We Are All Southerners Now

American Thinker ^ | November 14, 2020 | EM Cadwaladr

[Jacob Kell]

When I was growing up in Ohio, the South began at the banks of the Ohio river. Below that muddy line, everyone knew, there lived a different breed of backward and uneducated people with lazy minds and even lazier language skills. You could have contempt for them, a privilege I indulged from time to time. I personally learned this contempt from two main sources.

[tbw2]

They’re already attacking Trump’s attorneys.

Trump Legal Team QUITS After Never Trump And Democrat Harassment Campaign, Dems Play DIRTY For Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD4U2-1nloY

[jmacusa]

You ignorant , self important blow hard. You despicable lying piece of crap.You'd love for me to hate Southerners. You'd love it because it would make you feel fortified in your own pathetic self worth and make you think you're smarter than you really are. I've never equated the Confederate flag with a swastika. To me the Confederate flag is a flag of treason. So get over yourself.

[suthener]

“jmacusa never conceals his South hating bigotry. He may attempt to justify it but he never hides it.

There’s a small group here who are indistinguishable from Antifa when they descend upon threads dealing with Dixie. Demonize Confederate history, equate the Battle Flag to the Swastika. The usual that you’d expect from BLM and friends. I recall one of them regretting that Robert E Lee hadn’t been hanged as a traitor. That should tell you all that you need to know about their character.”

I know him. I just like to yank his chain because it’s so easy. Look at his reply in post 48. Otherwise he’s a pretty good poster.

[jmacusa]

A back handed compliment to be sure. But I don’t ‘’yank’’ so easy. Pelham and I have a history, a long and not good one. I get fed up with his ignorant bs.

Maybe I should confess and indulge his delusions.

“Yes I hate Southerners! I hate every man, woman and child below the Mason-Dixon Line. I’m coming to lay waste to the Land Of Dixie and burn down the House of Pelham!’’

I think that will make him happy.

[RedMonqey]

(Snicker, snicker)

[DiogenesLamp]

None of my arguments have anything to do with the slaves. It's the people on your side who cannot discuss the topic of a state right to independence without dragging out the irrelevant subject of "slavery."

I get it. I know why you do it. You can't make a reasonable legal or moral argument for why Washington DC suddenly needed to send armies invading into other states to stop them from attaining independence from Washington DC's control, so you change the subject to "Slavery was immoral!!!"

Your side has been doing this "Look! Squirrel!" argument for over 150 years because this is the only ground on which you can claim to justify what was done.

[jmacusa]

You should get professional help. You really should.

[DiogenesLamp]

The notion that the entire northeast of the US is all liberal is as stupid and bigoted as the notion that all southerners are Klan members.

We know it's primarily the cities. The Cities are Islands of Liberalism in every state. The rural areas tend conservative, even in Massachusetts.

[DiogenesLamp]

Last week I read that John Mosby was Patton’s mentor when Patton was a young boy.

[DiogenesLamp]

You think Southerners and Midwesterners resented the wealth and power of New York City and would join together against the East Coast.

Eventually. Ever hear of the Graingers?

But you also believe that an independent South would develop into a great economic power.

Would have done.

Therefore, people in the Midwest and West would grow to resent the South as much as they resented the East.

Eventually. Over the years i've said many times that in an alternate timeline I would be bitching about those corrupt tyrants in Charleston instead of New York. I think it is a constant in human society that when wealth is cornered and maintained in a small collection of hands it will always invite abuse and subsequent resentment.

If NYC and the East Coast really did lose wealth and power they wouldn't be seen as a threat by those further west, and New Orleans or Charleston would.

Yes, but I think "threat" is the wrong word, and it also depends on whether New Orleans could control the capitol in the manner that New York controls it now. (And has for the last 150 years.)

Secondly, an independent CSA was headed towards slave revolts and eventually a race war.

How do you know that is true? I see them as eventually getting rid of slavery when it becomes no longer economically viable.

And they didn't. They didn't want the competition. So why would they join a country that relied so heavily on Black labor? It makes no sense.

Money. Economic contact with the South would have eventually moved them in the direction of a political relationship with the rest of the Southern states. They would have kept most of the slaves out of their states though.

There was no reason for Midwesterners to hate or fear or feel alienated from the West Coast.

I don't think anyone would have worried about California in the 19th century. It didn't become the problem it is until relatively recently, say the 1990s.

[wardaddy]

This colleague doesnt like his culture and ancestry compared to nazis

The posters who do this on this forum are part of the enemy trying to overturn western civilization by any means

Primarily massive uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration and vote fraud

[yuleeyahoo]

Enforced conformity by mass media and the government education system.

[x]

I see them as eventually getting rid of slavery when it becomes no longer economically viable.

In other words, after about 80 years. Plenty of time for slave revolts. Getting rid of slavery wouldn't have ended the racial conflicts, though. States where Blacks were a majority or near majority and Whites had all the power and control would be powder kegs apt to explode.

Money. Economic contact with the South would have eventually moved them in the direction of a political relationship with the rest of the Southern states. They would have kept most of the slaves out of their states though.

The Confederate Constitution required states joining the Confederacy to respect the right of slaveowners to their human property. Join the Confederacy and you join the world of slavery and slaveowning. If the Confederacy did get around to abolishing slavery on its own, it would still have enough problems with racial conflicts that Northern states would really hesitate about joining.

What also gets left out of your argument is that the Midwest was really coming into its own in the late 19th and early 20th century. Those states had been Indian country just a generation or two back and thought they were building their own new civilization. They weren't going to throw in with the slave states and subordinate themselves to a very different culture. Nowadays, the Midwest doesn't have as strong a sense of identity and tends to fall into Red State or Blue State culture, or just American culture, but it was very different back then.

Ohio and Indiana became important in post-Civil War America. New York may have been a financial center, but it was the Midwest that provided the Presidents and Vice Presidents. Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley: the face of official power in the Republican era was Midwestern. Were Midwesterners really going to trade that in for domination by the very different plantation/slaveowner leaders of the South?

Even further west, whatever quarrels farmers and miners had with New York, they didn't think they had much in common with Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens. They might form their own country but they weren't going to become second fiddle to the plantation masters.

The South has changed as well. Our idea of Southerners as small farmers and poor up country people is largely based on the defeat of the big landowners and slaveholders in the Civil War. If that hadn't happened, if Southern elites could swagger as much in the second half of the 19th century as they did in the first half, joining the Confederacy wouldn't look like a great option to those further north.

I don't think anyone would have worried about California in the 19th century. It didn't become the problem it is until relatively recently, say the 1990s.

So then your deranged idea that the 2004 election map reflects deep and fundamental historical differences between regions falls apart, and maybe you'll stop dragging it out on every possible occasion.

[bert]

Of course, but I think they represented bout 1/3 of the colonists. another third were loyalists and another third had no opinion

The westward advancement left the loyalists

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Probably the biggest mistake we ever made was agreeing to be in one country with them in the first place.
Philosophically, we’ve been diametrically opposed from the start. "

You can blame Boston's John Adams for that.
He's the one in 1775 who selected and supported Virginian George Washington to be the Continental Army's Commander in Chief over his own fellow New Englander, Benedict Arnold.
Adams was also close friends with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
From the beginning, Adams remained loyal to Washington, and when Washington became President in 1788, Adams was selected Vice President.

In the various state constitution ratification conventions there were Federalists and anti-Federalists both Northern and Southern.
The first four states to ratify included Southern Delaware and Georgia, Northern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The last two ratifying states were Southern North Carolina and Northern Rhode Island.

In time the anti-Federalists who had opposed ratification gravitated around Thomas Jefferson and became, in Federalists' words: "Democratic-republicans", with emphasis on "Democratic" because of Jefferson's support for violent "Democrats" in the French Revolution.

As late as 1856 Jefferson-Jackson Southern Democrats remained the majority in American politics through their alliance with sympathetic Northern Democrats like New Hampshire's Franklin Pierce and Pennsylvanian James Buchanan.
Their problem was that the next generation of Northern Democrat leaders, i.e., Stephen Douglas, came from Illinois and was influenced by voters there (and Abraham Lincoln) to take a hard-line against slavery in US territories.
With that unacceptable to 1860 Southern slave-holders, they split their Democrat party and the result was Lincoln's election.

Now the key fact to remember is that the first US President to support abolition in US territories was Thomas Jefferson, for which he was not condemned by his fellow Southerner Democrats.
But in 1860 Stephen Douglas' similar views on the subject were enough to split the party.

None of this had anything to do with alleged hatred by Northerners of Southerners, or visa versa.

[FLT-bird]

To you everything is about slavery. That is not the genesis of the divide between The South and New England and the regions remain bitterly divided more than 150 years after its end.

The two communities were composed of different people back in England. They came across the Atlantic for different reasons. They had completely different visions of how society should be. That difference is still there 400 years later.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Culturally, the "flyover states" align with the Southern attitudes and mindset."

As usual, you have it exactly backwards.
With the abolition of slavery & segregation, Southerners are now more akin to midwestern Republicans than to their own Southern Democrat ancestors.

So we welcome our new Southern FRiends into the Republican party.
You can stack your old Democrat ideas outside.

;-)

[kosciusko51]

Obviously, he had never visited Huntsville, AL...

[kosciusko51]

“Let me be clear, ANYONE I know who Voted for Beijing Biden and Heels up Harris is dead to me.”

I’m sure a few million of them were already dead...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The 1850s version of Liberal nutjobs stirred up great strife and upheaval because Liberal nuts gotta meddle with things."

Again, you've got it backwards.
In 1788 Northerners and Southerners were of one mind in believing slavery morally wrong and in need of eventual abolition.
Many, including President Jefferson, took steps to restrict or abolish it.

But by the 1830s that had begun to change and Southerners no longer looked on slavery as a necessary evil to be eventually abolished, but rather as a moral good, and Southerners now held opposition to slavery as an evil to be opposed on all fronts.

Thus while Southern Democrat Thomas Jefferson in 1788 supported abolition in the Northwest Territories, in 1860 Democrat Senator Douglas' similar views caused Southerners to split off and form their own presidential ticket.

None of this had anything to do with "Liberal nuts.".