Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway
At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."
Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.
In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."
Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
More evidence of your confusion. The differences in culture were & are immense. While they evolved slightly closer in the 18th Century--remember that those who settled in the different colonies had been killing each other in mother country, not so long before they founded different (very different colonies here)--the cultures never merged, and grew further apart in the 1800s.
In Massachusetts, for example, anyone advocating the Quaker religion would be severely punished in the 1650s. (For the third offense, a red hot poker through the tongue was the punishment.) Later, Cotton Mather proposed seizing those William Penn was bringing over & selling them into slavery in the West Indies.
In the South, religious dissent was tolerated--they never even hanged witches!. In Virginia & the Carolinas, people celebrated Christmas--at a time when it was an offense in New England--and adopted a lifestyle similar to that of the English gentry, putting their wealth more in land, as opposed to the far more mercantile culture of New England.
But why go on! Every knowledgeable American knows your statement above is ridiculous. Yet you keep insulting others, while pontificating nonsense. What is your purpose in this?
William Flax
Lol, I know the constitution and its genesis far better than you and the Cornpone Brigade.
Your efforts to stir up racial hatred in place of good will pretty well demonstrates the malice within you.
William Flax
Post after post, demonstrates precisely the opposite. What you do not apparently grasp is that people who read these threads are often reasonably well educated. Your continuing rants can only embarrass some of those who might have sided with you earlier.
William Flax
Lost Causers appear to be afraid of things that go bump in the night.
So YOU say. I say he was a self taught bumpkin who made things up as he went along in order to satisfy the agenda of the railroad/ northern mercantile money men who supported him! The entire country still today suffers because of what he did with their backing and support!!
Neither 9 or 10 gives the slightest support to destruction of the Union and secession. Perhaps you have heard the phrase “...supreme law of the Land.”
Of course I've heard of "the supreme law of the land" and those to amendments you so cavalierly dismiss are a part of it whether or not YOU like it!
I do however hope you will continue with your rants as is rapidly becoming clear to anyone watching your displays here that YOU haven't even the most remote idea about the things being discussed here!
Yeah! Right!
Same MO. Same senseless arguments. Same arrogant attitude. Same uncontrollable HATE! Same everything.
You ARE him.
Whoa now! In the interest of fairness, if your going to substitute "Land of the Whip and the Lash" for 'The South', then you should replace "the North" with something comparable, such as 'the Land of The Mutilated Immigrant Child Laborer' or 'the Land of The Bayonet-spitted Native Infant'.
Once again putting your TOTAL ignorance of the subject on display for the world to see.
So, you now agree that Union troops within the fort fired on the people of the local constabulary.
Thank you for accepting the facts.
I think that phrase sums up your argument. And I would add that it represents your thinking only. It is your concept of the Constitution only. It does not reflect the thinking or law of the time.
You are wrong to perfection. At the time of secession, the Executive, the legislative, and the judiciary all agreed that secession was not prohibited by law.
Were you stomping up and down when you typed that?
And, by the way, the men were standing on state property. Why would the government, of the people, by the people, and for the people....be firing on The People?
Southern states routinely supported state religions ask Jefferson and Madison about that if you don’t believe it.
It is also typical of those defending the Slaver Revolt to pick out an isolated and unusual episode to slime the North with while ignoring day-in-day-out tyranny and horror which was on-going in the Slaver Kingdom.
And the only aspect of Southern “culture” which diverged in the 18th and 19th centuries was the Slaver determination to protect slavery AT ALL COSTS including Treason.
Hilarious that I would be accused of stirring up “race hatred” by telling the truth about the Slaver Traitors who caused untold death and destruction to the WHITE race.
I have a great deal of malice towards those who LIE about things such as claiming FALSELY that there was some federal “tyranny” in 1860 in order to justify the treasonous actions of the Slaver Revolt.
I admit I am a patriot and filled with malice towards those who would destroy the Union or attempt to justify those who tried to do exactly that.
Glad to see you are so concerned about the Patriot side being embarrassed by my truths.
I do hate those who almost destroyed my beloved Southland for the benefit of an Anti-American tyranny. Those pitiful contemporary supporters of the Slaver Revolt I just laugh at.
I’ve never denied that Union soldiers fired on hostile invaders.
Don’t be daft. IT is perfectly proper for duly authorized soldiers to defend a federal fortification.
The Land of the Big City Orphan and those consequences you rightly reference to were different than the Land of the Whip and the Lash now weren’t they?
Those social costs were not an INTEGRAL part of the economic life in the North but unintended consequences.
Slavery, ON THE OTHER HAND, was BASED upon the use of the whip and the lash. It could not exist without them because they were vital instruments in taking away human freedom.
Must’nt think about the Cherokee now should you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.