Not true:
To an Englishman what comes across very clearly in all threads on this and related topics is the palpable sense of smug superiority evinced by Northerners towards Southerners. Were I a Southerner that would make me pretty damn mad too.
That is a curious notion.
John Phillips Sousa wrote The Stars and Stripes Forever in 1896.
Sample lyrics:
*Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom’s nation.
…
Let eagle shriek from lofty peak
The never-ending watchword of our land;
Let summer breeze waft through the trees
The echo of the chorus grand.
Sing out for liberty and light,
Sing out for freedom and the right.*
Sure sounds ostentatiously patriotic to me.
Right. The POV among the Southern Establishment was that they were trying to righteously preserve the America as the founders “really” meant it to be (including Slavery), and the North was dangerously subverting it. It has been a consistent theme historically. And mind you, the central power structure proceeded to pretty much forget about following up, and allowed the South to continue a segregated society for almost another century before retaking the issue of dragging the South kicking and screaming into the “new” values.
Sorry for the hijack. Still astonished by the notion that patriotic displays are a 20th century invention.
As adaher indicates, modern-style patriotic displays involve continual and public showing of flags and other patriotic symbols, like the Gulf War car ribbons that were ubiquitous in 2004. None of that is unique to the South, but that’s been true throughout history.
Were public displays of flags on a daily basis part of 19th or early 20th century culture? No. You would not have gone down a residential street and seen each house flying a flag every day. You would not have seen flags on every carriage or stamped on every saddle. The flag and American symbolism, like Columbia (the equivalent of France’s Marianne), were widespread, but except for public days of celebration, were found almost exclusively indoors in homes. This is an actual change in the culture and needs explaining.
One clue can be found in Flag Day. After years of suggestions, Wilson finally proclaimed an official Flag Day in 1916. What makes the timing interesting is that it’s twofold. Obviously, it was a response to the war in Europe, one that emphasized America as a separate nation not caught up in the Old World’s wars. Less obviously, it was a response to internal divisions, the relentless assault on a smug system by socialists, Wobblies, and others who would soon be assaulted back and often jailed during and after the war.
We forget how profoundly isolationist America turned after 1920. The Immigration Act of 1924 virtually stopped immigration of the lower classes who were thought to be fueling the anti-Capitalist rage. The Depression cut ties further.
WWII changed everything. America became the dominant nation, certainly, and the world’s policeman. But a new strain of protest rose against American militarism. The public displays of constant flag-waving I feel started in the 1960s as an internal response, not just in the South but as a more general and often class-fueled gesture against antiwar protestors. Vietnam eventually lost any connotation that it was a good and just war worth supporting the way WWII was. With the two Gulf Wars, against a specific and easily-villified enemy, the symbols rose again.
Patriotism changes with time, and especially changes depending upon who the Other is. Modern-style patriotism is not like earlier versions. The world is too different, and America is too different.
Southerners do try to defend and even glorify a war started for the most odious of reasons, while still visibly oppressing people they victimized for 150 years. That can raise a few hackles. It’s nice to know how unfamiliar a feeling this is in England, though. I assume it must mean that no such superiority exists any longer in England against, say, the people of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. 
I think you’re not quite right - in “northerners against southerners.” I consider myself a southerner.
It’s ________ (unionists?) against confederate apologists. Sure, there are some smug people. If I’ve been smug, I apologize. It’s easier to see in others than in myself.
But I think it’s important to realize that ‘southerners’ is not the same group as ‘people who still think secession was legal even though there’s ample evidence against it.’
And the same for ‘northerners.’
I ask you to reconsider your labels. Sarah Palin would probably be much more likely to defend ‘state’s rights’ than me, and she’s from Alaska.
Yes, exactly right. That crap started up before the echoes of the last shots fired in the war they started had died. Nobody wants to believe he fought for a bad cause.
I will not conjecture what, specifically, may motivate modern confederate apologists.
Also militarization picks up after Nat Turner’s revolt. Military academies, paramilitary forces in the beat system. It’s a bit like Sparta: problems with controlling slaves leads to a lot of attention to armed force.
Well you know, bup, as DrDeth pointed out, people do love to feel superior.
At risk of upsetting or confusing you and your supporters:
Though not directed toward me, your last post clarified the original comment I took exception to. Refined to the perspective put forth here, I better understand your position.
You could have made that clear. I asked politely. Your behavior after that was baffling and counterproductive.
Conversely, I was matter of fact, and I found your reaction equally perplexing.
Perhaps I was unclear…Perhaps you were too sensitive…
Is this REALLY necessary?
For clarity.
If perhaps I was unclear in my original posts… Perhaps you were too sensitive in your reactions.
Either way, it’s really not worth getting into a snit over, yes?
There aren’t two sides to this. Everybody who commented found your response unclear and your refusal to clarify insulting. You should be apologizing, not wanting to be applauded for trying to save face by bizarrely insisting we were both wrong. Sorry if you see being corrected as a snit; it’s a matter of fact.
QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase;18282313]There aren’t two sides to this. Everybody who commented found your response unclear and your refusal to clarify insulting. You should be apologizing, not wanting to be applauded for trying to save face by bizarrely insisting we were both wrong. Sorry if you see being corrected as a snit; it’s a matter of fact.
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing bizarre here on my behalf, but if you wish to characterize this as an epic battle of right and wrong, you’re out of luck. As stated earlier, I understand your point. Nothing more, nothing less. How one can find contention in this, is beyond me.
Despite what you and “everybody” else who “commented” think, I’m not seeking applause, but I’ll damn sure not apologize for what I’ve said.
The “matter of fact” is, we were both wrong: You for making an ambiguous statement, I for not being clear in my reply… If that is the “snit” you are so hung up on correcting. Get over it.
Maybe you two can take this personal debate to the PIT?
That will not be necessary.
Exapno, you might want to hold off on declaring yourself victorious…or even correct.
Your original post seemed to suggest that patriotic displays were not a thing until after World War II. I have provided you with numerous images which show that patriotic displays were a common thing in the 19th Century.
US patriotism surged in the aftermath of the War of 1812 (which gave us both the Star Spangled Banner and the figure of Uncle Sam) and remained a part of American life thereafter.
Your later comments seem to be backtracking, trying to limit your definition of “modern displays of patriotism” to flag decals on your bumper and the like. Well, yeah, thus limited, I guess we have to concede that no one had flag decals on their bumpers in the 19th century.