Posted on 11/23/2001 5:25:09 AM PST by LarryLied
Despite the "friendly" Sunbelt's purported ease and opportunity, the "unfriendly" North continues by far to have the best quality of life.The United Way now reports that Minnesota (of which I am genetically half a native, which may undermine the good data here) is the best state, in economic well-being, education, health, civic engagement, safety and the environment. Having visited this Midwest Finland, I am not surprised. And I find New Hampshire's Number 2 rating apt, too, having inhabited that rocky realm of rectitude, responsibility and (usually) reasonableness for four years.
Ditto the others in the top 10: Connecticut (even with Hartford!); Massachusetts; Vermont; Maine; Wisconsin; Iowa; New Jersey, and, yes, even Rhode Island, hardly a state at all!
Meanwhile, the bottom 10 are all in the Sunbelt, the worst New Mexico, and then Louisiana.
Maybe it's mostly the weather. The North's bracing and wildly variable climate energizes people and encourages planning and careful citizenship. And it's probably better for you, because cold is bad for bugs. Even the post-war wave of air-conditioning hasn't let previously soporific Southern schools, offices and factories overcome the North's paradoxical climatic advantage.
And Northerners tend to be less mobile, and so less likely to slide into that appalling anomie in which the American Dream is pursued by folks wandering the roads in search of pots of gold that turn out to be tin, and leaving no forwarding address. But then, it is easier to wander about where the weather is warm. Thus the pervasive trailer parks in the Sunbelt, and enough social problems to make you ask if the Sunbelt's growing national power is a good thing. (Don't show this to my Tennessee relatives.)
All of us Freepers know that the media is liberal and full of it. You guys need to use your heads a little and not blame all Northerners for the lies of the media. I can take the fire, apparently some others can't, they're asking me to leave.
I have never understood the intentions of anyone who believes everyone has to live like they do....or be forced to at the point of a gun. Sorta like I don't understand the Taliban. So I won't even pretend to understand Northern thinking. But I do understand northern results. And I know Sherman marched from Atlanta to the sea and stole or destroyed everything in a 100 mile swath. Now do you know how far it is from Atlanta to the coast? And can you imagine how wide 100 miles swath is? Again, I say, most Southerners were fighting in defense of their HOMES. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
As for you understanding the true meaning of the Civil war thats great, and it's great that you would have stood up against invaders coming into your beloved South. You should thank the North for being the first , and only invaders to come into the South. Had we sat back and allowed you to form a Confederate state then there would have been a long line of invaders coming into the South, and North. Starting with the English, and French forces. Because of the "War of Northern Aggression" as you call it, the USA has become the most powerful nation in the world. If you would like to get angry at us Northerners, you can easily point to the bloated government we created in the years following the war. This is the true Northern aggression.
Nothing like open spaces up there though. I saw two bears last time I was in the North Country.
Good question. Anyone care to ask them that and why they have such animosity for the south, there is an on line form to fill out here:
Rural Michigan is great.
You said you didn't first mention slavery to me, I said you did. I was right. Open and shut case. What's your complaint? yarddog said the South was better economically than the North pre-1860. He distinguished the slave times. I answered. That's what happens on discussion forums, posts beget answers.
Since you started the posts to me...and commented on my comments to others...why do you find it unreasonable that I would comment on your responses to others?
I don't care if you do or not. You said you didn't mention slavery to me before I mentioned it to you, I proved you were mistaken as evidenced by post #99, open and shut case.
Now you are involved in the "you started it first" which is most often seen in children...and it is your response to everyone who objects when you call Southerners names.
Unfortunately for you, our discussion can easily be read and everyone can see that you're wrong. You started that too. You said that when I talked about slavery, that I must have been responding to someone else because you didn't mention slavery. You were wrong, you mentioned slavery to me in post #99 first. Again you Southerners are starting a fight and then complaining of the results.
To disagree is one thing, to call your opponent bigots and self-righteous hypocrites only shows you cannot defend your position without resorting to name calling.
But you are bigots and self-righteous hypocrits. Read the first 50 posts again and you'll see it. You guys went on for quite a while before we started responding. War is hell, ain't it?
This is total crap. Often the weather in New England is beautiful. It does rain, but so does everywhere else, and the winters are bearable(as long as you dress in layers) Yes it is very liberal, but I am fighting to change that. You can't snowboard in GA either, I would not be able to live with that.
And why am I not surprised that you quote Sherman? Typical.
Most of the Southerners I met especially from their small towns(I'm a small towner myself) are some of the nicest people I've met. I just become relaxed when I'm down there.
I may move down there someday, we have something in common. We like our guns, hunting, and hate it when city people bring their city to rural areas.
With that attitude, you will be welcome anywhere...:)
I feel that you can defend the south with arms all you want, but had the North allowed the country to divide, there would be no country for the southern boys to defend today. It seems to me that the south was more concerned with defending its ego, then with defending the interests of the USA. How long would you have been able to stand up to a Britsh invasion if the North was to busy standing up to France?
Clearly they have too much time and, by inference, money on their hands.
They think there were no liberals down there before the South began getting industrialized and Northeners migrated. Like the other poster said, they're forgetting that they were solidly Democratic for 120 years, no doubt doing a lot for New Dealism.
To each his own.
You pose a question that we will never know the answer to....and I do not want to argue with you since you are responding in a reasonable manner. However, it is difficult for people whose families lived here during that time to be totally objective and non-emotional about the subject. What would you have suggested we do when the Yankees rode into our town and camped at our front doors? Welcome them with open arms?
I don't remember people in CT welcoming the Redcoats when they marched into town under arms. It really is the same thing when you think about defending your home.
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.