Benefactor’s family demands refund after U. Richmond removes name from law school

>”you have it backwards. The majority view even in Academia was that secession and the war had been primarily about money. That was the conclusion of Charles Beard who was the most prominent American historian in the first half of the 20th century. He was at Columbia university (imagine.....the Ivy League! LOL). It was the PC Revisionists who were 1960s Leftists who started pushing the wartime propaganda that it was "all about slavery". This REVISIONIST school of thought did not really start until the 1980s. That's when the PCers started trying to demonize all things Southern. I told everybody 30 years ago that it was the South today, it was going to be the Founding Fathers, the Stars and Stripes, and the rest of America tomorrow.”<

No, you have it backwards. Charles Beard was a progressive. And the PC story was not that the war was about slavery. It was the opposite. The PC story was that Lincoln never cared about slavery, and the war was not about slavery. And I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “all things southern” are demonized.

However, I think I now see why you have it backwards. I took a peek at your other comments, and one hints at your age. I went to school mostly in the 70’s in the northeast. We were taught the war was over slavery, and so were previous generations. But, Southern Democrats made sure their schoolbooks downplayed slavery and taught that the war was a matter of “state’s rights.” Now I've found that, by the 1980's, the schoolbooks in the South were revised to agree that slavery was the cause. You probably went to school in the South in the 80’s. But, what was taught before then was the Southern Democrat point of view.

>”NO THEY DID NOT! Southern states paid massively more of the federal budget until passage of the 16th amendment in 1909 when a federal income tax was imposed were tariff rates lowered and not until then did Northern states start paying more of the federal tax burden than Southern states.“<

I was responding to your statement about "blue states" with reference to today.

You wrote, ”Look at how pissed off people get today at some states paying more into federal coffers and getting less in return. Just think how furious people will be if the Blue states succeed in getting the federal government to pay for their bankrupt public sector pension schemes they promised to public sector labor unions.“

That is what I responded to.

>”They seceded. They left. They made no claim whatsoever on the western territories of the US. As in they were foreign countries. As in, all that land to the west belonged to the US. They gave up any chance of spreading slavery to those territories when they seceded. “<

You realize you’re trying to defend Democrats, right? They wanted slavery to be legal south of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes. When they didn’t get their way, they seceded. Then, they lost the war.

>”The Republicans DID NOT want to abolish slavery. They could not have been more clear about this. To say otherwise is just a bold faced lie“<

As noted, even the Southern Democrats’ DECLARATIONS of SC, GA, and TX stated that Republicans wanted to abolish slavery. The Republican platform was anti-slavery. You ignore the platform. Are you going to ignore the DECLARATIONS that you keep referring to?

I’m not a Leftist Reb. I’m a conservative. It’s you and your fellow Confederates here who are the leftists, you’re Democrats. Democrats love big government. Lincoln started the war? Really?

You're arguing the Leftists' case spewing a bunch of Leftist propaganda Yank. Lincoln and the Republicans of that time favored centralized power, high taxes and corporate welfare. Sounds like Leftism to me.

So it was Lincoln who ordered the Charleston batteries to open fire on Ft. Sumter?

No, it was Lincoln who ordered a fleet of warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory.

I guess in your twisted mind that makes sense. Lincoln’s reason for responding to the Souths attack Ft.Sumter and the Southern secession was to preserve the Union. And in doing so he won the fight. You, in turn offer no proof of what the ‘’warships’’ were and the troops you claim he sent to ‘’invade South Carolina.,/p>

Only to an inveterate liar like you does that make any sense. Lincoln didn't "preserve" the union. He converted the union from a voluntary union based on consent to a centralized empire based on violence. He in fact, destroyed the union the Founders created. I've already posted what the warships were specifically, how many guns they had and how many troops. You're just too lazy to read.

Funny how you defend secession , the secession the South undertook to defend and preserve slavery. As I see it you’re doing the same. Defending the Confederacy and all it stood for.

The Southern states did not secede to defend slavery which was not threatened anyway. You're damn right I defend secession though. I'm with the Founding Fathers on that one. You are clearly on the side of the British Empire.

And yet here you are living in The United States of America, not The Confederate States of America.

Yes? Nobody disputed that. Its unfortunate given what the USA has become. The CSA had a much more decentralized model, required a balanced budget and did not have the imperial ambitions the centralized federal government in Washington has.

You’re an idiot.,/p>

Coming from an utter moron like yourself, I take that as a compliment.

>No, you have it backwards. Charles Beard was a progressive. And the PC story was not that the war was about slavery. It was the opposite. The PC story was that Lincoln never cared about slavery, and the war was not about slavery. And I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “all things southern” are demonized.,/p>

Beard was indeed a Lefty. You have it backwards though. The "all about slavery" myth was pushed by Leftists in Academia starting mostly in the 80s. Leftists had changed their minds by then because it suited their politics. That Lincoln didn't really care about slavery and that the war was not about slavery was never "PC". PC did not come around until the 1980s. If you don't know what I mean when I say all things Southern are demonized, then you really haven't paid attention to the media or Hollywood or Academia in several decades.

However, I think I now see why you have it backwards. I took a peek at your other comments, and one hints at your age. I went to school mostly in the 70’s in the northeast. We were taught the war was over slavery, and so were previous generations. But, Southern Democrats made sure their schoolbooks downplayed slavery and taught that the war was a matter of “state’s rights.” Now I've found that, by the 1980's, the schoolbooks in the South were revised to agree that slavery was the cause. You probably went to school in the South in the 80’s. But, what was taught before then was the Southern Democrat point of view.

I'm not surprised to hear the Yankee Textbooks always pushed the Anti-Southern propaganda. That fits with the Yankees' traditional hatred towards the South. I wasn't taught much of the real history of this in school even though I was a history major in college. I discovered it all on my own doing a lot of reading on the period. I was simply stunned at all the things I had not been taught. The other side of the argument had been completely airbrushed out of the textbooks from grade school all the way through college. That this would happen was foreseen by some Southerners at the time.

"“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

You realize you’re trying to defend Democrats, right? They wanted slavery to be legal south of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes. When they didn’t get their way, they seceded. Then, they lost the war.

You realize Jeffersonian Democrats in the 19th century were the exact opposite of current Democrats on almost every issue, right? Look at what they wanted. Decentralized power. A balanced budget. No riders attached to bills, a line item veto for the president, each bill can only be about one thing and that must be stated in the title. No central government spending for the "general welfare" other than dredging harbors. Any infrastructure projects have to be paid for by the businesses which clamor and lobby for it. The Confederate constitution was specifically designed to prevent massive wasteful spending. Decentralized governments are far less likely to engage in aggressive warfare abroad too. This is what Robert E. Lee wrote in his correspondence with Lord Acton:

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

The states of the Deep South seceded because they saw themselves being economically exploited for the benefit of others, they no longer had the votes to stop it from becoming ever worse, and they hated centralized power because they knew it always became oppressive and warlike over time....and again, that was what the North wanted and they no longer had enough votes to stop it. So they opted to leave just as their parents and grandparents had left the British Empire. The states of the Upper South only left when Lincoln started a war of aggression for money and empire.

As noted, even the Southern Democrats’ DECLARATIONS of SC, GA, and TX stated that Republicans wanted to abolish slavery. The Republican platform was anti-slavery. You ignore the platform. Are you going to ignore the DECLARATIONS that you keep referring to?

As noted, Lincoln himself and the rest of the Republicans openly declared many times that they were not against slavery and even orchestrated, sponsored and passed the Corwin Amendment which would have provided express constitutional protection for slavery effectively forever. You ignore the Corwin Amendment as well as Lincoln's repeated public statements.

Lincoln steered this country through one of the worst periods in our history bought about by Southern democrats who split the nation in two in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor.

Your fantasy about ‘’warships’’ is just that, a fantasy. Lincoln was resupplying a federal installation, not planning to ‘’invade’’ South Carolina. Lincoln was a Republican.

You on the other hand are a Democrat masquerading as a conservative.

Boston was then and is now an existential Americab enemy

“Americab’’?

Lincoln steered this country through one of the worst periods in our history bought about by Southern democrats who split the nation in two in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor. Your fantasy about ‘’warships’’ is just that, a fantasy. Lincoln was resupplying a federal installation, not planning to ‘’invade’’ South Carolina. Lincoln was a Republican. You on the other hand are a Democrat masquerading as a conservative.

Lincoln caused the worst period in this country's history by starting and waging a war of aggression for money and empire. Along the way he overthrew the voluntary union based on consent the Founders created and substituted in its place a centralized empire based on violence. Your denial of the fleet of warships he sent is standard antihistorical propaganda from a big government Leftist - which is what you are.

Lincoln send a resupply fleet to Ft. Sumter. It was P.G.T. Beauregard who ordered the shore batteries to open fire. I never said Lincoln was a saint. The man had his flaws as any man does.But he preserved the Union. The South launched a war in order to preserve slavery and lost. I vote for Republicans. You come to a conservative website carrying the torch for a bunch of treasonous Southern Democrats. That makes YOU the Lefitst.

>”You have it backwards though. The "all about slavery" myth was pushed by Leftists in Academia starting mostly in the 80s.“<

It might seem that way to you because the Southern Democrat version of history was pushed before the 1980’s where you lived. But, in fact, Leftists agreed with Southern Democrats that the war was never about slavery. Southern Democrats pushed that point of view because they didn’t want the South viewed in a negative light, and Leftists pushed it because they didn’t want the U.S. viewed in a positive light.

Howard Zinn pushed the same view you’re pushing here, and his book “A People’s History of the United States” was published in 1980: Howard Zinn and the Book That Poisoned a Generation

Your opinion of the war and Lincoln is in agreement with the Left’s opinion, such as the 1619 Project. Leftists were the ones who demanded the Lincoln statue be taken down in Boston.

>”I'm not surprised to hear the Yankee Textbooks always pushed the Anti-Southern propaganda. That fits with the Yankees' traditional hatred towards the South.“<

No hatred at all here. Believe me, people in the northeast aren’t even thinking about the South, unless they’re thinking about moving there. Maybe you identify as “proud southerners” because your ancestors were in the U.S. for many generations. In the northeast, many of us are descendants of immigrants who did not reach these shores until the 1900’s. Many of us identified more with our ethnic group from the “old country.” A single branch of my family stretches back to the civil war era, and we don’t even know much about them. So, you may have a beef with the North, but we don’t have one with the South.

>”You realize Jeffersonian Democrats in the 19th century were the exact opposite of current Democrats on almost every issue, right?”<

That’s what Democrats like to say.

>”Look at what they wanted. “<

Yes, look at what they wanted – to control the means of production in the form of human labor. Those Southern Democrats wanted to keep four million people enslaved. They justified slavery in their heads by convincing themselves their system was “beneficent” and slavery was a noble institution. They were very much like the Democrats of today who look down upon people and see themselves as saviors who know what’s best for everyone. Democrats today still want to control everything and everybody.

>”The states of the Deep South seceded because they saw themselves being economically exploited for the benefit of others“<

You overlook that Southern Democrats were exploiting the labor of 4 million people. Farmers lived in the North, too, but they had to pay their laborers: PragerU: Was the Civil War About Slavery?

>”You ignore the Corwin Amendment as well as Lincoln's repeated public statements.“<

Not true. I’ve addressed Corwin repeatedly. You just don’t want to accept my answer. I will repeat it again: Lincoln ran only on stopping the expansion of slavery into new territory. He took a moderate approach with the expectation that slavery would end eventually in the South. Corwin would have permitted slavery only in existing slave states. Corwin did not go far enough for the Southern Democrats.

Lincoln send a resupply fleet to Ft. Sumter. It was P.G.T. Beauregard who ordered the shore batteries to open fire. I never said Lincoln was a saint. The man had his flaws as any man does.But he preserved the Union. The South launched a war in order to preserve slavery and lost. I vote for Republicans. You come to a conservative website carrying the torch for a bunch of treasonous Southern Democrats. That makes YOU the Lefitst.

Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. Lincoln destroyed the union the Founders created and erected a centralized empire in its place. He launched a war of aggression for money and empire. He was perfectly willing to protect slavery expressly in the constitution and effectively forever. I vote for MAGA Republicans - I will not vote for RINOs ever again. You come here spewing the propaganda of a bunch of centralizing, constitution trampling, corporate subsidizing, warmongers. That obviously makes YOU the Leftist.

It might seem that way to you because the Southern Democrat version of history was pushed before the 1980’s where you lived. But, in fact, Leftists agreed with Southern Democrats that the war was never about slavery. Southern Democrats pushed that point of view because they didn’t want the South viewed in a negative light, and Leftists pushed it because they didn’t want the U.S. viewed in a positive light.

As I've pointed out, it wasn't the Southern Democrat version of history. That was the majority view of most of Academia nationwide. Academia has been decidedly to the Left since at least the early 20th century. It was always Yankees (the Northeast specifically) that pushed the view that it was "all about slavery" due to their historical anti-Southern bias. The 1960s Civil Rights era Left jumped on board with this because they wanted to portray the Conservative South in a negative light. Once they got firmly entrenched in Academia starting in the 70s and once they started gaining traction in Academia starting in the 80s, they pushed this PC Revisionist line.

Howard Zinn pushed the same view you’re pushing here, and his book “A People’s History of the United States” was published in 1980: Howard Zinn and the Book That Poisoned a Generation

We agree about Howard Zinn. We do not agree that he advocated the traditional view that secession and the war had mostly been about the economics. Of course after him came prominent PC Revisionists like James McPherson and others who were fully steeped in the "all about slavery" myth.

Your opinion of the war and Lincoln is in agreement with the Left’s opinion, such as the 1619 Project. Leftists were the ones who demanded the Lincoln statue be taken down in Boston.

Hardly. Most of the Left has revered Lincoln ie "the great centralizer". It was only after targeting all things Southern starting in the late 80s that Leftist radicals moved on to targeting all things American and especially all things White in the last few years that they moved on to toppling Lincoln's statues. Ironically, those were about the one statues I agreed with toppling. The next time Burn Loot Murder and Klantifa show up to tear down some statues and they pull down Lincolns' or psychopathic mass murderer's like Sherman's statues, lemme know. I'll show up with some ropes to lend a hand.

No hatred at all here. Believe me, people in the northeast aren’t even thinking about the South, unless they’re thinking about moving there. Maybe you identify as “proud southerners” because your ancestors were in the U.S. for many generations. In the northeast, many of us are descendants of immigrants who did not reach these shores until the 1900’s. Many of us identified more with our ethnic group from the “old country.” A single branch of my family stretches back to the civil war era, and we don’t even know much about them. So, you may have a beef with the North, but we don’t have one with the South.,/p>

LOL! You can't be serious. The Northeast has ALWAYS hated the South. That goes back to before the 13 colonies' secession from the British Empire. It persists to this day. It oozes from their every pore. Now, I freely grant that there are many who live in the Northeast who are themselves or are descendants of people who came over long after the war...eg a lot of Irish, Italians, etc. These people live in the Northeast but they aren't real Yankees. I'm much more referring to the traditional old English stock which settled up there. The old money. The Boston Brahmins. The Puritans and their spawn. They control the publishing companies, the media companies, the Ivy League, most of the political power, etc etc in the Northeast.

The mutual dislike between them and Jamestown - later the South goes right back to Jolly Ole England. They were the Puritan Roundheads. Where did the Cavaliers go once the tyrant Cromwell and his Puritan fanatics won the English Civil war? Like my direct namebearing ancestor 10 generations ago in 1649, a lot of them boarded ships and sailed for Jamestown. Say, what's UVA's mascot? Notice anything?

That’s what Democrats like to say.

LOL! No. That's reality. I'll confess something though. I'm not a Republican. I don't care which party wins so long as those who win are conservative/traditional (ie sane) on social issues, defend America's national sovereignty, reduce the size and scope of the federal government as much as possible, are economically nationalist and stay out of wars of choice abroad. If Democrats were to advocate that and do that, then I'd happily vote for Democrats. Obviously, they're a million miles away from that. Then again, so are RINOs. I won't vote for them either. I don't care about political parties.

Yes, look at what they wanted – to control the means of production in the form of human labor. Those Southern Democrats wanted to keep four million people enslaved. They justified slavery in their heads by convincing themselves their system was “beneficent” and slavery was a noble institution. They were very much like the Democrats of today who look down upon people and see themselves as saviors who know what’s best for everyone. Democrats today still want to control everything and everybody.

You really have to S-T-R-E-T-C-H mightily to try to compare mid 19th century Democrats who wanted decentralized power, balanced budgets, a very limited federal government, no corporate welfare or other wasteful spending, low taxes and to mind our own business abroad with the current iteration of the Democrat party. No, the people who wanted centralized power, corporate welfare, massive spending and high taxes and to constantly meddle abroad were the Republicans of that era. That almost perfectly fits the current Democrats as well as the NeoCons.

You overlook that Southern Democrats were exploiting the labor of 4 million people. Farmers lived in the North, too, but they had to pay their laborers: PragerU: Was the Civil War About Slavery?

SOME did. As I've pointed out, slave owners represented 5.67% of the Southern White population. They did not represent 94.33% of the Southern White population. The reverse is also true. Those who wail and gnash their teeth about slavery have no problem with imposing a government by force on people who did not consent to be ruled by that government....with militarily occupying a dozen states, with disenfranchising those states' voters, plundering any private property they possibly could via their massively corrupt occupation governments and imposing an absolutely crushing tax burden all of which combined to ruin the economy of a vast swathe of territory and the millions of people who inhabited that region Black and White alike. As soon as that was done, those very same people turned to committing genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Plains Indians. Yay Freedom!

Not true. I’ve addressed Corwin repeatedly. You just don’t want to accept my answer. I will repeat it again: Lincoln ran only on stopping the expansion of slavery into new territory. He took a moderate approach with the expectation that slavery would end eventually in the South. Corwin would have permitted slavery only in existing slave states. Corwin did not go far enough for the Southern Democrats.

You refuse to face up to the fact that the Corwin Amendment and the Republicans' support for strengthened fugitive slave laws puts the lie to the "All about slavery" myth. Likewise the expansion of slavery gambit does not work when one simply examines the fact that the states of the Deep South were perfectly willing to pass up any chance of expanding slavery when they seceded. They left with only their own sovereign territory and made no claim on the western territory of the US. So slavery was not threatened in the US, Republicans were perfectly clear they had no intention of threatening slavery in the US and the 7 states of the Deep South were perfectly willing to give up any chance of spreading slavery - they just wanted out. The Upper South did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war of aggression for money and empire.

>"You can't be serious. The Northeast has ALWAYS hated the South. That goes back to before the 13 colonies' secession from the British Empire. It persists to this day. It oozes from their every pore. Now, I freely grant that there are many who live in the Northeast who are themselves or are descendants of people who came over long after the war...eg a lot of Irish, Italians, etc. These people live in the Northeast but they aren't real Yankees. I'm much more referring to the traditional old English stock which settled up there."<

Your impression of the northeast is interesting, and I think it's common among southerners, except that other southerners see everyone in the NE as a "Yankee." Many years, I worked for a company with many clients in the South, and those clients went on and on about the South and "Yankees" and our "Yankee accents." That was more than 20 years ago, and now I see that kind of talk will never end.

But, where I live, I don't hear people talk about southerners. Interestingly, every black person I've known only made glowing comments about the South. I don't know why, but they did. They are southerners at heart. Probably most white people living here have descended from immigrants through Ellis Island. Here, if you ask someone, "What are you?" you get the whole rundown, even down to fractions, of all the ethnicities. Many people will say they are 100% something, but I've only heard people mention English as a small fraction in a long list. But, I can't speak for all of the northeast.

>"Like my direct namebearing ancestor 10 generations ago in 1649"<

This explains why you're so interested in this subject. You can trace your ancestry in the U.S. back to 1649? I can trace mine only to Ellis Island. There's a branch that supposedly extends further, but I have not been able to verify that story. They were all immigrants, and English was not their native tongue, which is a common story for many families in this area.

>"Most of the Left has revered Lincoln"<

I disagree. Even the historian you mentioned (Beard) was a leftist.

>"I'll confess something though. I'm not a Republican."<

Then what are you?

>"You really have to S-T-R-E-T-C-H mightily to try to compare mid 19th century Democrats . . . with the current iteration of the Democrat party."<

Not a stretch at all, and it's not just my opinion. Many conservatives have written such comparisons of Democrats then to Democrats today. Whether or not they favored low taxes, Democrats favored a system of government that kept 4 million people enslaved. It's not only about what percentage of people held slaves. It's about a system of government.

It's just history now. Neither of us were alive at that time, but we have to see history for what it is.

I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, either.

Your impression of the northeast is interesting, and I think it's common among southerners, except that other southerners see everyone in the NE as a "Yankee." Many years, I worked for a company with many clients in the South, and those clients went on and on about the South and "Yankees" and our "Yankee accents." That was more than 20 years ago, and now I see that kind of talk will never end.

The grudge is a very old one - several hundred years. It goes both ways and its not going to end. Notice how these two regions are ALWAYS on opposite sides politically?

But, where I live, I don't hear people talk about southerners. Interestingly, every black person I've known only made glowing comments about the South. I don't know why, but they did. They are southerners at heart.

Contrary to the propaganda you hear in the media/hollywood and contrary to Yankees who are just sure that the South is THE home to race hatred, it just ain't so. Most Black and White people in the South get along very well. There is far LESS animosity than is typically seen in Northern cities - less segregation too. Read de Tocqueville and you'll notice something interesting. He points out that while the laws in the South were worse for Blacks, the culture was better. People got along better in their daily lives and there wasn't segregation. That was a Northern thing. The culture largely went back to how it was pre-segregation. I know most non Southerners are never going to believe any of that, but its true - and most Blacks will tell you the same if you ask them.

Probably most white people living here have descended from immigrants through Ellis Island. Here, if you ask someone, "What are you?" you get the whole rundown, even down to fractions, of all the ethnicities. Many people will say they are 100% something, but I've only heard people mention English as a small fraction in a long list. But, I can't speak for all of the northeast.

I freely acknowledge this is probably true. Yet those who (still) hold the reins of power in that region are the same they've always been. I call the Wokeratti "Neo Puritans". They are exactly that. Just as self righteous, humorless, fanatical, judgmental and intolerant as the first lot. In many many cases they are not only from the same region but are the literal descendants of Puritan Yankees. The current moral panic they are going through is very much like several others if you study their history. These are the people who held the Salem witch trials after all......

This explains why you're so interested in this subject. You can trace your ancestry in the U.S. back to 1649? I can trace mine only to Ellis Island. There's a branch that supposedly extends further, but I have not been able to verify that story. They were all immigrants, and English was not their native tongue, which is a common story for many families in this area.

Yes, the namebearing line traces back to a guy named John...almost certainly a Cavalier....who boarded a ship in Bristol and landed in Jamestown in 1649. Of course, my grandad married a girl who was from Germany. Some Irish got mixed in along the way as well. A hot chick is a hot chick. No guy is going to give a damn where her family comes from if she's hot.

Then what are you?

A right leaning Independent. I've voted Republican almost exclusively. I won't ever vote for a RINO again though. I sat out the 12 election because I would not vote for Romney. I don't regret that. I just wish I hadn't held by nose and voted for McCain in 08 much as I detest Obama.

Not a stretch at all, and it's not just my opinion. Many conservatives have written such comparisons of Democrats then to Democrats today. Whether or not they favored low taxes, Democrats favored a system of government that kept 4 million people enslaved. It's not only about what percentage of people held slaves. It's about a system of government.

The Republicans at that time favored that system too. They were willing to protect it forever so long as it kept the sweet sweet Southern cash rolling in to line the pockets of their corporate fatcat supporters. The Republicans have traditionally been too much in thrall to corporate interests. I'm a fierce anti socialist, but that does not mean I'm automatically going to trust big business. Indeed, many of them have proven just how untrustworthy they are...Big Tech, The Corporate Media, Hollywood, Big Pharma, the illegal immigrant/cheap labor/outsourcing loving Koch Brothers, etc.

I'm much more in favor of Buchanan's and later Trump's economic nationalism. Keep the government out of business and end corporate welfare on the one hand, end excessive environmental and other regulation and cut corporate taxes, yes. BUT....business needs to do its part in return. It needs to be located here in the USA. It needs to bring manufacturing home both for the jobs as well as to enhance national security. They can afford the higher wages Americans require with the helping hand of deregulation and lower corporate tax rates to offset that cost. If that's not enough incentive, some higher tariffs on the likes of low cost cheaters like China are in order.

It's just history now. Neither of us were alive at that time, but we have to see history for what it is. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, either.

As Faulkner said: "the past is never dead, its not even past." We still to this day live with the effects of the overthrow of the original constitution and the centralization of power in the hands of Imperial Washington. Here's a very prescient quote from Robert E Lee in his correspondence with Lord Acton after the war:

" I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

Look at where we are today. Unsustainable debts. Constant meddling abroad. The centralized Leviathan in Washington tramples on citizens' constitutional rights constantly - now they're openly collaborating with Big Tech to censor. We have a weaponized, two tiered "justice" system. It was all foreseeable once the states were removed as constitutional actors in their own right capable of checking the power of the federal government which was the system the Founding Fathers created. The original constitution died at Appamattox.

>"The grudge is a very old one - several hundred years. It goes both ways and its not going to end."<

I think it only goes one way.

>"He points out that while the laws in the South were worse for Blacks, the culture was better. People got along better in their daily lives and there wasn't segregation. That was a Northern thing. The culture largely went back to how it was pre-segregation."<

Not following... I don't know what that means.

>"I know most non Southerners are never going to believe any of that, but its true - and most Blacks will tell you the same if you ask them."<

I can only speak to the comments I heard from the people I knew. They never commented to me about race relations in the South. But, they made negative remarks about living conditions in the North - the rowhomes, the cold winters, the cost of living. Plus, their relatives lived down south.

(RE: descendants of immigrants) >"I freely acknowledge this is probably true."<

It is. To add more context: I lived not far from wealthy communities with "old money." The old WASP families have not had much political clout in this area for a long time. Other groups replaced them long ago. But, again, I don't know if that's true for all of the northeast.

>"I call the Wokeratti "Neo Puritans". They are exactly that. Just as self righteous, humorless, fanatical, judgmental and intolerant as the first lot. In many many cases they are not only from the same region but are the literal descendants of Puritan Yankees."<

Your comparison between today's leftists and yesterday's Puritans sounds like my comparison between today's Democrats and yesterday's Southern Democrats. They wouldn't have agreed with each other, but they are very much alike in many ways.

>"I'm much more in favor of Buchanan's and later Trump's economic nationalism."<

Remember, Trump favored tariffs, and he's a New Yorker. So, you DO like a Yankee Republican who favors tariffs.

>"A right leaning Independent. I've voted Republican almost exclusively. I won't ever vote for a RINO again though."<

For a long time, the majority of voters in my "blue state" were independents. In 25 years here, I found that most of them were libertarian-leaning (they told me so). Only recently have the majority of voters here become Democrats, and I heard an influx of immigrants into one part of the state is the reason.

I think it only goes one way.

Then you haven't been paying attention. People are very good at seeing any slights directed at them or their group. They're very bad at seeing any directed at others. Yes, absolutely the "overclass", the "intelligentsia", whatever you want to call them from New England try to run down the South, its history, people and culture every chance they get. The "all about slavery" myth is a big part of that. Rewriting American history to all but airbrush Jamestown out and to make it all about those Johnny-Come-Latelies up in Massachusetts is part of that too. Jamestown was well established before the Mayflower ever set sail. The REAL founding ships of English settlement were the ,i>Susan Constant, the Godspeed and the ,i>Discovery. They landed in Jamestown over a decade earlier. I bet you'd never heard of them. Why do you think that is?

Not following... I don't know what that means.

It means race relations were never as bad in the South as Northerners thought they were and that is still true today.

It is. To add more context: I lived not far from wealthy communities with "old money." The old WASP families have not had much political clout in this area for a long time. Other groups replaced them long ago. But, again, I don't know if that's true for all of the northeast.

They still have a ton of influence....everything from heads of corporations to professorships in Academia to a lot of key positions in the state department, the intel agencies and the federal bureaucracy.

Your comparison between today's leftists and yesterday's Puritans sounds like my comparison between today's Democrats and yesterday's Southern Democrats. They wouldn't have agreed with each other, but they are very much alike in many ways.

I don't see the two as being alike - that is yesterday's Southern Democrats and Puritans/Wokeratti. Yesterday's Southern Democrats are today's American patriots and populists. decentralized power, balanced budgets, limited government, non interventionist foreign policy, etc. A big difference is now those people would support higher protective tariffs but then again now industry is distributed around the country instead of being concentrated in one region like it was 150 years ago.

Remember, Trump favored tariffs, and he's a New Yorker. So, you DO like a Yankee Republican who favors tariffs.

As I noted above, economic conditions have changed radically between then and now. At the time, the South was not industrialized and had an export based economy such that a high tariff really screwed them over. Now, the South is much more industrialized and is no longer the exporting powerhouse it was with respect to commodities. Bringing more factories back would not just enrich one region now the way it did then.

For a long time, the majority of voters in my "blue state" were independents. In 25 years here, I found that most of them were libertarian-leaning (they told me so). Only recently have the majority of voters here become Democrats, and I heard an influx of immigrants into one part of the state is the reason.

Not only am I suspicious of the establishment of both parties but also I work as a contractor in Banking. I have to get hired for new projects fairly often. It would not be beneficial to me if anybody did a deep dive and found out I was a registered Republican - not if you know the politics of Citibank, BofA, WellsFargo, Chase, etc etc. Its best I keep a low profile at least publicly. Being a registered Independent would not cause my contracts to suddenly dry up if anybody found out. Given the times we live in, I'm not at all sure being a registered Republican wouldn't cause them to "just happen" to no longer hire me.

Maybe Kevin should reconsider.

Boston was then and is now an existential American enemy

Amen. The biggest mistake Southerners ever made was supporting them. They should have sat back and let the Brits economically ruin Boston.

>"The "all about slavery" myth is a big part of that."<

We'll have to disagree on that. I'm never going to change your mind.

>"They landed in Jamestown over a decade earlier. I bet you'd never heard of them. Why do you think that is?"<

I never had much interest in the subject, probably because my ancestry does not trace back that far in this country.

>"Yesterday's Southern Democrats are today's American patriots and populists. decentralized power, balanced budgets, limited government, non interventionist foreign policy, etc."<

I disagree. Yesterday's Southern Democrats were not American patriots. Republicans are nothing like the Southern Democrats.

The concepts of limited government and balanced budgets apply to government at all levels. Republicans have long favored limited government and balanced budgets at state and local levels, too.

Meanwhile, Democrats have long favored more government control at all levels. Today's Democrats like to claim the old segregationist Democrats switched over to the GOP in 1964. The truth is the Dems continued to embrace old segregationists like Robert Byrd. Dividing people into categories is the Democrat party's modus operandi. It always has been, and it always will be. Think about it: The old segregationists liked to put people into boxes and move them around. Democrats like to force everyone into social experiments. There's really no difference between laws dictating where people should sit by race on a bus and bussing kids by race to schools.

Up to the 1990's, southern states sent more Democrats than Republicans to Congress. Democrats held onto power in the South up to the 2000's. Note the presidential election maps below during that time. Apparently, Southern Democrats did not change over to the Republican party. In 1964, the South split between LBJ and Goldwater. In 1968, Texas voted for the Democrat, and most of the other southern states voted for Wallace. The South voted for Nixon in '72, but so did almost the whole country. Then, in 1976, the South voted overwhelmingly for Carter (the northeast was split). Most of the country voted for Reagan, but Georgia did not in 1980. And the South was split over Clinton.

The Republican and Democratic parties didn't change very much. The voters did.

I disagree. Yesterday's Southern Democrats were not American patriots. Republicans are nothing like the Southern Democrats.

I disagree. What most Southerners supported then - decentralized power, balanced budgets, a non interventionist foreign policy, limited government, etc - they still support today. Who supported the opposite of centralized federal government power, lots of government spending and meddling abroad? The North - especially the Northeast. Just like that same region supports all of that today.

The concepts of limited government and balanced budgets apply to government at all levels. Republicans have long favored limited government and balanced budgets at state and local levels, too.

Republicans did not favor that in the mid 19th century. They were for higher tariffs and expanded government including expanded government spending.

Meanwhile, Democrats have long favored more government control at all levels.

That's diametrically the opposite of what Democrats favored in the 19th century.

Today's Democrats like to claim the old segregationist Democrats switched over to the GOP in 1964. The truth is the Dems continued to embrace old segregationists like Robert Byrd. Dividing people into categories is the Democrat party's modus operandi. It always has been, and it always will be. Think about it: The old segregationists liked to put people into boxes and move them around. Democrats like to force everyone into social experiments. There's really no difference between laws dictating where people should sit by race on a bus and bussing kids by race to schools.

The Leftists' claim that the parties magically switched over racial issues in the 60s is of course completely bunk. The shift happened before that and it happened over economic issues. The Democrats used to favor small government and decentralized power. Hell, they used to favor the working man. They don't any more. The Republicans used to favor the country club set and the RINOs still do but the MAGA Republicans are very different. They do clearly favor the working and middle classes. Political parties have changed over time in what they stand for. If you look at things as "Republicans always good, Democrats always bad" you're going to get an extremely inaccurate picture of what has happened in the country.

Up to the 1990's, southern states sent more Democrats than Republicans to Congress. Democrats held onto power in the South up to the 2000's. Note the presidential election maps below during that time. Apparently, Southern Democrats did not change over to the Republican party. In 1964, the South split between LBJ and Goldwater. In 1968, Texas voted for the Democrat, and most of the other southern states voted for Wallace. The South voted for Nixon in '72, but so did almost the whole country. Then, in 1976, the South voted overwhelmingly for Carter (the northeast was split). Most of the country voted for Reagan, but Georgia did not in 1980. And the South was split over Clinton.

The Republican and Democratic parties didn't change very much. The voters did.

The Republicans made their name mud in the South after the war by conducting a military occupation for 12 years, disenfranchising the vast majority of the voters, installing massively corrupt occupation governments and then stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. After that - totally unsurprisingly - a Republican could not be elected so much as county dog catcher anywhere in the South for about 100 years. The Republicans have nobody but themselves to blame for that.

Wilson and FDR really moved the Democrat party to the Left in the early to mid 20th century. Southern Democrats fought a rearguard action against this increasingly leftward shift for years and years. Even JFK for example spent 7% of GDP on Defense, cut taxes, was a combat veteran and a lifelong NRA member. Try ANY of that in the Democrat party today. Once again, the party has changed. Neither political party is static. Voters in the South were willing to give Carter a chance. He proved himself a failure and they overwhelmingly supported Ronald Reagan twice. They supported the elder Bush the first time and were split the second time. The big change in Congress came in 1994. The Southern Congressional delegation has been majority Republican ever since.

Southern Democrats even up to the 90s were never the squishy liberals Northern Democrats were. Remember Charlie Wilson who spearheaded the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Prime example of a Southern Democrat at this time. That's not today's Democrat party. That's why they consistently lose in the South yet get a majority of the vote in the North and especially in the Northeast.

>"Wilson and FDR really moved the Democrat party to the Left in the early to mid 20th century."<

The South voted for FDR 4 times. (The northeast was split on FDR.)

>"Voters in the South were willing to give Carter a chance."<

The northeast split on Carter in '76. But, Carter won almost all the southern states that election.

>"He proved himself a failure and they overwhelmingly supported Ronald Reagan twice."<

So did the northeast and the rest of the country. Then, the South was split on Clinton.

Even after '94, they tended to vote for Dems at the local level until the 2000's. Eventually, the old Southern Dems passed on.

>"Southern Democrats even up to the 90s were never the squishy liberals Northern Democrats were."<

It's not about being "squishy." It's about big government. Not only big federal government, but dictatorial state governments. Southern Democrats wanted laws enforcing segregation. Republicans opposed those laws because we each have a right to free association.

If you vote Republican, you are voting nothing like the old Southern Dems. You're voting like a Republican.

Now, the South and Northeast have switched places, with the northeast voting for the Dem party now. The South doesn't vote like Southern Democrats now.