Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who is MS is more likely to have a rebel flag on their truck?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:36 AM
Original message
Who is MS is more likely to have a rebel flag on their truck?
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:57 AM by terrell9584
A. Union member shipyard worker in Pascagoula who listens to nothing but country music, goes out to honky tonks on weekends and who has several ex-wifes. Considers himself a Democrat

B. Soccer mom in an upper-middle class neighborhood in Rankin County (suburbs of Jackson). Listens to Michael Buble. Calls herself an Independent but votes Republican most of the time.

C. Fundamentalist revival preacher in Wiggins. Listens to only Christian radio. Is on the state Republican committee?


The answer to that one is A. I bring this up to bring up a point about some of the stuff I've seen about the South and I want to dymystify to you why the Lost Cause is such a big deal for Southerners and why it does not work for our cause to try and criticize things that actually fall within the politically correct domain in the Southern view.


I'll give you a hint. It's not about the war. The war is ancillary. Yes, most Southern boys if they got a civil war video game will choose the gray over the blue but there is something more important. It all goes back to Reconstruction. If Reconstruction had gone smoothly there never would have been any traction for the lost cause philosophy in the South.


What causes the Lost Cause philosophy to be so strong is because when the Union soldiers marched through the South they destroyed fields, raped women and in general abused the general population. The "total war" was then followed up by Reconstruction where Northerners came to the South and divided the population against each other for political control, looted virtually every government in the region causing almost all to file some form of bankruptcy between 1870 and 1890, anatagonized and harassed the population and allowed for what was essentially a 10 year period where the South was a wild west situation where you could get shot for looking at a person the wrong way.


Almost no child outside of the South learns that General Ben Butler ordered that all women of New Orleans were to be regarded as prostitutes and treated as such. Most Southern kids do when they're old enough. Of course, it was not so much Reconstruction even as what it did.


Reconstruction prevented any major agricultural recovery in the region and also made it so no Southern government would have enough financial solvency or willingness to address their problems. Because Reconstruction was a destructive process and because the North took absolutely no interest in helping the Southerners struggling from the problems they created after the war this lead many previously independent yeoman farmers into the arms of sharecropping and abusive company towns. They knew who was to blame for it and that's why they all adopted the Lost Cause as their rallying cry because in their mind the war and Reconstruction is what brought their family into poverty and it was compounded by the fact that the Southern political tactic of the time was to blame ALL of the regions ills on Northern malevolence.


Southern identification with the Democratic Party was solely based on identity politics and nothing else and remained that way from the mid 1870s to the 1940s, with a brief break during the Populist revolts of the 1890s. The first wave of Republicans in the South were almost all from the anti-Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party, the people who backed Thurmond over Truman at the state party meetings in '48. That's who supported the Republican Party in the South before the 1990s. From the period of 1968-1994 class identification was the main determinant of whether a white voter was Dem or Rep. After 1994, it settled back into the pattern of white voters having a partisan affiliation because of identity politics and not idealogy.


Now, despite how it may look to the national media, things like Confederate Heritage Month declarations are routine in the South. Both Democratic and Republican governors do it. The last Democratic governor of South Carolina actually owes his election to his Republican opponent's advocation of taking down the flag from the capitol and he himself lost his job for the same reason.


For Southerners, it's not about the war or anything to do with the war. It is about what happened after the war and the fact that the United States government has never apologized to Southerners for what they did in Reconstruction and the crimes committed during the war, or for the desolation & poverty Southerners had to deal with in the aftermath, because they feel as if they were left to drift by their countrymen for years and years without any respect, because they always see themselves portrayed in the media only as ignorant hicks or eccentric society people and because you almost never hear a Southern accent on a media program unless its a politician or a local Southern program, as if somehow having one makes you less intelligent or whatever.


Until those greviances I mentioned above are addressed and redressed Southern whites will never give up their historical symbols and will react hostilely towards anyone who suggests they that they should or that somehow their ancestors or their cause were wrong. And truthfully, it hurts our side more than it hurts the GOP because this is one great issue with which they use to lure voters that by all rights should be ours into the GOP column.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. you pretend that these yahoos actually know their history...
they are pissed because there is a black president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I am from Biloxi
And am the son of a Biloxi shipyard worker who was in a union. I grew up with this so I think I know something about it. (And yes, my father was one of those union workers who had a heritage not hate bumper sticker on his truck. He also overcame real reservations and pulled the lever for Obama in November)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. so he wants his reparations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. What reparations?
Southerners simply want to stop being regarded as the equivalent of second class citizens in their own goddamned country. And if you don't think Southerners are just take a look back at everything that has been said in this debate. Several anti-Southerner comments have already been made, comments that would be unacceptable if similar comments had been about blacks or Hispanics but which are just fine when talking about Southern whites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. But these same southerners can't see how they are currently being taken advantage of...
by the republican party

they cry about the past but refuse to deal with the present
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. They are being taken advantage of
But they aren't having their culture ridiculed, they aren't being implicitly thought of as lessers.


If someone ridiculed you and your culture all the time would you rush out to support them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. They are just having rights taken and being driven deeper into poverty...
and being conned to fight against their own best interest

when you fight for yourselves you might earn some respect back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. That's a great tactic
Try and focus the debate back on the point I just rebutted so you don't have to address my rebuttal but I'll bring it back up.


Why is it that the expectation is that Southerners should simply vote their economic interests and just accept that comes with having their culture degraded and voting against certain values of theirs but that no other group is asked to do the same?


That's not what Roosevelt's coalition was all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #48
66. The repukes lie to your face...
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:49 AM by lame54
How much more disrespectful can you be than that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
64. Who is ridiculing the south?
What the hell are you talking about?

I too am a southerner and I have never considered myself a second class citizen nor do I feel as if the rest of the states treat the south in such a way.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I think you are the one with issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. I don't regard anyone as a second class citizen.
I just reject this phony pride. You're celebrating attacking and killing US soldiers, and I find it utterly revolting. The deeds of the past are over. My family filled the earth with fallen sons and got over it. Time for yours to do the same.


Here is a clue - I grew up down south. I like the culture, though not the climate. What I can't stand is this constant whining over the war. I live now in New London, Connecticut, a city that was burned to the ground by the British in 1781. Across the river during the same action the Battle of Groton Heights occurred with Fort Griswold taken after a hard fight and the Garrison massacred after they surrendered.


We don't constantly complain and act bitter against the British. We got over it. So should you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. You pretend you know something about the South.
The OP's post was dead-on-accurate.

It's not about the war or slavery or any of that. It's about Southern identification and how we Southerners are treated as the red-headed step-child to the rest of the country for something our ancestors did before most of us were even born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. If the red headed step child would stop fighting against his own best interest...
He might earn respect

I now live in the south but feel I have no decent representation because the people of this state keep electing bigots and theives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. Well, if the red-headed step-child were given some educational tools -
like talk radio that plays something other than far right-wing talking points or newspapers not owned by far-right ideologues - then the child might learn they were voting against their best interest.

Having Northern and Coastal democrats calling all of the South "idiots" or "dumb" doesn't help. Education does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. If the red -headed boy would stop voting republican...
he wouldn't have his social program - including education - stripped from him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. I know this and you know this, but Mr. & Mrs. Red-Head with
their three children, two or three jobs, a house to run, dinners to make and lack of access to any news other than the far-right side don't know this. They simply don't have time to go searching for the countering opinion (hell, many times they don't even realize that 99 percent of their "news" IS opinion, not fact).

And I wasn't speaking of education in the schools - I was speaking more toward adult education. Mr. & Mrs. Read-Head aren't given anything but one viewpoint - how can they learn?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. that's bullshit...
they have access to multiple opinions

they seek out the ones that feed their beliefs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. Mississippi legislature and most Mississippi sheriffs offices
Are still run by Democrats and 2 out of our 3 white Congressmen are Democrats. Want to know why? Because Mississippi Democrats don't go running around the state screaming "treason" and talking about "hicks" and "rednecks."


Have you ever considered that if Southerners had national candidates that did not immediately use the South as a whipping boy as often as they do that Southerners wouldn't vote for Republican presidents as often as they do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. a whipping boy like California?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. Not all of California gets "whipped."
Just San Fran and Hollywood.

That said, the propensity of Southern candidates to do "whip up on" San Fran and Hollywood is a direct corollary of the treatment Hollywood, specifically, has always given the South (Deliverance, The Beverly Hillbillies, etc.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
65. who are your quotes by?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. What quotes?
If you're talking about the representation thats an empirical fact.

Mississippi has 3 white congressmen. 2 of them are Democrats. Those two are Travis Childers and Gene Taylor. Combined with black Democrat Thompson this means that Mississippi has a 75% Democratic congressional representation, highest rate in the South outside of Arkansas and technically higher than West Virginia.


Mississippi House is 61% Dem, Mississippi Senate 52% Dem.


The majority of rural Mississippi sheriffs are Democrats though I can't pull up the exact statistics at this moment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. "treason", "hicks" and "rednecks"...
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:54 AM by lame54
who are you attributing those to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. Well, let's think
I've seen the "treason" line brought directly in the course of this discussion and I've seen the "hick" and "redneck" thing implied in a covert manner in many of the anti-Southern responses in this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Ok?...
you were saying that democratic candidates were saying these things - but now it's just DU'ers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. Well, if we go back to 2004
When Howard Dean made his ill-advised but at least cognizant remarks about the situation he was immediately jumped upon by many people in the field, with Gephardt even saying that he wanted the "voters with the American flags on their trucks" implying that the ones with the other one weren't welcome in his tent.


Or the television coverage on election night 2008 that kept throwing around the term "Confederacy" on a major network.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. first of all - Dean said he wanted to work WITH them...
secondly he apologized for the remark

as far as confederacy - there you go again with a generalization using quotes not attributed to anybody specific
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #72
84. The Treason line is factual. It is recorded history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
91. Gene Taylor and Travis Childers are far far to the right of the national party
And while they certainly don't talk about treason, hicks, and rednecks, they also vote against abortion and gay rights and against anything that the right wing deems as "big government intrusion". So it's disingenuous to suggest that Democrats could win in the south with only rhetorical changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #91
108. But they tend to vote Democratic on economic issues
Gene Taylor has been one of the leading lights in Congress on trade issues and he has a record that is within the traditional vein of Mississippi populism. Thats why he continues to get elected with the margins he does.


There is a lot of populism in the South. There's not a lot of social liberalism. I personally will take Gene Taylor over a corporate owned socially liberal DLC'er anyday.


That's the real reason that working class Southerners left the national party. The middle class and wealthy ones left in the 60s. The working class stayed Dem and elected Jimmy Carter in 1976. They left because of the cultural wars and because the national political dialogue shifted away from economic issues and on to social issues.


You'll never get a white Congressman elected in Mississippi who is for gay rights, abortion and gun control. However, you could get plenty elected who are for protecting America in trade, for programs to help the middle class and poor and for expansion of the federal flood insurance program (Taylor's key issue post Katrina). Southerners don't like social liberalism. They do like government programs and spending they can benefit from.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. Taylor isn't anywhere near the traditional southern populism of say Huey Long or even Jimmy Carter
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 02:46 PM by Hippo_Tron
Taylor votes for SOME economic protectionism (when it benefits his district specifically) and did stand up for his constituents in the wake of Katrina (unlike the Republicans who just kissed Bush's ass). But he frequently votes against the expansion of social welfare programs (including health care reform) which would probably benefit many of his constituents. Again, it's not his fault, but his constituents are misled into believing that social welfare programs are just a way to take their hard earned money and give it to lazy people who don't want to work for a living.

And again you were arguing that the reason the south won't vote for Democrats nationally is because liberals look down on the south yet you just admitted that southerners will never agree with the party on abortion and gay rights. That's a problem for me as a woman's right to choose and gay rights are important issues and I don't want the national party to give up on them so they can win the votes of southerners or socially conservative people anywhere in the country for that matter.

Liberals can be as tolerant of the south as the next guy and it still won't make a whole lot of difference. Southerners are mostly conservative and they are going to vote for conservatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. If he had voted for that health bill he would have been defeated
I'm from Biloxi. Let me tell you a little something here. We absolutely hate insurance companies. Now, we don't begrudge the agents for doing their jobs. We do begrudge the companies himself who welched out on hundreds of thousands of policies in the 3 coastal counties.


If Gene Taylor had voted for that bill an ad would have gone up saying "Gene Taylor says he stands up to insurance companies but yesterday he voted for a bill that would force you to buy insurance or pay a fine or go to jail." The result would have been that he could have very well drawn a viable opponent who would have beat him over the head with it.

And I oppose that bill too as do more rank-and-file Democrats than you realize. We're supposed to be the party that fights corporations, not the party that gives them captive markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
118. I'm sure he would have
But I highly doubt the residents of Biloxi would've supported single payer or a strong public option as I didn't see Gene Taylor speaking up for these things. I'm from New Orleans so I'm familiar with Gulf Coast politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iris27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #108
121. "corporate owned socially liberal DLC'er"
If my choice is between someone like this and someone like Nelson or Stupak, I'll pick the former every time. When you are one (or two) of those disdained classes, it matters little that someone has a (D) behind their name and *might* be a reliable vote on expanding SCHIP, when they see you as less than human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #108
123. Gene Taylor is a corporate owned DLCer
actually, he is a military industrial complex bought and paid for DLCer.

The only progressive thing he has ever championed would be the insurance reform efforts he has put forth since Katrina.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. And that itself is IMO enough to vote for him over his Republican alternative given the district
But I agree that trying to claim Gene Taylor is really a populist is ridiculous. He votes for something that's economically "populist" when it specifically benefits some interest in his district. Otherwise he's a conservative on basically everything and so are his constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. The only reason I ever vote for Taylor is because he is just
a step above those who challenge him.

He has never supported Obama or any of the policies of Obama, he has actually opposed many things Obama has tried to put forth.

That is why the Obama admin has not asked him to recommend a US Attorney replacement for this district and/or any candidates to fill the vacant federal judge positions we have in the area.

Had Taylor had any desire to make a difference he would have seized on the issues involved in the health care debate and used it to further his insurance reform efforts. He would have fought for the complete repeal of the anti-trust exemptions all insurance corps enjoy. But Taylor buckled, he didn't want to be supportive of the HCR and he gave the repuke governor the words he has used to smear Obama and the HCR legislation as passed.

For the OP to consider Taylor to be anything more than a DLCer, one very small step away from being a repuke is just disingenuous and evident that he is truly uniformed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
107. It's a two way street
How's about yous guys stop making snide remarks about us NYers and North Eastern folks in general. Perhaps we are sick of hearing "Massachusetts Liberal" and "New York Jew" all the damn time from Southern Folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #107
126. for the record
not all southerners think the way the OP thinks or believes his version of history

and we don't use the descriptors you complain of in your post.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:22 AM
Original message
Well as a fellow Southerner....
The poor treatment accorded Southerners might have a little bit to with more recent history. Like the brutality, beatings and murders committed by Southern Whites of the Civil Rights Era. Like the fact that Medgar Evers, JFK and MLK were all assassinated in the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
45. That's still not all that recent.
And racism, of course, isn't relegated to the states below the Mason-Dixon line, either.

I'm a Southern liberal, FWIW, but I did grow up here and know how many of my conservative counterpoints feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
56. So why don't we treat Bostonians poorly?
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:41 AM by terrell9584
For throwing rocks at school buses in 1975?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
113. These Bostonians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. The USA does not have to apologize to traitors.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:46 AM by NutmegYankee
No one alive today fought in the civil war. Imagine how my ancestors felt burying sons killed fighting to preserve the union.

That said, the war is over and done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. And when a Southern white sees that attitude
All it makes them want to do is raise that rebel flag higher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. And this Proud American presumes they hate their country when that happens.
Supporting treason against your country is not loving your country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Which makes for wonderful comedy
actually.

Nothing like an ignorant asshole puffing up his chest for a good laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
77. That Southern white is an asshole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
97. Well, fuck those traitorous infants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
116. No, when a Southern white who is obsessed about the Confederacy sees that ...
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 02:57 PM by TexasObserver
Stop pretending that most white Southerners give a rat's ass about the Confederacy. The people who care about the Confederacy are mainly the ones who are still pissed about losing, about slaves being freed, and about blacks competing with them for jobs or even places on sports teams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
117. As excuse #5,000 for flying that rebel flag. That person doesn't listen to reason,
common decency or anything else. They just look for yet another excuse. Fuck 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. OK, Reconstruction..., except for one glaring omission...
If there had never been the War, which the South started, there never would have been a need for Reconstruction. And frankly there is no need for the United States government to apologize to the South, since once again, if the South hadn't started the War, then all these "crimes" would have never occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Just because there was a war
It didn't given the North the right to send the carpetbaggers down here, loot all of the governments and then flee back up North when the gettin' was good and leaving all the places they looted to deal with all the shit. Much of what went wrong in the South was due to the fact that Reconstruction was a sustained period of urban violence and warfare and that for well after Reconstruction the only true public order in the region was carried out by armed bands of citizens because Southern governments could carry out no public function but the collection of taxes to pay their war debts, which they of course were required to pay back in full.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Sure it did.
The South started the war with an act of treason.

The North finished the war by making it a total war.

To the victors go the spoils.

The South was unilaterally traitorous. IMO, they didn't pay enough for THEIR CRIME OF TREASON.

Hanging was too good for most of the leaders of that treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. So that means that?
Hitler had a right to loot the treasuries of Czechslovakia, France and the occupied areas of the Balkans? They did lose the war to him after all.


Would we have had that same right to loot West Germany into bankruptcy after the war? After all, we are the conquering party.


Should we have done the same to Iraq? Your argument is might made right. So does it apply to all situations or only the ones you want it to apply to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. Do you see a lot of swastika flags flying on gov. buildings in Germany these days?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
79. Hitler lost
And you need to check your history. The U.S. soldiers looted the hell out of Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. So it's right when you win?
I just want to make clear when looting is ok.


And the looting of Germany was by U.S. soldiers themselves. It was never encouraged by the high command and we also didn't send an occupation government into West Germany that bankrupted the country and then left it to fend for itself after all the economic value could be stripped from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #82
92. Yes.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 01:06 PM by WeDidIt
The winners make the rules.

Always have, always will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Bullshit.
During reconstruction the south was under military control. Public order was carried out by men in blue. Those noble bands of armed citizens were the fucking KKK - and we KNOW what their agenda was. To kill collaborators and niggers and maintain the supremacy of the white christian men.

Your trope is taken straight from the script of "Birth of a Nation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Brooks-Baxter War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%E2%80%93Baxter_War

The Brooks–Baxter War was an armed conflict in Little Rock, Arkansas, in the United States, in 1874 between factions of the Republican Party over the disputed 1872 election for governor. It came at the end of a long and often violent struggle between opportunistic natives, known as scalawags, and nonnatives, called carpetbaggers, over power in the state government following the Civil War



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
47. From the Wiki you referenced.
When newly elected Congressmen James Hinds and Rev. Brooks were ambushed by gunmen while riding near the White River, Brooks was severely wounded and Hinds was killed. The murder created national horror. Clayton blamed the Ku Klux Klan for the assassination, but no one was ever punished.<2> As more violence spread throughout the state, Clayton declared martial law in 14 counties.<5> Many Democratic newspapers denied the existence of the secretive Ku Klux Klan, but twentieth-century research shows the organization was responsible for most of the violence.

The scalawags joined up with the other ex-confederates to try to retake the government from the republicans and the newly enfranchised blacks. And they succeeded, ushering in 90 years of Jim Crow, and government of the Klan, by the Klan and for the Klan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. Government by the klan? Really?
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:39 AM by terrell9584
You don't know shit about history then. That incident I brought up was only a well-documented incident because it involved urban warfare in the city. Read any scholarly book on Reconstruction. The military had some semblance of control in the city but the countryside was all out warfare throughout the period and there are stories of where people would go armed to vote because they never knew if someone would kill them on the way. People got killed over elections throughout the period.


And you don't know shit about the Klan either. The Klan had largely died out by late 1871. There were other paramilitary organizations at the time but they weren't the Klan.


And you also don't know shit about the Klan because you don't realize that Klan history is broken up into eras. The Reconstruction Klan is the 1st Era Klan that was started as a social fraternity and soon coopted into a paramilitary organization because of the secrecy it provided. The 2nd era Klan is the one started by Simmons and it wasn't started until Simmons brought it into existence.


And one thing that is also forgotten is that one reason so many people went into the paramilitaries is because there werent really employment options. The farms were fallow. The natives who had not been unionists were systematically excluded from the better part of economic opportunity except when the Democrats were in power. However, by joining a professional paramilitary or a volunteer rifle club many could be assured that some powerful financial backer of the club would make sure their property taxes got paid for the year and that they could keep the land they lived on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
85. A Klan by any other name... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. Let me tell you something...
I wasn't born in Texas, but I've lived here for 47 years, so I consider myself a Texan. And as far as I'm concerned the ENTIRE SOUTH, including TEXAS was utterly wrong in the CW. And, IMO, Southerners got off lightly. How many of the Southern government officials and Generals were tried and executed as Traitors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
35. Just because there was a war??? So, those traitors were to be
welcomed back into the fold as if nothing happened? We're just supposed to forget that millions of people died because of their actions?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #35
53. Its what Lincoln was gonna do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
98. At the time I imagine they wanted the war to end in 1865 and not 1896 or something
There was concern of a long-term guerilla war, and that certainly colored the (relatively) light hand on the Confederacy's leadership at the end of the war. Remember, that's one of the first total, industrialized wars in history, and it lasted a pretty long time; Washington was exhausted by it. The Union could have ramped up treason trials, executions, and so on and so forth, but the remains of the Confederate army could also have spent a generation as partisans in response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #98
104. You're exactly right. There was much discussion of exactly how to
handle the aftermath. They tried, really tried, to find some sort of reasonable balance. They knew that if too little pressure was put on the South then they might indeed rise up again, knowing that nothing would happen to their military leadership. On the other hand, trials and executions just might inflame the masses even more, with the resultant guerilla warfare of which you speak.

In the end there was some guerilla warfare but not on the large scale that might have occurred otherwise. And, also in the end, the South still claimed victimhood. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
89. From what I remember from history class, those "armed bands of citizens" were the KKK...
and other white supremacist groups whose sole purpose was to terrorize black citizens, Union troops and Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. Where I grew up it was likely some dude whose family heritage was north of
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:52 AM by izzybeans
the Mason Dixon line. I typically asked them if their great-grandfathers would have shot them on sight or just turned them over to Union soldiers as traitors to their country.

There was nothing like some dweeb from Indiana wearing the southern swastika. I have no patience for these ignorant assholes. There is nothing the union soldiers could have done that erases the brutality of the slave economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think the whole thing is about a black man taking a "white man's job"....
... the Presidency. Not only that, but Pres. Obama is one of those well-educated, well-spoken blacks that really riles the rednecks.

I don't believe that a majority of southern whites will ever forgive or forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. "it hurts our side more than it hurts the GOP"
Maybe you need to figure out which side is "our side".

You lost. Get the fuck over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Democratic Party
There are many poor white voters who are naturally on our side but this is one of the issue the GOP uses to drive them away from us. Barbour beat Musgrove solely because of the flag issue. All of his radio ads consisted solely of talking about the flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
15. Right. And the war wasn't really about slavery, either.
:sarcasm:

As someone who grew up in the South, I'm heartily sick of all the excuses. Bottom line is that if they hadn't committed treason and actually caused the war that killed MILLIONS of people, there wouldn't have BEEN a reconstruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Best response in the thread
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. Lemme guess.
You're also for the United States military to go into Iraq, carve up the regions based on oil reserves, loot the natural resources and then leave the people high and dry?

Oh... you're not?

Reconstruction was the same thing. Winners may get the spoils, but there also should be common decency when dealing with the effects the losers must suffer - but I guess you think laws allowing carpetbaggers to rape women and children were A-OK.

And the war was SOMEWHAT about slavery - it was one of the main issues behind state's rights. Don't try the "either this or that" bullshit with a fellow Southerner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. Actually, the folks who believe the war was fought for reasons other than slavery
also think the Iraq invasion was justified. All my right wing relatives in the south firmly believe that the Civil War was about states' rights and they also believe the Iraq War was because Iraq had WMD. Southerners bought the states' rights BS hook, line and sinker. That's what their leaders told them, from the state houses and from the pulpit. Their politicians told them Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and their ministers echoed it and "prayed" about it.

I'm sorry you still buy the states' rights bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
61. I'm sorry you can't open your mind long enough to realize
it wasn't all about slavery.

Here's something simply put:

Most of the men who fought in the Civil War on the South were too poor to own slaves. Do you really think they were fighting for Mr. Richy Rich to own slaves? No. They were fighting for a cause they believed in - state's rights.

Now, there's a legitimate argument that can be made that the ruling elite in the South came up with the state's rights issues to lure in the poor as cannon fodder, but, these poor weren't fighting for slavery (or didn't believe they were) - they, in their minds, were fighting for state's rights.

FWIW, I don't think the Iraqi War was justified - and you totally missed my point. The point is that the US military cannot go into Iraq or Afghanistan LEGALLY and tear it apart and leave it for the native people to clean up. It's banned under the Geneva Convention. The North should have given similar consideration to the Southern people after their side surrendered (yes, I realize Geneva wasn't around, but it's cause makes good sense).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. No, they were fighting because a bunch of RICH white men
Conned a bunch of POOR white men into fighting their war for them with a bunch of fancy rhetoric. Same shit, different verse as is going on today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. That's exactly what happened. And it IS still going on today. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #61
76. I have met many people in my life
Who are definitely on the left of the political spectrum, for gay marriage, supportive of Roe, basically holding every liberal social position who also believe that the war was about states rights and the flag is a symbol of heritage not hate.


It's not just the right wing whackos who have rallied around the flag or other symbols of Southern identity in Mississippi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. Heritage of what?
Whether you like it or not, the war started because the south attacked a federal fort (which was federal property and did not belong to the subject state). It was the very definition of Article III section 3 of the US Constitution. My family buried sons over this war. I can go visit their graves. You act like the south was the only victim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
100. All Mississippians had to do was read their own declaration of secession:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* ; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
90. But...but...but slavery had NOTHING to do with it! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
93. The Mississippi Declaration of Secession:
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 01:16 PM by DevonRex
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

But it had nothing to do with slavery. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
16. Sensitive bastards for a bunch of manly men, aren't we?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
25. Good post, and I mostly agree with your analysis.
As someone who was born in the South and now lives in the North, I wish people would at least make an attempt to understand why these attitudes exist, as opposed to just dismissing it with hysterical cries of treason (especially if it's in all caps and bolded!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Hysterical cries of treason??? What part of attacking the United States
do you not understand? That IS treason. I'm from the South and I don't make any excuses for what they did. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. What does screaming "treason" accomplish?
It's clear that people from the north don't get the fascination with the Civil War in the south, so the OP was simply attempting to explain it, and the response has been nothing more than putting ones hands over their ears and saying "Lalalala TREASON lalalala."

I despise the confederate flag and everything it represents, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the motivations behind those who fly it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. I live here now and was born here and I'm not excusing the South's
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:23 AM by Kalyke
role in the Civil War, either.

However:

A. I'm betting a dime you don't know anyone alive now who even fought in the war or was a slave during that time.
B. Yes, the South committed treason - 150 years ago - but avoiding the inappropriate treatment of the losers of war is why we now have the Geneva Conventions. The OP's point is that, had there been something akin to the Geneva Convention in 1865, reconstruction would not have ostracized a group of people who were attempting to re-enter the union - willingly or not.

The fact is that the rest of the country still treats Southerns as if we're too dumb to know our asses from holes in the ground. If the, mostly Democratic Northern and Coastal politicians would stop trying to blame our region for something that happened two or three generations ago and start supporting the working-man's plight felt in the South, more Southerners would listen to Democrats.

The Republicans know this. They don't expect to ever, you know, help the Southern working poor, but they at least give lip service to it instead of bashing them over the heads for something they had nothing to do with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
88. And those the republicans give lip service to
are too fucking ignorant to recognize that it is only lip service.

Ignorant and proud of it.

I think that is the definition of being too dumb to know their asses from holes in the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. I disliked the OPs use of "apology".
The rest of the post about treating southerners as equals is good. He is right that an attitude persists that feels the southern accent indicates lower intelligence. It should be addressed and attacked in the media as something that is wrong. I think it would help though if southerners would abandon the clinging to the confederacy and sweep it under as a shameful moment of history. Every region has a shameful past. Most chose to note it but not embrace it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Most Americans learn about Southern segregation
Almost none of them learn about the desegregation riots in Boston in 70s or the fact that as late as the 80s Chicago almost elected a Republican mayor solely because his opponent was black.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Even bigger is ethnic hatred (irish, italians, etc).
It's mostly gone now, but it was huge in the 1800s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
41. It's the southern action of voting republican that indicates lower intelligence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #41
60. When you call someone dumb for how they vote
it's not likely to bring them to your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
50. More Southern revisionist history
I don't have much time, I've got much more important stuff to do. But just to point out one of your many errors of both omission and commission, let me take on your point about General Ben Butler and the New Orleans "ladies".

When Butler took control of the city, the high society ladies decided to fight back in the one way they could, insulting Union soldiers. These ladies insulted the soldiers, spit upon them, even went so far as to flash their genitalia at the occupying troops. This was causing a huge problem, namely that the Union soldiers were tired of taking such shit, and threatened to retaliate, with force if necessary.

Butler came up with a brilliant plan. He didn't order all the women of to be treated as prostitutes, here's the text of General Order No. 28.

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF

New Orleans, May 15, 1862.

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.

By command of Major-General Butler:

GEO. C. STRONG,
Assistant Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff

In other words, if a woman flashed her genitalia, or spit or insulted a soldier, that woman would be hauled in as a prostitute. He judged, rightly, that New Orleans women would rather remain quiet than be branded as a prostitute, and he was correct. Incidents of such women insulting Union soldiers disappeared completely, thus heading off the anger of the Union soldiers, which would have erupted into much more serious violence if such actions were allowed to continue. As it was, there was no violence towards these women, and none of them were ever declared to be a prostitute.

I would love to take the time to rebuke your revisionist history on a point by point basis, but the fact of the matter is that I have much more important things to do. But let me state this, part of the problem with the South is that they love to play the aggrieved victim in regards to the Civil War, and have, over the years, built up a complex structure of revisionist history to support their victimhood. The fact of the matter is that the South committed treason and went to war over a moral abomination, namely slavery. After the war, given that they were traitors, they got relatively lightly, admitted back into the Union relatively quickly with little penalty in light of their treason. Hell, both Lee and Davis, among many other Confederate traitors, were allowed to live out their lives unmolested and free to do as they wished. That's more than you can say about the newly freed slaves, who, at the hands of Southerners, continued to suffer great injustice, cruelty and death at the hands of Southerners. Yes, there were acts of cruelty done, and the Reconstruction would probably have been handled better if Lincoln was in charge of it initially. But then again, whose fault is that? Oh, yeah, two Southerners, John Wilkes Booth and Andrew Johnson, an assassin and an inept, probably corrupt politician.

The South, quite frankly, needs to get over the Civil War and get over itself as the perpetual victim. This whole misguided romance for the "Lost Cause" is just simply bullshit, it is longing for a time when the elite few lorded it over the masses, and fellow humans were enslaved in order to keep costs low, profits high, and give the masses somebody they could feel superior to. It was essentially a modern day feudalism that adversely effected the South, even unto this day.

Grow up, get over it, stop revising history, and join the twenty first century. That's what is needed, but old stupidity dies hard apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
119. + +
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
57. I find it interesting that there is so much concern for how the
south is being treated in the media and being stereotyped when the current southern political movement is based on stereotyping and demonizing other groups of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #57
71. Great point
And I'm not about to cry many rivers for the poor white southern man who clings to a biased view of history in order to feel the victim - while happily victimizing others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
59. It's the symbolism.
To my mind (and I was raised and live in Texas), having a confederate flag bumper sticker is not different than driving around with a white sheet on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. So when Lynyrd Skynyrd, Charlie Daniels and all those Southern rock bands
used all the Confederate flag imagery and everything else in their shows they were really doing it to make some sort of racial statement? Right? Ronnie Van Zant, the man who sang Curtis Lowe, went around with the rebel flag because really he was a white supremacist at heart and wanted to promote that message?


I suppose my father who still has the heritage not hate sticker on his truck and who pulled the lever for Obama in the fall of '08 is also a secret racist at heart. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #62
80. Their intentions may of course be benign, and in the cases
you cite, likely so. But that doesn't change the meaning of the symbol; one can be proud of one's German heritage, but that doesn't mean it's ok to put up a swastika (and no, I'm not saying the confederate traitors were akin to nazis).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #62
105. At the very least it means that the members of those particular bands
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 02:30 PM by DevonRex
bought the propaganda that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery and that the Confederate flag isn't a racist symbol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
63. Here's something fer ya
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
74. Dear South:
It's been 145 years. Get over it.

Oh, as for the statement: "The United States government has never apologized to Southerners for what they did in Reconstruction and the crimes committed during the war, or for the desolation & poverty Southerners had to deal with in the aftermath, because they feel as if they were left to drift by their countrymen for years and years without any respect ..."

Boo fucking hoo! Has the South apologized for enslaving people (talk about a crime against humanity!!)? Has the South apologized for trying to break from the union so they could continue to enslave people? The South was at fault, and these pro-Confederate assholes are STILL acting like it was the other way around. We're bloody sick of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
75. When I see the Confederate flag, it screams implied racism.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 12:01 PM by Lucian
And the US government shouldn't have to apologize for anything. They aren't the ones who seceded from the Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
81. The main problem in the South today is looking to be a victim.
The people of my own region, who share my love for stories, iced sweet tea, good dogs and fast horses have been led by the nose by the Bourbons. They did it after King Cotton became King. Before that, on the old SW Frontier, there was basic social Jackonian Herrenvolk democracy. But once the upland cotton come in . . . it all changed. Monoculture, whether tobacco in the Tidewaterwater or cotton further inland was a curse. Slaves were used as self-reproducing labor. They were also taxed at very high rates. It was very expensive to be a slave owner by the classic Antebellum Era, which, by the way, lasted only about 20 years.

Following "Redemption," cotton was still King and those who found their latifundia largely intact by some miracle, managed to turn it into a cheaper form of black and white serfdom known as "shares." The slaves no longer existed, and there went the taxes, but the people for the most part, kept on sending Bourbons back to the state legislatures and Congress, thanks to the prestige attached to having been a ci-divant "Col., CSA" and then grandson and then great-grandson of one. They did not want taxes on real property, period, for that was their bread and butter.

We see a continuation of this day in all the Southern states. Try to raise a decent tax base and you will be tarred and feathered, and then the people gripe when they have the school budgets cut and the roads remain unpaved for years. What do you expect, you have a quarter of a million dollars in a house and acreage and pay a pittance for taxes in relation to the other states.

Then we have tax holidays for foreign car manufacturers to come in and "right to work" laws spawned by Satan himself. Minimal taxes for foreign corporations by the state, and even the county will put in the new roads and sewers and build new schools for the influx of economic exiles who flood in. In return, a moderate middle class salary for a few returns but a pittance in sales taxes. In Alabama they would tax air if they could, but barely a "hunting preserve" or "cattle ranch" that has not seen a cow on it in 10 years. Annual property taxes would be about a month's rent in Nassau County. And then they whine when the schools have to ask the kids to have a bake sale for a trip to the Space Center in Huntsville.

I like what the Jacobins did to the Bourbons, myself, figuratively, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
106. Great post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
86. Define which flag you are talking about...
If you are talking about this one:



It was NEVER the national flag, and is just a flag supporting segregation and racism, nothing more, nothing less, it is NOT heritage. It didn't even become popular as a symbol until around the 1950s, as a reaction to desegregation efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
94. Quantrill.
Plenty of carnage to go around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Or, fort pillow....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. OR, Andersonville, which, as I recall was one of the motivators for the
rape of the south.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #95
102. OMG. I didn't know about that. Thank you for teaching me something today.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #102
122. Gladly...
In every war there's plenty of atrocities to go around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
99. The South are the sorest losers in the history of the Earth
They lost, their whole culture was rejected here and across the world, and they still can not get over it. Well you know who suffers for that? They do. And you know who can change that? They can. You know how much I care? Not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. I really feel for Democrats in the South. Every time I go home I thank
goodness that I don't have to put up with living among Southern Republicans. I honestly don't think I could stand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
103. Re: the Butler calumny -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler%27s_General_Order_No._28

It was nothing more than making the women of New Orleans subject to arrest - under very insulting charges - if they first insulted Union soldiers.

The idea was to tamp down open hostility in the city against the occupying forces - and while men in the city might be subject to physical reprisal for insulting a soldier, prior to Butler's order women could say anything about Union soldiers to their face without any fear of reprisal.

IOW, you are promulgating a LIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. Freedom of Speech
The idea was to tamp down open hostility in the city against the occupying forces - and while men in the city might be subject to physical reprisal for insulting a soldier, prior to Butler's order women could say anything about Union soldiers to their face without any fear of reprisal



You say that his order was to keep the women of New Orleans from insulting Union soldiers. Well, last time I checked we have the right to insult anyone we want as long as we don't cross over into libel. It's a little something called the first amendment.


And why should the citizens have been required to be nice to the soldiers? As long as they weren't violating the law or actively conspiring against them they had the right to harangue them every day if they so desired. Why did they deserve to have their freedom of speech curtailed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. It's called 'martial law'.
And Butler knew very well that allowing the women to insult and affront the troops would encourage men to do the same, and that could only end with violence.

As it was, the Union occupation of New Orleans was relatively trouble free, peaceful and successful.

The first amendment does NOT cover incitement to riot.

And the LIE you promulgate was that the union soldiers were to use all NO women as whores - not to simply arrest those who insult the troops for disorderly conduct - which was, of course, the official charge used for arresting prostitutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #109
120. First amendment did not cover them
They were under martial law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
112. As many a WINNER has said to many a LOSER; FUCK THEM
They lost. They were assholes fighting for the right to be assholes. They spent the next 100 years and beyond killing and continuing to subjugate their former slaves.

Fuck Them and their quaint-ass ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
115. He may consider himself a Democrat, but I'll bet he doesn't vote Democratic.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 02:53 PM by TexasObserver
There are many like the person you describe who may vote in the Democratic primary in their area for local reasons, but they haven't voted for a Democrat for national office in a long time, if ever.

As for the rest of this pro Confederacy OP: nonsense. I've been a Southerner my entire life.

You have the point of view typical to the minority of Southerners who still hold a grudge over the South getting its ass kicked in the war. Most Southerners are not latter day Confederates, don't give a damn about the Confederacy, and would never miss it if the Confederacy was mentioned again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC