Oh, BTW–Southerners are pretty good soldiers, if my history is correct.
You cannot say that about the “warriors” of the Middle East, Their record against Israel alone show that clearly.
We’re talking about a cultural thread that goes back at least a century-and-a-half. From abolition to gay marriage, Northern liberals are going to take over and destroy our way of life. And being the dominant political force never stopped anyone from playing the victim; the Christian martyr complex undoubtedly factors in as well.
Well, I’m surprised your off-hand knoweldge of History is pretty small, but then, mine being so big I find most people to lack in one area or another.
I figured that was the era he was talking about, but it seems unimportant considering its modernity.
The issue though is Militias. I know what I was talking about when I said Militias.
I was talking about All the North…not just Midwest.
Some very noteable militias during the civil war (49 years after 1812) were the New York, Rhode Island, Massachussettes, and Maine Militias. That’s 4 States from the North East, two being very powerful.
I’d hardly say that the South has a greater militia history than does the North, and considering the South’s independent nature bringing up the militias seems to be more of a set back to what he is arguing than a support. For you see, why should a South entrenched in its own history and military prowess (it whooped the North’s ass that’s for sure), be so patriotic to their oppressors? (Washington DC.)
For a while after the Civil War there was much distrust between the two…if you ever heard the song “I’m a Good Ol’ Rebel” you’d realize just how deep the hatred goes when it included such lines as:
“I hates the Constitution this Great Republic Too, I hates the Freedman’s Bureau (still exists today) and Uniforms of Blue.”
“300,000 are dead in Southern Dust, we got 300,000 before they conquered us. They died of Southern Fever and Southern Steel and Shot, I wish we got 3 million instead of what we got.”
“I hates the Mighty Eagle in all his brags and fuss, them lying thieving Yankees I hates them Wuss and Wuss.”
So as you can see, the idea that Southern Military heritage would insite patriotism is a bit of a stretch. That is, if the idea that patriotism stands for military service…I don’t see why anyone would join the military however if they hated the country they were serving for, so I feel that the factors are a bit different and that of course that hatred has subsided with each passing generation.
Well anyways keeping directly on target, I do think that the fast paced and material oriented northern states is what causes a fall in Recruits. I am taking a guess but I bet the number of Soldiers from LA is or any metropolis is just as small. Most Soldiers I would be willing to bet come from more rurally located regions and this is due to the fact that rural people are used to hard work and have the time to think about things “beyond” their world.
City-folk are really bogged down with internationalism and travelling and education and business and all sorts of things that not only remove your want to join the military, but also make you a bit of a Coward.
At least in the sense of, who do you think is more willing to fight? Someone who has a home a farm…something they feel worth fighting for and dying to protect? Or someone who has a bunch of Sega’s and Computer games and Stereos things that you can’t protect, only use and enjoy while alive.
Anyways, in conclusion.
The last Militias were called into Service for any major engagement (besides currently in Iraq), during the Civil War.
Before the Civil War the Union Army stood at 17,000 men. When the South Seceeded the Union Army had 1 General left who had any combat experience, and about 8,000 Men. That General’s name was Robert E. Lee.
When Virginia Seceeded Lee said, “I can not fight against my country.” Resigned, and joined the Virginian Army.
So Abraham Lincoln issued the first Executive Order in the history of this Nation.
It was legal because half of Congress just walked out there-by making them an incapable legislative body.
His first Executive Order very plainly read.
I hereby call all Militias of the States of the Union into service of the Federal Government.
That boosted the 8,000 man Army to 70,000 over night.
Good stuff…the Civil War was an incredible time period.
Oh further emphasis that the North had a militia heritage as much as the South…in the North you did not join the “Federal Army”. There was no “Federal Recruiting Station” to go to. You joined your State’s milita and became a “Union” soldier and fought for the Union Army.
We didn’t have a Standing Army as we do today until after WW2. It’s inconceivable now it seems, to think of America without an Army, but until 1940 America’s military numbered at most about 100,000 Men.
To put that into perspective, America’s military currently numbers about 1.5 million. Including the National Guards which today are more extensions of Fedearl control than they are State Militias.
My point (as Captain Amazing inferred), was that the South had a more or less continuous history of militia call-ups and voluntary service from the founding of the nation on up through the Civil War. Not so in the Northeast.
Another point to ponder: in 1831, de Tocqueville noticed that a difference in temperament had already developed between the Northeasterner and the Southerner:
Ok that point was lost in translation but also moot. At best only the western Southern States had such a continuous call up just as the western northern states did.
Well, this idea certainly isn’t original with Lind. To my knowledge, he first discussed it in print in his book Vietnam: The Necessary War (New York: The Free Press, 1999). In Chapter 4, “The Fall of Washington,” he discusses the different attitudes towards the war among different ethnic groups (e.g., Jews were mostly and most vocally against the war, Catholics for the most part for it), and, more importantly in his view, among different regions. Lind makes the point, citing statistics in support, that Southerners have been more supportive than Northerners of every American conflict abroad since the War of 1812, with the sole exception of the Spanish-American War, “when – for the first and only time in U.S. history – intervention abroad was the project of northeastern elites.” Why is this? Lind rejects the “quasi-Marxist” explanation, proposed by some historians, that these sectional divisions are due to “different regional economic strategies” of the North and South (e.g., the South protecting overseas markets for cotton exports). Instead, he attributes it to differences in regional cultures:
Which brings us to the question with which I concluded the OP: Assuming all this is true – and the evidence seems to be pretty compelling – what can we do about it? I submit, and I challenge any Doper on this board to contradict me, that this attitude of American southerners towards war, militarism, violence and “honor” is a very bad thing. It is bad for the South; and, so long as the South has the political influence in D.C. that its population warrants, it is bad for the whole country; and, since in our time the United States is the most important and powerful country on earth, it is bad for the whole world. But how is it possible to train or educate the people of an entire multistate region out of dysfunctional cultural values and attitudes that have persisted for two centuries and more?
I tend to see the main divisions of revolutionary culture as basically trifold: Eastern/Yankee, Southern/Planter ( who weren’t, despite their delusions of grandeur, descended from Cavaliers ), and Western/backwoods. Though I live in Penna and tend to read more history from here I just don’t see the Quakers as a major component. Perhaps it is the religious angle, they and the Puritans were both Dissentors. Or perhaps this is because my focus is more political than cultural and the Friends withdrew from politics just as the revolutionary period was beginning in the mid 1750s. If I were looking for a fourth major cultural group I wouldn’t call it “Quaker” as it would need to include New Yorkers who had more in common with the inhabitants of Penna and Jersey than with New England. But then I’m no professional historian.
Clearly there are cultural differences between North and South. My point is that it is hard to imagine that the differences today are due to the cultures their original white colonists brought with them since the same mix of peoples coming from the same places settled in western PA and Ohio as settled in western Virginia and the western Carolinas.
A few nitpicks. First, if, when you’re talking about militias, you count the National Guard (and I think you do, because you’re mentioning service in Iraq), the Guard saw service in the Spanish-American war (unofficially), World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Haiti, and Bosnia.
The name of the general who had combat experience when South Carolina seceeded was Winfield Scott. Robert E. Lee was a colonel when SC seceeded. In addition to Scott, Don Carlos Buell, who had seen service in both the Seminole War and Mexican War was adjutant general of the Department of the Pacific, which usually comes with the military rank of General, although I don’t know if it did in his case.
Virginia’s secession referendum was on May 23, 1861, and the secession ordinance was passed by the legislature on April 17, 1861, after the presidential proclamation calling up the militia, which was on April 15, 1861. In fact, the proclamation was one of the reasons Virginia seceeded.
And actually, the proclamation said:
Also, Lincoln wasn’t the first President to issue an executive order. Washington was (although they didn’t have the name “executive order” at the time). Washington issued an order to the people who held office under the Articles of Confederation on June 8, 1789, asking for full reports on what they had been doing and what active issues still existed. On October 3, 1789, he declared Nov. 26, 1789 a day of Thanksgiving. Washington was even the first to issue an order to call out the militia, on August 7, 1794, when he ordered the militias to crush the Whiskey Rebellion.
I was going to raise these exact points, based on my own observations. Interesting to see this phenomenon has been the subject of academic study.
I grew up in the rural South. I attended a college which drew from a national base, and where I was exposed for the first time to Northerners in any great number. (I’m sure the same was true for many of my Southern classmates at the school. And vice-versa for the Northerners.) I lived in an all-male dorm.
A continuing source of conflict during my freshman year (until everyone got acclimated to one another) was the differing perception of personal insults. Verbal insults (even harsh verbal insults) seemed almost a form of male bonding among Northeasterners, even among those who didn’t know each other well. But those same verbal insults, directed at a Southerner, might be misinterpreted as an invitation to combat. Where I grew up (and in the time I grew up) verbal insults were not to be calmly endured (except playful ones among very close friends). If you were insulted, you fought; and if you didn’t fight, you were a coward. Simple as that.
And I also agree with the observation that the same dynamic can be seen in black subculture, where a personal insult (except among very close friends) can quickly lead to a fight.
You are probably right. Southern “touchiness” may be a bad thing when projected onto the international stage. (Though maybe having a martial subculture to tap into when needed might not be such a bad thing?)
Can a deeply-ingrained subculture of “honor” and violent retribution be changed? Well, I don’t know how. It would be a helluva project.
Yeah I bungled the General Lee part but I was right in the message conveyed.
"The old warrior General Winfield Scott asked Colonel Robert E. Lee to take command of the United States Army to put down the rebellion.
Lee, however, offered his services to the newly elected President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis. Mr. Davis accepted them and Lee was made a general in CSA service. At first General Lee was more or less advisor to President Davis and the Secretary of War."
Also, after the Civil War the Militias lost a lot of power, by the Spanish American War most fighting was carried out by a “Standing Army”. The point was it would not be until WW2 however that the idea of a Militia was utterly destroyed.
I vaguely draw hints to the Guard in Iraq being an example of the Militia though technically it is.
Also, I realize that the short order I gave was a paraphrase, I should not have to actually point that out as anyone can look it up, however compared to the 1000 page Executive Orders today, that one paragraphed order is small.
And no, the first Executive Order was by Lincoln. The difference between George Washington and Lincoln is that Washington could have been overturned by a Congress, Lincoln was the only remaining elected official who had Constitutional Authority at the time he issued his Executive Order.
It was such a precedent that he cried for signing it. I doubt George Washington cried when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Lee actually offered his services to Governor Letcher of Virginia, and he was made a Major General in Virginia’s army on April 23, 1871. He didn’t become a General in the CSA until May 14, 1861.
And Lincoln wasn’t the only remaining elected official with constitutional authority, even on a federal level. There was Congress, which, admittedly was in recess at the time. (Part of Lincoln’s order called Congress into session) There was also an unelected constitutional authority, the Supreme Court, which got involved in habas issues in ex parte Merryman. Lincoln ignored the court’s decision in that case, but the court was still around.
But in the case of this order, calling up the militia was within Lincoln’s constitutional power…From Article II, section 2
and since, as I mentioned, Washington had done it, Lincoln had precedence. If Lincoln was crying when he issued the order, it was from the strain of knowing he would have to order the army against fellow Americans, not because he was claiming expanded powers.
That’s April 23, 1861, of course.
Executive Orders have been issued by every President, but many of the early ones were never published as official documents since they were sometimes simple orders to government agencies. Numbering didn’t begin until the 1900’s, but they decided to begin the numbers with I think the Emancipation Proclaimation.
I see a lot of stereotyping in these posts, but I don’t think that it is unfair to say that a large number of service personnel come from the South. I suspect that this is as true of women as it is of men and doesn’t reflect the South’s historical enchantment with glory and honor in battle. There is a little of that to it, I think. There are connections made between serving God and serving one’s country. But there is also the practical matter of getting training and a paycheck and of being independent.It seems to be a sort of self-perpetuating common choice to consider.
What I don’t see in the South as much as some might think is the aggressiveness and mean-spiritedness of the over-controlling, weapons-crazed, blood junkies. You know the type.