If It Were Not For The South, America Would Be Another Canada Or (Horror!) France.

I had yet another look at the 2000 electoral map, and I was struck by the fact that Bush carried every single state in the South, all by substantial margins. It made me wonder of how American conservatism would be, if the South had succeeded in its tragic War of Independence in the 1860s.

Sure, there are many bastions of solid traditional American conservatism outside the South. The people of the American West, in states like Utah, Montana, Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska and Idaho, are probably the most freedom loving people in the entire country. They are the strongest defenders of the second ammendment right to bear arms, largely because of their outdoors culture of hunting, ranching, and fishing. They are also the strongest defenders of free speech, self-reliance, property rights and are fierce individualists. They hate taxes with such an intensity, it is scary.

Many midwestern regions, are also solidly conservative. The small towns in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, represent the true heart of middle America. And there a few islands of conservatism in the East, in areas such as New Hampshire and Upstate New York, surrounded by a sea of liberalism.

But if you remove the South from the map, do you think that Northern Bastions of conservatism can hold out against the liberal tidal wave? Gore would have carried the 2000 election in a massive landslide, if it were not for the South.

I would disagree with that. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan has always been one of the most Democratic regions of my home state. In the South, politics is more likely to be polarized along racial lines. The whites belong to one party, the blacks to another. In the rural north, there are no minorities (except Indians), so whites vote more on the lines of economic interests. Unions were always a powerful force, especially in the mining, so that gave northern Michigan (along with Wisconsin and Minnesota) a Democratic heritage. But, yeah, they hate gays and gun-grabbers, so maybe a shift is coming.

You make the error of attacking the character or motives of a person, such as wardaddy, who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Your most obvious example of this fallacy is when you malign the character of wardaddy for no other reason than to further your argument to a most unpleasant extreme. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Read the thread, idiot, and you'll see who began the namecalling first. Wardaddy couldn't debate facts without getting angry about it.

I would disagree with that. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan has always been one of the most Democratic regions of my home state.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. But look at mac truck's map in post #148 and you'll see that it mostly divides between rural and urban with exceptions in both the North and the South.

In the South, politics is more likely to be polarized along racial lines. The whites belong to one party, the blacks to another.

You don't think that's true for the North also?

In the rural north, there are no minorities (except Indians), so whites vote more on the lines of economic interests. Unions were always a powerful force, especially in the mining, so that gave northern Michigan (along with Wisconsin and Minnesota) a Democratic heritage. But, yeah, they hate gays and gun-grabbers, so maybe a shift is coming.

Well, like I said there are exceptions, but usually cities wil be more liberal, and rural areas will be more conservative. The map in post #148 proves that well.

Now he has imaginary FReepmails lauding his intellectual prowess and rapier wit.

LOL! He's probably pulling an internet version of the old Mr. Bean "send yourself a birthday card" skit - log off real quick, log on as another user and send a congratulatory email, log back into the original and sure enough, a congratulatory message of praise is waiting!

They'll be laughing some more when they see you don't believe it.

First of all, that urban renewal was paid for by our municipalities, not the feds. Housing Projects on the other hand were federal mandates that were built all across the nation in rural and urban areas, including the South btw. Urban renewal I admit was a disasterous policy, sponsored by both liberal machine and reform elements in our urban areas, and guess what? I fully admit to it. So why will you not admit to the South's complicity in extending the life of slavery. There is a reason American slavery is called the "peculiar institution", it is because it was peculiar to the South through most of our history as an independent nation. Meahwhile, you still have not addressed all the federal funding the South receives from the feds. How is this funding not a major cause of our current problems with big government?

I read your post and found it very informative, enjoybable and conciliatory. God bless you. I have a point to take issue with you, or rather extend one of the ones you made. American conservatism has nothing to do with the classical definition of conservatism that is held by the "Cavalier Culture", at least outside the fringe "paleoconservatives". Our version of conservatism is derived from the classical liberalism of Locke, Smith and even Mill. My point in previosu posts is that it was this sort of Cavalier conservatism that causes class struggle and division in the European and Mexican variety. The South is not what keeps America American, neither is the Northeast, the West Coast or the Midwest. We are the way we are because of all the nation's regions. The south has figured prominently in many of the most negative aspects in our nations history as well as many prominent ones. So it is wrong to claim one region in our nation is its saving grace.

Oh my goodness I cannot believe you just wrote that. "Confrontation between races was caused by northern agitation"? Yeah I am sure the blacks down there loved being looked down upon, treated like second class citizens, lynched and deprived of there voting rights. Are you listeining to yourself? "Northern Agitators" went down there and were just causing trouble when the races got along fine before. Who cares if a back guy could get lynched for whistling at a white woman? If the blacks down there were so happy why did so many move north? While Booker T Washington did urge more self improvement than political agitation, he did not downplay the latter either. He wanted blacks to have equal rights in this country and saw community improvement as one step to get there. The NAACP did not cause racial confrontation, it was already there. Blacks did not like to be treated like second class citizens during the days of segregation and anyone who thinks different is deluding themselves.

If you feel better to blame us then I will personally fall on the sword for you.

Is the evil of slavery something you just discovered or do you think it's just the worst thing ever.

I personally feel abortion and genocide are worse.

But to sate your zeal....(in my best Bill Clinton impression)...." I hereby confess that my kinfolks owned slaves...some had a few, some had a lot and some had none. I am sorry that those slaves were sold to slavers by their african brothers and carried over here on Yankee clippers in the Triangle Trade and that my kinfolks bought them.

I am happy though for their descendents because they ended up with the prize of living in the greatest country on earth which is a damned sight better than anything I ever saw in West Africa where I have traveled and worked extensively. They are also lucky their kin didn't end up in South America where they would likely have been worked to death or the Caribbean where they would most likely still be mired in a pisspoor life much like in The Gambia or Nigeria.

I'm complicit by default in that nastiness which is now viewed as the root of all evil relative to our noble parameters of today.

Oh yeah....and since we Southerners did all that bad stuff, shucks, that's the only reason Yankees have any problems today

We robbed you guys of your deserved bliss and I regret that.

We feel so bad about all those transgressions that we have decided to carry ya'lls water since ya'll have grown too weak and we do hereby swear to try to keep this nation from falling completely into the cultural and social morass exemplified by your wonderful vaunted cities up north.

Happy Now?

Now run along and shine up your Thaddeus Stevens portrait you keep by the bed.

Uh Wilson and FDR were from the North. Well FDR defintely was and he was the more socialist one. Wilson was southern originally but he was governor of New Jersey before becoming President. The point is high moral standards? Well Southern Democrats voted for both of them as well as many other New Deal socialist politicans. I agree that the South keeps the US religous and socially conservative (which is good in some respects). But it has been a major contributor to the growth of the federal government whether thesoutherners on this forum want to admit it or not.

I take issue with you on you slightly on that last point. Growing prosperity may lead to socialism in nations wracked by class divisions, as people begin arguing that their slice of the pie is not big enough. However the US does not really fall into this category due tothe nations liberal traditions and at least official condemnation of class thinking. There is a difference between sharing the wealth and alleviating poverty and socialism. The early middle and upper middle class urban reformers who took on the machines tended to be very pro business but also compassionate to the poor. I guess that could make them slightly socialist, but liberal republicanism of people like Henry Luce and Thomas Dewey was a far cry from the Great Society liberalism of Lyndon Johnson.

I believe that if the southern states had left the union sooner, as in sometime around 1789, the remaining states, would have looked north toward what is today the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for replacements. The settlement of the old Northwest would have progressed much as it did without the South, with the Eirie canal still providing the key transportation link.

It would not be a question of how much more Canadian America would have become, but how much more American Canada would have become.

OTOH, one wonders how much of Mexico the southerners would have managed to aquire on their own, or if Bonaparte would have sold his Louisiana territory to a weaker [southern] neighbor.

Given the martial nature of the caveliers, I could also see them getting into a war with Spain over Cuba, or France over New Orleans.

"But it has been a major contributor to the growth of the federal government whether thesoutherners on this forum want to admit it or not."

Yes - historically the Southern Democrats have fed the ferocious fires of beauracratic government growth moreso than the Republicans.

(Just so you know, I've been a registered Republican for 35 years.)

Are you aware that the most corrupt administration in history was a Republican?

Ulysses S. Grants administration was rife with nepotism and corruption. In fact, over 250 of his and his wife's relative served prison terms stemming from corruption they created while serving in government-appointed positions by either Ulysses or from the prompting of his wife.

Morality is relative (as is the religion of relativism, which now dominates American culture (much as it does that of Europe - France especially).

I totally agree that the last bastion of "traditional" moraily resides in the Southern states - but not for long.

Given the martial nature of the caveliers

Even though not intended as so, I'm taking that as a compliment Mac..lol This cavalier notion....seriously....it is more rooted in the old Southern gentry. The bulk of white Southerners are Scots-Irish and English and the former may owe their migrations to Roundhead pressures, it hardly made us Cavalier in a class sense. We were more non-pedigreed working class. But, we were also more likely Protestant...unlike the later purely Irish waves that landed mainly in the North. I'd like to think I come from the Charlies but I know most of my ancestry is hardscrabble. I have Huguenot blood as well....a similar religious conflict migration but no Cromwell. Who was that nasty mother of the Dauphin that made life hell on French Prods? Catherine di Medici? and the St Barts Massacre. Anyhow....one can tie a string between cavalier mindsets in the south and roundhead sensibilities amongst the Puritanical North but it is somewhat tenuous.

It's the compassion that leads to more socialism. Once people get charity, they get a sense of entitlement over time, especially when that charity is coming from the government. Then someone like FDR comes along and uses this sense of entitlement for political purposes and to empower himself and take out personal animosities. We end up where we are today.

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.