Max- I think that what I’m trying to say is that the old saying 'The winner gets to write the history". For many years it was presented as the wicked, hateful Southerns torturing the nergros and the Great USA going to the rescue. This simplistic view has been rooted in for many generations. My understanding, in a nutshell is:
The Northern industrial states controlled both Houses of Congress, having more industrial states and greater populations. They voted in laws requiring the South to sell its agri-products to Northern factories ONLY. As cotton was now all the rage in Europe (where wool was the long-time norm) this was a huge market. England had many textile mills but could not buy the cotton directly. Not to mention tobacco and turpintine. Since there was a Northern corner on the market by law, they could set the price, which was unfairly low. The South protested this unfair practice but it fell on deaf ears.
Then Cuba requested consideration for Statehood. Good news right? Wrong. It would enter the Union as a slave-state and upset the balance of power in Congress. Oh, we can’t have that! Consider for a moment the ramifications to current politics if Cuba, sixty miles from Florida, was not a communist nation in the early sixties. Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis? It was denied and the rest, as they say, is history.
When North Carolina seceeded from the Union, it felt it had the right to do so. When the Founding Fathers set up the Articles of Confederation, the biggest stumbling block was States Rights. The bigger, more populated States dictating to the smaller populations. IMO, they were of the opinion that the Union was not working and they had no voice in the Nations laws. They had no intention to have a war with the combined forces of the industrial North with it’s standing army and infrastructure of weapons factories and railroad delivery systems. They thought it to be their right. “We tried it but it hasn’t worked out. We’re out of here”. At the high-point of the war, the North had Four Million soldiers, trained and equiped, compaired to One Million in the South, mostly farmers with what ever weapons they could bring from home.
Was slavery a primary issue? Not in my opinion. Not initialy. IIRC, Gen. Lee freed his slaves before Grant freed his. I think the South had a vested interest in slavery. The entire economy was driven by cheap labor. Even with this, the laws concerning trade with Europe made it difficult. Then, there is talk of freeing the slaves. Overnight, as it were. Oh sure, you can hire them on as workers with pay but there is the Catch 22. Profits are down from Northern laws and now, Northerners want us to have to pay our workers too?
Then, the last straw. The North elects Lincoln, a Northerner who, before politics, was a lawyer for the Railroad robber-barons. The corruption of this bunch and the crimes against regular people is another story. His pro-Northern, big industry record was well known in the South.
All hope was lost. There was nothing left to do but seceed. One can only imagine how difficult a decision this would be to those in North Carolina. How bad must it be to require such a drastic and heart-breaking step?
Sorry to go into so much. I am not a professional historian, just one who has read a great deal on the topic.
Max- you have been a fair and level-headed factor in this discussion and, though we may disagree, I sincerly hope nothing I have said will be taken as a personal slight against you.
I think Boofuu said it best:
During the Presidential election I noticed that there were areas of Upstate NY that supported Bush by a wide margin and I was very puzzled by it. But I am stunned that they actually use the Confederate battle flag as a symbol. (I am assuming that it is the same general area.) Nashville voted blue.
I hate to break the news to you, but the Old South hasn’t done anything since the Civil War. The term refers to the antebellum South.
There have been many Southerners who have been racist and a few of the ignorant ones have even been proud of their racism. There is another kind of bigot that’s just mean-spirited and stupid – but probably not particularly proud of it one way or the other. There are people who think they are right liberal, but don’t realize that they still discriminate, and so on. There are so many different shades and levels and depths and differences that it is ignorant to apply a label.
When there is a cross-burning on Long Island, I don’t dredge up New York State’s history of slavery (which was longer than Tennessee’s) and talk about the Old North racism and find the connection. Why do you want to continue to paint us with the same old paint? This is an honest question, Max.
I won’t argue with you about the reasons for the war. Slavery was part of it. But you know how men are about fighting for their side whatever the reason is.. Most of the men who fought did not own slaves. They weren’t going into battle with the single thought of “Keep the slaves!” They went because that’s where the war was and that’s where their brothers and friends were and someone was attacking or someone was saying they couldn’t do this or that. They were “protecting their way of life.” Isn’t that what it always is?
I’m not making any excuse for them. But if I remember correctly, Virginia had already come within one vote in their legislature of abolishing slavery. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Delaware still had slaves.
Although the South has never completely recovered economically from the Civil War, resentment over the loss began to fade even with the generation that fought. My grandfather was a Confederate soldier. He told my father that it would never have done for the South to have won the war. My father refused to join the Sons of the Confederacy or to take part in any reenactments. I have not joined the Daughters of the Confederacy nor will I.
There are many people interested in the history of the South and of the war itself and who love Southern traditions who are not racists, Max. All I ask is that you lread and weigh carefully the posts of Snuffy, boofuu, and monstro.
" The bigger question is how will we make sure that cases like the subject of OP do not happen again." – boofuu
If I told you how we cook them — long and slow on low heat with a big slab of fatback for hours until they drape over a fork like clocks painted by Salvador Dali — you’d faint.
Mmmm…greeeen beeeans!
Grease is good and green beans are good, so I would probably give it a try. But wars have been fought over more trivial differences in human affairs.
Now, see, I’ll defend my grits to my death, and a skillet corn bread is a thing of beauty, and well-fried catfish can bring tears to my eyes, and nothing beats a beaten biscuit, and eastern NC barbeque is the meat I miss the most.
But it’s this way of cooking vegetables into submission, treating all things green like they’re an enemy that must be destroyed, that keeps me from endorsing Southern Cooking. Candied yams, sulphurous cabbage, collards cooked into pondscum, and green beans like the contents of a pig’s upper intestine–what’s the point?
Daniel
The most popular music Upstate is Country and Western…so I don’t know if the symbol is just another bit of “country” or something more sinister. Without the cultural tie to it, Northerners could very well feel it’s just a symbol of country life. I don’t know.
It ain’t just greenery. Pintos are cooked until they’re mushy and their broth is thick and soupy. Same same for black pead eye-balls. Skillet fried corn (shoepeg, of course). And little green balls. And don’t forget potatoes, cooked so long and mashed so smooth that they’re called “cream potatoes”. With a wood stove, all the better. And the biscuits. Oh, lord, the heavenly light biscuits, made with lard and buttermilk, slathering on the fresh churned butter while the steam escapes. Oh, to be poor again.
Ok, seriously, is there really another way to cook these foods? And how the hell does someone end up with crunchy green beans? I’ve been to two county fairs and a Sunday revival and I’ve never heard of such a thing. :eek:
I have two primary disagreements with you:
(1) There’s a big difference between a symbol that is associated with something, and a symbol that specifically STANDS for something. For instance, there was a lot of anti-Chinese racism in California during the Gold Rush. But no one (as far as I knew) ever took up the California state flag (you know, with the bear) and used it a symbol of anti-Chinese hatred. The bear flag wasn’t scrawled on burned out houses of Chinese people, or carried around while Chinese people were being lynched. At no point was there a huge schism in California with the bear-flag-carrying people being far more anti-Chinese than the other people. Thus, as far as I know, there are very few, if any, Chinese people who are bothered or offended by the California flag.
(2) While the US flag oversaw slavery, etc., it ALSO oversaw abolition, the civil rights movement, etc. It was the flag of Martin Luther King Jr., William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Rosa Parks, just as it was the flag of slavery before 1860. That should certainly count for something.
Likewise. And, of course, your participation in this discussion self-evidently demonstrates that your initial post was not a drive-by.
Them things is all good (excepting the little green balls–are these peas, and are you suggesting that eating peas cooked to the consistency of algae is for the best? if so, I gotta disagree: I learned as a toddler to eat peas right off my grandpa’s pea-vines in the backyard, where they were better than the best candy). But them things ain’t vegetables: they’re beans and starches. (And don’t try telling me potatoes are vegetables; I won’t have none of that science-talk in my food).
It’s the war against tasty vegetables that’s the problem in Southern cooking. When vegetables are served raw, they’re slathered in mayonnaise or, worse, Miracle Whip, covering up their tastiness under congealed soured fat. No good.
Cooking green beans until my ninety-year-old grandma can drink them through a straw is every bit as awful as cooking a steak until a biker would steal it off me to patch his jacket.
Daniel
First of all, I’m certainly not a Civil War scholar, just a guy from California who’s read Battle Cry of Freedom and Lies My Teacher Told Me (among other things).
How odd that chattel slavery would be described as torture. Blatant historical revisionism.
Certainly you’re not just making stuff up in your post, but you do seem to be glossing over one enormous issue: The union was (with the exception of the border states) made up of states where slavery was illegal. The confederacy was made up of states where slavery was legal. And the continuation of slavery was a root cause of the war. To a certain extent, who cares what the other factors were? If a serial killer child molestor and a normal guy with normal-guy-flaws are fighting to the death over whether to keep serially killing and molesting children, do you stop and say “well, that one guy occasionally gets drunk and slaps his kids around. I guess he’s really no better than that other guy who sodomizes little kids to death with a chainsaw. And when he’s not sodomizing little kids to death, he has a lovely singing voice, and cooks fabulous regional cuisine”?
Then why was continuation of slavery written into the confederate constitution? Why was it so generally accepted that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a catalyst for the war? Why didn’t any free states join the confederacy?
Look: it’s certainly true that there are plenty of moral ambiguities concerning the civil war, two primary ones being:
(a) there were plenty of evil people in the North, and plenty of links between the North and the slave trade, including slave owners in the North, particularly in border states
(b) there were huge numbers of non-evil people in the South. Significant portions of the Southern population (maybe even a majority) did not own slaves. And there’s something troubling about judging people just because they bought into the prejudices of their society.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the South was an entire country whose entire reason for being was the continuation of slavery. No amount of glossing over makes this go away. If the Smith family has a long tradition of killing and eating female babies, and the police show up at the Smith family compound and say “We have a court order here demanding that you stop eating female babies”, and you’re a cousin of the Smith family who does not, personally, eat female babies, but you show up with a gun to defend the Smith family compound and claim that you’re just there because you believe in the sanctity of private family compounds, and you personally have no opinion on the baby-eating, you’re still supporting baby-eating.
Something for you to ponder: If there’s a paradigm shift in the popular understanding of the civil war, and everyone adopts a “there were many causes of the War for Southern Independence, including economic factors, states’ rights issues, and regional rivalries and slavery” viewpoint, who benefits from that?
Thank you, and likewise.
Agreed. But that doesn’t mean this tangent isn’t an interesting one.
Well, Lefty, you make some good points. I, too, like raw peas. And I, too, condemn Miracle Whip to hell. Now, mayonnaise (that is to say, of course, Dukes — there is no other) is to be reserved for delicacies like banana sandwiches. On Merita bread, needless to say.
To me, the distinction between the actual Old South and the “legacy of the Old South” is relatively irrelevant with respect to discussions like this one.
There are plenty of condescending liberal hypocrites. But if I were a black father, I’d (on average) rather my daughter encountered one of them in a dark alley than the other kinds of bigots you mention. But really, that’s neither here nor there.
Why not? If there IS a connection, you should bring it up, because it might well be germaine. Or do you think that problems with racism that persist in the South now are totally coincidentally unrelated to the civil war, slavery, etc.? Not that I’m saying that the only response to any racist event is to say “Haha! You guys are still racists who wish you owned slaves! And we beat you in the civil war! Nyah nyah nyah!”. But I get really irked by the attitude of “well, the civil war was really all about economic issues. We were going to free the slaves a month later anyhow. Why do people keep associating racism with the South? What about all the racism in fucking CALIFORNIA??? And now you’re prejudiced against me! You’re a bigot too! Did I mention that the War Between The States was all about States Rights? And the confederate flag is a symbol of Heritage! Heritage Heritage Heritage!!!”. And yes, I’m exaggerating, probably in poor taste, but, to try to make the same point somewhat more calmly, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the events in the OP happened in Texas and not Oregon, and I get a strong feeling that a lot of Texans and Southerners kind of feel the same way, but feel that they can’t admit it without being traitors to their region, thus, they bristle up, get defensive, strike back, and the conversation goes to hell.
Am I painting you with any brush? Note my very first post in this thread:
“Trying to get an otherwise reasonable, and personally non-racist, southerner to admit that there’s more racism in the south than in other parts of the country is like pulling Superman’s teeth.”
I’ve been very very clear in this thread that I’m not condemning all, or even most, Southerners. If you say “California has a problem with excessive flakiness and new-agey-ness” I won’t argue, nor will I feel that you’re attacking me. (A different, far more problematic, example would be this: I post something in a thread on a totally unrelated topic, and you respond by saying “ahh, typical California new-age flakiness.”)
I certainly agree that the average Joe Confederate Soldier wasn’t bravely charging the Union lines while thinking “I can’t wait to finish killing these damnyankees so I can go home and continue to own and subjugate other human beings! Go slavery!”. In fact, I’m quite certain that his thoughts were the same mixture of bravery, fear, love-of-family, group-bonding-with-his-buddies, etc., that the guy he was about to kill-or-be-killed-by had. I don’t hate southerners now, and I don’t retroactively hate the average southerner then. However, they were choosing to align themselves with a great evil, and I don’t think that can or should be ignored or glossed over.
But to what extent was your experience typical? That’s certainly the first time I’ve heard it claimed that resentment over the war began to fade that quickly. In fact, I would have said that resentment over the war continues to the present day.
Absolutely. (And, again, I pointed that out in my very first post this thread.)
Do you have any reason to think I don’t?
I grew up in upstate NY and never saw any Confederate flags. I’m not saying that none exist, but Confederate flag flying isn’t really a big hobby up there. And, btw, as you learned, upstate NY is really Republican.
Might I ask what part of upstate? There’s several version of upstate. For a lot of people living in NYC and Logn Island, upstate is any part of New York that isn’t NYC or Long Island, i.e., 99% of the state. This includes palces like Ithaca, Buffalo, and Rochester, which are not, by any strech of the imagination, upstate New York.
“Real” upstate is, IMO, the strip of land around the Hudon river, basically. It starts at about West Point (maybe a bit more north than that) and goes as far north as Lake George. It goes as East as to the border to MA and VT, and as far west as…umm…well, I dunno, having not been in much western NY, but Utica and Binghamtom are the absolute western limits. This part of pstate is mostly liberal, with it’s epicenter at Albany. There are certainly parts that are more conservative, but for the most part, except more liberal senators from this region.
Then there is the third definition of upstate. I don’t know where this def. comes from, but it’s a hybrid of the first two. It seems to cover basicalyl what I said, but the northern boundry in now Canada, not Lake George. This, my friends, is not upstate…it is The North Country, and it is aptly named, cause it’s…well…North.
Now, once one gets up past Lake George, the politcal climate chagnes drastically to a much more conservative agenda. The majority of people live in small towns of a few thousand. Now, I myself, having live in “real” upsate for four years and here in the North Country for almsot one have noticed a huge difference. I probably have seen confederate flag stuickers, but I don’t really notice them. I will be on the look out for them and report my findings. I have not, however, witnessed any more racism here than any other place I have lived. I meet the occaisional person who makes a random comment about “them people” (insert non-white race of choice for “them people”, but most people could care less what race you are.
Sexual orientation, on the other hand…well, let’s just say I feel sorry for anyone who grew up here and/or livse here and is gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenered/etc…
I know that you think that the distinction is irrelevant. Part of the point that I have been trying to make is that the distinction is enormously relevant. We don’t live in the Old South and we don’t know anyone who did.
I know there are pockets of prejudice, but it is not a way of life here anymore. For some reason, it seems important to you to believe that it is.
I can speak only about what I have seen around me and how it has changed for six decades. I’ve never lived anywhere but Tennessee although I’ve travelled in the North quite a bit. My work was in African-American neighborhoods, but I know that my viewpoint is still limited. Despite twenty years in that neighborhood, I wouldn’t dream of considering myself an authority on that community. So how can you claim to understand the South?
Look at boofuu’s comment again: "The bigger question is how will we make sure that cases like the subject of OP do not happen again."
I don’t think we find solutions by continuing to hang albatrosses around anyone’s necks. We find out where the problems are and do something about them.
I think that problems with racism that remain in both the North and the South are related to the fact that most African-American ancestors were brought here as slaves.
Do you think that the Civil War was not about economic issues? Do you think that slavery was not an economic issue? Have I expressed an attitude about the causes of the war that has irked you? Just curious. (I’m not a historian and just gave my opinion.)
I haven’t mentioned racism in California. I’ve never been there and I don’t know enough about the state to pass judgment. So I think it’s reasonable to wonder why people are so quick to assume that these pockets of prejudice reflect reality. After all, it was rare enough that it did make the newspaper!
What it reminds me of are some people who live in the Middle East who see movies set in New York or Hollywood and think that all of America is like that. I wish just once I could see a program on television about Nashville or Tennessee or the South without a fiddle or a banjo playing music in the background.
Please reread my own comments about the Civil War and the Confederate Battle flag. If you think you are sickened by it, please remember that I am reviled by symbols of an area of the country that is as dear to my heart as anyone’s home is. I hope you understand what I am saying.
Are you saying that things like this don’t happen in the North? Have I denied at any point that there are still problems with racial prejudice in the South? Have I defended any acts of racism?
Notice that your brush is loaded with the paint of the words “otherwise reasonable.” You leave no room for the possibility that Southerners who protest being portrayed as moral degenerates might be right about the South and you might be wrong.
No, when you talk about the South and Southerners, that’s us. This portrayal has gone on for a long, long time and for much of that time it was deserved by a majority of the population.
The stereotype of Southerners has done much more damage and is much more engrained into the psyche. (You wouldn’t believe how often I run across comments at SDMB that perpetuate one of many myths.)
But I try not to stereotype too much and I don’t mind being corrected when I do.
[quote]
(originally posted by Zoe):
I won’t argue with you about the reasons for the war. Slavery was part of it. But you know how men are about fighting for their side whatever the reason is… Most of the men who fought did not own slaves. They weren’t going into battle with the single thought of “Keep the slaves!” They went because that’s where the war was and that’s where their brothers and friends were and someone was attacking or someone was saying they couldn’t do this or that. They were “protecting their way of life.” Isn’t that what it always is?
I agree.
Consider that friendships have been established between former enemies during the Vietnam War. It really doesn’t take long and forgiveness becomes part of the healing.
I don’t know how typical my grandfather’s experience was, but I know that the wildest of his brothers also experienced great regret.
I grew up without any feelings of resentment in my family. I was very surprised in the fifth grade when my teacher seemed to have a little bit of a grudge. I knew that no decent person could approve of slavery, so I asked her, “Are you glad that the South lost the ‘Silver War’?” That woman screamed at me something fierce that she was NOT glad that the South had lost. Her answer and the tone of her voice frightened me enough that I’ve remembered it for half a century. And I still don’t understand her or why I made her angry.
Maybe that could be just the residual English teacher coming out in me. (Quiz on Friday.) Or maybe I wondered why you didn’t take Snuffy at his word about his own experiences. And monstro’s a grown woman who lives in the South. I would give quite a bit of weight to her opinion. (But then, I do that anyway.) And boofuu’s post is a keeper. I learned something new from it. It confirmed something I should have known.
Max, thanks for keeping this on a comfortable level. That is much appreciated.
I grew up in the Capital District.
Well, as to racial prejudice among other groups, I know this from observation and some discussion.
the Phillipinos* (some anyway) at work, have a real down on the Hispanics at work. I have seen 2-3 Phillipine nurses literally yell that they are NOT! if they are mistaken for Mexican or PR.
I don’t understand it myself, but am told by some of the Mexicans that the Philipinos do not like Latino people. I, myself, get mildy irked if mistaken for Dutch–it’s all so crazy/ We are all Americansx-what difference does it make?
No proof, no cite–just some anecdotes as requested.
*using shorthand instead of “people of Phillipine/Mexican descent” etc
As for the green beans–some of us don’t like mush. I see no value in turning a veggie into wallpaper paste prior to ingesting it. Green beans up here are NOT “crunchy”–they retain their cellulose structure (along with their vitamins and fiber), unlike those down south.
One thing (and this is OT, sorry) that gets me about the whole “South” thing is the inherent condescension and arrogance pevalent there. Do they think that “family” only matters there? That property and wealth and legacy are only meangingful if wrapped in humidity and Spanish moss? Do they think they are the only ones with some sort of tragic, viable history or heritage? You can’t travel in the South but trip over this attitude.
Certainly a connected family etc is something to be proud of–no argument there. It’s the idea that stuff like that can only occur (a sort of genealogical provincialism) below the Mason-Dixon Line that bugs me. I am sure that not only the South suffers from this–but I have had experience with its cultural mypoia most. I have also spent some time in New England and I live in the Midwest–they(and we) can also have a provincial outlook, but it lacks the insufferableness of the southern “charm”.
[/rant over]