the greatest number of self-sufficient, self-reliant people who have absolutely no need for the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.