I just get sick and tired of the meme that all southerners at the time in question were horrible monsters who supported the institution of slavery and remain racist bastards to this good day. It ain’t true and probably never was.
Not necessarily true; the war started before a lot of poor dirt farmers even knew about it. The war was started by the landed slave owning aristocracy.
Hang on now. My ancestors were poor sharecroppers and cotton-pickers who just did what the political elites told them to. They were illiterate and mostly concerned with where their next jug of whiskey would come from. To say all Southerners started the war is like saying all Germans invaded Poland.
The point others were trying to make, and it’s an important point, is: the US Revolution and the Confederate Rebellion were ultimately rejections of external rule and a localization of that rule, which would reflect the particular nature of the territory. That principle is not a morally obvious one. Should a country’s boarders be sacrosanct? As a supporter of a 2 state solution in Israel and a 3 state solution in Iraq, I don’t think so. Moreover, I don’t like this talk of people being “traitors”. Yes, it’s technically true, and yes, the kernel of the Confederacy was a vicious, horrible practice that has thankfully been all but exterminated.
If the moral tide had been the other way, and slave-holding states had become more prosperous and dominated Washington, leading to the secession by northern states, would we be calling them traitors? It’s just as true in that case.
The North was on the right moral side of slavery, and the South was on the wrong side. But that is a different question than the abstract question of nullification and secession. I’m not in favor of those, either, but it’s the vitriol about the moral dimension that makes conversations about the governance dimension or the real tragedy of the war itself impossible. People can’t express misgivings about Sherman’s march without an instant rebuke, because apparently the Confederacy was something that every white person in the South got together and cooked up. I expect more from you, SDMB.
There is, however, one major and important difference between the American Revolution and the ACW: the colonialists had no direct participation in the British government. No taxation without representation was one of the revolutionary cries. The Confederate states, however, did have direct representation in the government. In fact, with the “three-fifths compromise” in effect Southerners had more political power per citizen than Northerners (which explains why most presidents to that time were Southerners despite a lower population).
To be fair, Cajuns mostly hid out in the swamps when the recruiting man came to call. And you don’t see a lot of Dixiecrat shit in Southwest Louisiana. But then Cajuns knew about being put on boats against their will.
I don’t disagree with that at all. Southerners were politically dominant, and no one squeals like a privileged class losing their privilege.
The analogy is more of an emotional one. A sort of “screw you / take your ball and go home” mentality that comes into play with both. To be accurate, though, the South didn’t like losing in the federal government, but the colonies barely got to play at all (though if memory serves, there were potential minor accommodations on the table).
Rock? Well, except Sealand.
Maybe it isn’t, but the OP was talking specifically about modern-day Southerners who continue to advocate for the Confederacy… or who aren’t “over it,” you might say.
People are stubborn and unreasonable because to be so is human nature. I see the civil war nostalgia (“Southern Heritage”) somewhat akin to pro football mania - something to occupy the minds of those with nothing better to do. If heritage is all you’ve got, I guess it is important. Network radio and television has done much to homogenize our regional cultures, but the advent of the internet has given new scope to fringe groups.
I grew up in pre-Castro Miami, Florida; culturally about as southern as New Jersey. We had a large colony of Jews on Miami Beach, which led to local humor characterizing it as a suburb of Tel-Aviv. We were taught anti-semitism by scout leaders (mostly WWII vets). The culture was racially segregated, but not vicious. The most rabid racists were displaced northerners, including (shame) my visiting relatives. I was bussed across town to maintain school segregation, and was greatly amused by later howls over forced bussing to end segregation. I also had the pleasure to know a former Negro Leagues player, half cherokee and the butler in a large estate adjoining our development.
I now live in South Carolina, and Southern Heritage is a close second to college football. People here have gotten used to integration, but are prejudiced against Yankees, whom they feel are overbearing and discourteous. They curse the inventor of air conditioning.
Northerners and southerners display racism and religious prejudice in different, culturally determined, ways. Neither really care to critically examine or to change their respective, and obviously superior, cultures.
My recommendation is to opr out of the game, live in harmony with your fellow man, and not worry too much about the other guy.
Comment?
There were very few abolitionists in the antebellum South. (Granted, there might have been more than we know about, because talking about it could get you lynched.)
What else do you expect? Of course all those are vitriolically-morally-charged issues, that’s why a war was fought over them. Worse, an American war. This country was founded in substantial part by religious dissidents who knew they were right where others were wrong and knew that that was important. And that’s the American way ever since. Every cause is a matter of good vs. evil.
Oh, okay.
Get over it? Ok, when the Southern states stop flaunting the banner of Slavery and start flying a real flag:
Am I reckless in assuming there is considerable overlap, nowadays, between Neo-Confederates and White Nationalists?
Bolding mine.
No. No. No. And no. The Confederacy was not rejecting external rule in favor of local autonomy. They were trying to create a nation with more central rule because they were losing the demographic battle to dominate the North.
This argument is wrong on all levels. The vast majority of Northerners at the time would have happily let the South stay slave holding. There were no serious efforts to interfere with slavery withing slave holding states. All the interference went the other way. But Lincoln’s election meant the days of the South dictating policy to the North were over.
The closest analogy I can think of for today would be if Ohio tried to secede because they lost their status as first caucus and claiming it was because the rest of the country was trying to dictate to them.
You seem to have some deep-seated issues with “yankees”, but that’s your cross to bear. I am glad you are over the slavery issue, and accept with no problem the fact of slavery being the cause of the civil war. I am honestly happy for you.
However, if all that is true, almost nothing that is being said here is about you, or aimed at you. It’s your neighbor, who wears a t-shrit with the confederate generals and leaders on it that says “A Few Good Men”. That guy is an idiot, and probably a racist.
I’m talking to the guy who flies his Battle Flag from the back of his truck, and holds the blood stained symbol or rape, murder, intimidation and racism as some sort of thing to be honored. that’s who I’m talking about. Apparently that is not you, and for that, I am grateful.
And like it or not, those guys cause everyone from your neck of the woods to look bad, and that particular species of American is more likely to be found in the southern parts of the US, particularly the rural areas, than in, say, New York City. Or Miami. Or Duluth.
Yeah this is definitely part of it. But, it doesn’t apply to everyone that supports states’ rights. Like me for example. I live in one of the most liberal states.
Of course I have issues with yankees; I live in Florida, where jillions of people from up north move to and immediately begin telling us how much better things are up north----it’s irritating. (and the foregoing is a joke) Thanks for the good words and that is not a joke.
Fine, but how does that have anything at all to do with the Confederacy?
As noted above, the CSA Constitution was, if anything, LESS states’ rights friendly than the US Constitution. So, claiming the war was about states’ rights rather than slavery is, at best, revisionism and, at worst, a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from the slavery issue.
South Carolina was the first state to secede. The only significant issue it put forward in its declaration of secessionwas slavery, with states’ rights being the technicality that it used as the legal basis to secede in its pursuit of slavery.
150 years later, this very same declaration of secession in pursuit of slavery was celebrated at the Secession Ball by the leaders of South Carolina.
In their DNA is it. That such behaviour continues to take place is truly disgusting. It is well past time the south learn that the pursuit of slavery is not something to be celebrated.