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

ComtedeMaistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

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.

[ought-six]

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation itself was illegal (i.e., unconstitutional), because Lincoln did not have the executive authority to ban slavery ANYWHERE. No one at the time thought it was anything but a fraud (today's liberals, and Linconphiles, love it, though). And I'm no real fan of Jefferson Davis, either, whom I view as being a weak and indecisive man. Electing Jefferson Davis as its president was the Confederacy's biggest blunder.

[ought-six]

"They sure didn't mind the federal power given to them by Wilson's and FDR's socialism though did they?"

Nope, they didn't mind it at all, because they viewed it pretty much as reparations.

[ought-six]

"However, even Democrats from the South have higher moral standards than their political comrades from the North or West."

That is true, for the most part. But Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami have some Dims who are as bad as, if not worse than, their Northern counterparts; but they are in the minority, thankfully.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is too bad about conservatives in France, we are certainly begining to know how they feel here in the South West.

Too bad they don't want to "migrate" to the USofA If they did, they could buy a set of id's, SS#'s, etc. on any street corner. In fact the South may rise again if their citizens turn into Coyotes and smuggle in conservative Europeans, lol.

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation itself was illegal (i.e., unconstitutional), because Lincoln did not have the executive authority to ban slavery ANYWHERE.

Again, Lincoln did not ban slavery per se. He proclaimed all slaves held in a particular region to be free. He did not outlaw slavery because he lacked the authority, either as president or commander-in-chief of the military, to do so. The southern slave owners thought it a fraud, and ignored it of course. No matter. When the Union army liberated those areas in rebellion they slaves were freed anyway. But it wasn't unconstitutional just because you believe it was.

[mac_truck]

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.

No offense to your ancestors, but I doubt that the bulk of white southerners had much to say about the issues of the day in the late 17th century,18th century south. As you suggest it was the landed southern gentry that ran the government and imposed [its] social order on the rest of the population. This cavalier influence on southern society would have given rise to the martial nature I alluded to.

One does wonder how far the south would have gotten in an expansionist war against France or Spain without Yankee shipbuilding, manufacturing, and gunmaking ingenuity...:p

[wardaddy]

and to think...I was being nice.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There was no War of Independence 1861-1865. Nor was there a War Between the States. There was a treasonous Revolt of the Slavers put down by Patriotic Americans.

Merely because a region is right today does not mean it was right 142 years ago, now does it?

[x]

My point in previous 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.

Very true. The contribution of the Puritans and Quakers was to promote a more egalitarian society than the Anglican Cavaliers would allow. Perhaps this makes Northern states more amenable to modern forms of egalitarianism, but very few of us would have much liking for Cavalier society in its pure form. Indeed, the Cavalier model has much in common with the elitism, condescension, paternalism, and establishment back-scratching that today's conservative populists dislike.

Southern backwoods "Celts" didn't and don't have much use for hierarchical tidewater society either, but they had problems getting together and organizing for sustained action over time, that Northerners didn't. There's much to be said for that backwoods "celtic" idea of freedom, but it's improved when combined with the ability to organize. Unchecked, "Yankee" cooperativeness may lead to subservience to government, but it was important in building up the business and non-government organizations that make a free society possible.

David Hackett Fischer's book, Albion's Seed is an excellent look at how four cultures -- Puritan, Quaker, Cavalier and Celtic -- came together to make America. Such groups had different ideas of liberty and government, but when they came together their strengths were added together and their weaknesses cancelled out.

[Ohioan]

You really need to learn more about the subject of race relations in the Old South, before you engage in this sort of rant. Booker T. Washington's whole approach was to build on the positive--to appeal to the common heritage of the South's races. He was as much against the NAACP approach, as am I.

Are you aware that the NAACP was not started by Negroes, but my Fabian Socialist Whites, with only one Mulatto on board for show purposes--W.E.B. DuBois, who later became a confirmed Communist?

Of course, Booker T. Washington did not approve of lynch law--nor did any of his contemporary White Conservatives. You set up straw men to misrepresent the actual reality. Of course not everyone in the South was nice to everyone else. Do you know any State or County in America, where there are not nasty and lawless elements? But nothing in that justifies the assault on Southern Society, which the frothy Whites in the North launched under the guise of promoting "Civil Rights," which was premised upon confrontational politics, and deliberate antagonism.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[#3Fan]

Nope, they didn't mind it at all, because they viewed it pretty much as reparations.

How could it be reparations when the rich of the south were paying the same as the rich of the north? LOL I don't think they saw it as reparations, I think they just liked the wealth redistribution as much as anyone. But since you bring up reparations and seem to be fully supportive of them, I assume you'll be marching with Jesse Jackson to make sure reparations become law to redistrbute wealth to those who may or may not be descended from slaves, taking money for thoses who may or may not be descended from slave-owners, or both. lol

[#3Fan]

That is true, for the most part. But Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami have some Dims who are as bad as, if not worse than, their Northern counterparts; but they are in the minority, thankfully.

A Dem's a Dem and the only good Dem is a de.....feated Dem.

[SamAdams76]

While I am deeply grateful for the Southerners assistance in defeating Algore (especially his home state of Tennessee), it took a northern state (New Hampshire) to put Bush over the top.

[#3Fan]

While I am deeply grateful for the Southerners assistance in defeating Algore (especially his home state of Tennessee), it took a northern state (New Hampshire) to put Bush over the top.

Rural vs. Urban, I guess. New Hampshire must have lower population density than states that surround it. I'm not taking anything away from it though by no means, look at New Mexico. Plus New Hampshire has Vermont right next door drawing all the wackos out of states that border Vermont, which may help New Hampshire. Hooray for New Hampshire, it did as well as Florida.

[Classicaliberalconservative]

No matter how much you try to defend segregation, it is still indefensible and wrong. It was not just about the lynching and the lawless nasty elements. "Southern Society" needed to be changed from what it was because it was stigmatizing an entire group of people as second class citizens. It was denying blacks voting rights and keeping them from other prveledges and rights that they should have as American citizens. The white conservatives you idealize were just interested in keeping the status quo and not in improving the lot of blacks in Southern society back then. It was a state of matters that needed to be changed.

[sultan88]

"...and Richmond has aggressively been exorcising its Civil War heritage to try to become some sort of second Indianapolis or Cleveland..."

Thanks for the ping Corin. Actually this is very true. I was appalled to learn that the Valentine Museum (the official museum of Richmond history) in it's school education programs only refers to the Confederacy as a bad thing because it was wrong to rebel, while at the same time praising the slave uprising led by Gabriel because it was good to rebel against oppression.

And they only mention Thomas Jefferson in connection with his affair with Sally Hemings, but at the same time have created a paean to the first african american female banker, Maggie Walker.

[ought-six]

"But it wasn't unconstitutional just because you believe it was."

Actually, that idea is not original with me. I had heard it at various times during my shool years, but it really struck home when my professor of Constitutional Law said it.

[ought-six]

"How could it be reparations when the rich of the south were paying the same as the rich of the north? LOL I don't think they saw it as reparations, I think they just liked the wealth redistribution as much as anyone. But since you bring up reparations and seem to be fully supportive of them, I assume you'll be marching with Jesse Jackson to make sure reparations become law to redistrbute wealth to those who may or may not be descended from slaves, taking money for thoses who may or may not be descended from slave-owners, or both. lol"

I was being sarcastic (somewhat) when I said the South liked the socialist handouts that came its way during the New Deal (but there were -- and still are -- some Southerners who think they are entitled to all they can get from the federal government because of the oppression of Reconstruction). I don't agree with that sentiment; I was just reporting it. Now, your non-sequitur about me being for slavery reparations is comepletely out of left field, and you obviously have never read any of my other posts on the subject, because if you had, you'd have clearly seen my staunch opposition to any such tribute.

[#3Fan]

I was being sarcastic (somewhat) when I said the South liked the socialist handouts that came its way during the New Deal (but there were -- and still are -- some Southerners who think they are entitled to all they can get from the federal government because of the oppression of Reconstruction).

And I'll repeat that they are no different than those who want reparations for slavery.

I don't agree with that sentiment; I was just reporting it. Now, your non-sequitur about me being for slavery reparations is comepletely out of left field, and you obviously have never read any of my other posts on the subject, because if you had, you'd have clearly seen my staunch opposition to any such tribute.

I think it's clear that you agreed with those that wanted reparations until I pointed out your inconsistency. Otherwise you would've made it clear in the first place that you were against them.

[#3Fan]

I think it's clear that you agreed with those that wanted reparations...

Reparations for imagined grievances obviously, let me add. It was the South that should've paid restitution to the North for not following the Constitution, if anyone was to pay for wrongdoing.