Clearly the North and the South were different in one important respect. They were not the same people, just living in different places. One was willing to fight for the death to keep slavery, the other was not.
I haven’t said anything about ignorant Southerners that no one else has.
Pretty good op-ed piece by Leonard Pitts in the paper today. It includes this quote:
"“We went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought.” – Confederate Col. John S. Mosby
Let’s not forget another key difference - Southerners are ever so much more neighborly and gracious than other Americans.
The professional Southerners are so outspoken and insistent on that point, it must be true. 
(shrug) I’m waiting for you to back up your claim that a slave could be killed for trying to learn to read. Believe it or not, there are worse things than to have been a slave on a Southern plantation, but I doubt that anyone who believes in the blue-eyed devil theory of history could ever be made to understand that.
Yeah, the near extermination of the American Indian was ever so much more humane. Say what you please, the claim that a society which sent ten year old children to labor in coal mines twelve hours a day, six days a week was somehow moral superior to a society which sent children to work in cotton and sugar cane fields is a highly debatable proposition.
Careful with that straw man, it might be a fire hazard. There’s nothing in that post which could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the war and its aftermath was the sole cause of Jim Crow. The bitterness and anger after the war complicated race relations horribly, and pretty much any peaceful end to slavery would have left far fewer problems in its wake than the war did. No doubt the ex-slaves would still have been treated as inferiors and undesireables for quite some time (I’d guess at least a couple of generations), but it would still not have been as bad as what actually did transpire.
Who’s defending that? What does it have to do with slavery being evil?
How is this a defense of slavery?
Ain’t defending slavery. I’m pointing out the the North’s claim to moral superiority is highly amusing.
It was illegal to teach them to read, and they could be killed for any reason or no reason. Punishment was up to the “owners,” and included torture and murder for whatever infraction the owners decided had been committed.
I think this is unique. I’ve never hard anybody try to argue that anyone who condemns slavery is an anti-white racist before. How very Rovian.
Who’s making any claim that the North was morally superior?
Obviously, the whole country was racist, but the North was marginally better in that it drew a line at slavery. The South drew no moral lines at anything, yet insists on perpetuating a noble, heroic image of its antebellum past and its terrorist, anti-American insurgents. It is too laugh.
I have no idea why you’re waiting for a claim I never made. But what, it’s not bad enough that they were beaten for reading? You need proof that they were dying over trivalities before it registers on you that slavery was evil? Slaveowners probably used the same standard in evaluating their treatment of black people, too, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this.
It amuses me that so many people seem to be apalled–appalled, I say–that a descendant of a slave would look at these jokers with anything less than admiration. It’s one thing for a Yankee to talk bad about the Confederates. But don’t let a black person do it. Then the defensiveness really comes out.
You’ll have to pardon my sarcasm. Did the war complicate things? I guess so, since some people still harbor resentment over it 150 years later. But I don’t believe things would have been much different. And several people have already pointed out that a slave bailout would not have been possible anyway.
No, you are speaking in generalities now. “The South” and “The North” are areas of the country. Is it a big coincidence that so many of the people born in the South fought to keep slavery and most of the guys born in the North weren’t fighting to do away with it, but were fighting to preserve the Union? Was there something in the air or water that made these people different in their beliefs?
Were Northerners just naturally “good” by birth and Southerners naturally immoral? Was it something in their blood?
Why did it take some Northerners 200 years to become “good” and decide to rid themselves of slaves? You might want to read the history of those sweet Northerners in New York for example. They have themselves faced the truth and documented it with a website. It is harrowing. It is a mixed bag from state to state – as it is in the South. New York is to be commended for telling the truth and raising it to the light.
What is “a profession Southerner,” you with the face? Is that what you think that I am? Is that a veiled reference to anyone who tries to set the record straight and you just happen to disagree with them but don’t have a good answer? Labels aren’t helpful.
Well now, that’s a really good excuse. But let’s look at what you did say about ignorant Southerners:
You make Southerners sound like a bunch of animals. Some people in the South have these attitudes, but absolutely no one that I know. Nada. Zip. There have been a few on the SDMB that speak up on these issues, but I have no idea where they are from. Fundamentalism is still a minority religion, but a lot of older people all over the country are still ignorant about vaccines, SSM, socialism – any of those issues. Incidentally, there is not a one of those issues that I take the view that you ascribe to Southerners.
Why do you keep promoting stereotypes that are actually also in other parts of the country?
Of course not. Who said that Northerners were inherently better than anyone? That you feel it necessary to even post this kind of defense speaks more to your inner guilt-demons than anything anyone is actually saying. Regardless of what the North was fighting for, it’s indisputable that the Southerners were fighting to keep black folks enslaved. That’s what this discussion is about, Zoe. It ain’t about who had better character, or who had the most love in their hearts.
Is it even possible for us to discuss the Civil War and slavery without the discussion devolving into arguments about how “Yankees were bad, too!” It may feel good to think that everyone on either side of the battle lines were the same, but they weren’t. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were not the same guy with different names and faces. Not anymore than Hitler and FDR were or GW Bush and Obama are. Both sides of the CW were fighting for different things, and these things should not be treated as moral equals. They simply should not. To do so is simply another way of rationalizing the same wrong that was rationalized by the slaveowners.
Why are you asking me this instead of Jackamanni? You can see that he wrote that, not me. This is not the first time I’ve noticed you and others trying to embattle yourself against the one black person in the discussion (moi), while ignoring the white folks who often times say harsher things than what I’m saying. Why do you stay so glued on to my posts? It’s like you take my opinions more personally, because I’m black.
I didn’t say Southerners had a monopoly on these kinds of stupid ideas, but it doesn’t take much to show that most are disproportionately seen in the south as they track closely with red-state conservatism (and I don’t need to show you a map for that, do I?).
I simply used them as examples of willful ignorance that are similar to the belief in slavery.
Ah, yes, the Electoral College. Here are some less simplistic maps.
Please remember that the South includes a wide variety of people. Some are descended from those who fought for the Confederacy–whether they were fighting for slavery or because everybody else was joining up or because they were drafted. Some modern Southerners had ancestors who fought for the other side. Or whose ancestors hadn’t crossed the ocean (or the Rio Grande) yet. And we’ve got quite a few Southerners whose ancestors were slaves back then.
The slave owners who favored secession & brought on a war that devastated their home states belonged to the wealthy & educated class. They didn’t have “ignorance” as an excuse.
Curtis Lemay is right on this point, though he’s not doing a fantastic job of explaining his position.
There’s no clear line between what’s right and what isn’t with regards to rebellion, but there are two huge distinctions between the thirteen colonies and the Confederacy:
The Confederate states were, you know, STATES. Their citizens had the same rights, and most importantly, the same votes, as the citizens of the states that didn’t secede. They were as much as part of the United States of America as anyone and had the opportunity to vote accordingly, to elect representatives to take care of their interests, and to exercise their civil rights. Their states had Constitutionally recognized powers that were identical to all other states.
The thirteen colonies made several good faith efforts to negotiate with the British government. The southern states pretty much started sloughing off once the 1860 election didn’t go their way.
What constitutes nationhood, or who should or should not have their own nation, isn’t something with a clear answer, and every case is different. But here I thinkthere’a a huge difference; the South had a democratic say in the American government. they had Congressmen and Senators and votes for President, just like anyone else. The colonists in the 1770s did NOT get a vote in Parliament. They had no say at all, and such colonial government as they had was interfered with.
So?
I was born and raised in Georgia, and currently live there now, so I don’t really need this reminder. Your maps don’t counter what I posted earlier, either. But thanks anway.
I think you make some good points. I’m not so certain that you can also attribute your views to Curtis, though, since in his list of example secessionists that he despises, he includes Puerto Rican secessionists, who (while the comparisons certainly aren’t exact, or even close) likewise aren’t exactly in the same situation as your average U.S. citizen. Too, his initial words on the subject didn’t exactly leave much wiggle room for differing levels of treason acceptability. Perhaps it was just a bit of hyperbole, though.
There’s absolutely no way to pretend that Southern secession in 1861 was not about slavery.
But just for the sake of argument, let’s try to separate the abstract concept of secession from the issue of slavery.
Right now, there is no secessionist movement worth taking seriously in the United States. But let’s try to imagine a scenario in which a true, popular secessionist movement got started somewhere.
Hawaii is one place where it could happen. SUPPOSE that the population of ethnic Polynesians exploded in Hawaii, and their currently tiny secessionist movement got much bigger. IF the Polynesian people of Hawaii declared independence on the grounds that “The USA stole our homeland against our wishes,” I’m prepared to bet that many of the liberals who are quick to dismiss South Carolina’s right to secede in 1861 would be MUCH more receptive to the Hawaiians’ claims to that same right.
IF Hawaiians wrote their own Declaration of Independence, do I think the liberals of the SDMB would be so gung ho about sending in troops to put down the rebellion? Not a chance.
For that matter, slavery was NOT the first issue over which “states’ rights” were invoked, nor the first issue over which some states threatened to secede. When John Adams and the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, Virginia claimed the right to nullify odious federal laws. Would SDMB liberals, who normally scoff at “states’ rights” have been on Adams’ side, or on Virginia’s that time?
The War of 1812 was extremely unpopular in New York and New England, where it was reviled as “Mr. Madison’s War.” Leading Massachusetts newspaper called for secession. If Massachusetts had seceded in opposition to the War, would SDMB liberals be condemning them today?
I’ll let SDMB liberals answer for themselves, although I have my own suspicions, obviously.
You’d think wrong. What I’d worry about, among other things, would be the rights of the minority, whether there was a free and fair election showing that the majority actually supported secession, and a host of other items. Depending on the situation, I might or might not support a negotiated dissolution, but unilateral - never.
