Re: The South Shall Rise Again

Gary wrote:
( previous post snipped-follow thread )

Bring down ? Be fair. It was not the South who invaded the North
with dreams of murder, rape, arson and theft. That was left to
Lincoln's hirelings.

Perhaps Glen may have a point about Southern Education. It does appear that they have a significantly revisionist( and wrong ) view of the historical events. I seem to recall somewhere that it was the Southern States which seceded from the Union and Southern interests which fired the first shots in anger of the Civil War. Had these events NOT transpired, nothing which followed would.


It is far too complicated a subject to argue on this forum.

Whenever I hear that, it sends up a red flag.


I should have said "group" instead of forum. The forum is fine,
but this groups does not usually address serious topics. Nor
appreciate anybody who does.

I've found that there are indeed serious topics raised in this group. It is only those who present preposterous and outlandish views, which can only be substantiated by some innate prejudice, who are not taken seriously.

Translated, it either means that the author thinks his opposite in discussion is too stupid to comprehend what he says, or, more likely, he can't come up with anything of value to refute the suggestion. Either way, Gary, you come up on the short end of the topic.


Let me give a short version of my ideas about the year 1861. IMO,
there were two great crimes committed that year. The first crime was
when members of the Planter class convinced (apparently) a majority of
the Plain Folk to support them in a renegade government formed in
Montgomery Al. The second crime was when Lincoln ordered the
Federal (or was it the Republican) army into the South to loot, murder
and destroy.

There is some scholarship to support your view regarding the first 'crime.' The second 'crime' you have no evidence to support. Lincoln ordered the troops south to quell a rebellion of succession, AFTER Federal troops were fired upon at Fort Sumpter. There is NO evidence that he either supported, condoned or ordered the troops to loot, murder, and destroy. True, Sherman did indeed burn and destroy in his march to the sea, but that occurred much later. And do you have evidence to support a contention that these troops committed what would amount to crimes against the civilian population for which they were NOT appropriately disciplined?


Not a single American died because of the first crime. 600,000
Americans died because of the second.

Actually, 600,000 Americans DID die because of the first 'crime.' Had secession never taken place there would be no civil war. A material fact of cause and effect you appear to neglect.

I have two regrets. First that my Alabama ancestors did not organize
their farmer neighbors and march into Montgomery and hang Jeff Davis
and all the other secessionist criminals. Second, that the good
people in VA and MD did not march into Washington and hang the
murderous white trash -- Abe Lincoln.

did you read my first comment about what I wrote about outlandish and preposterous views? did you consider that?


( big snip )

Actually, no, Gary. If you recall correctly, it was the Democrats who proposed using the TARP funds initially without having to pass special legislation, and it was Bush who wanted such legislation. Now it appears that it is Bush who had to accede to the Democrats initial proposal.

In any event, it really doesn't matter, because in this instance, Bush actually stood up for America, recognizing the need for an AMERICAN auto industry. Pity these SOUTHERN Republicans have more concern for FOREIGN interests than for their own country's. IMHO, they should have to register as agents for a foreign government. Because they're certainly acting as such. And if you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you too...even cheaper.


I don't disagree with you. As a matter of fact my hobby for the
past five years has been trying to discover -- through reading history
-- why it is we Southerners are so opposed to so many things that we
should support. But it is an historical fact that we -- as a people
-- vote against our own self interest. Regularly. For no reason
that I can understand, I was opposed to unions when I was first old
enough to take a part time job at age 16. Why ? Cultural ?
Stupidity ? A little of both.

Gary, in this instance it's very easy to see why they do what they do. First of all, the Southern mentality is fundamentally a class specific one. Southerners have an innate understanding of class and labor is in the lower class, to be disrespected.


Very true. But how does a member of the working class manage to
separate himself from it ?

He doesn't. What needs to be separated from the culture is the view itself. Working people built this country into what became the greatest economy in the world. This economy created a middle class, essentially of working people, who were able to consume the fruits of that industry, simply because they had the financial resources to do so. Now, if we adopt this 'southern mentality,' we have to assume that the working class does not and is not entitled to any significant share of the fruits of production, and thus, will be unable to purchase and otherwise consume the fruits of that production. We have essentially outsourced the middle class to China, India and Indonesia, and have outsourced their prosperity as well. And the Soutnern plantation mentality doesn't see any problem with that, just so long as they can maintain their perception of class distinction.

Unions represent the lower class, and therefore, in the Southern mind, are evil, are irreligious Godless Communists and whatever. Therefore, labor is evil and must be kept down, leading to the plantation mentality.


Alan, you are evidently an educated man. Which is why I respect your
opinions even when I disagree. And I will admit that you are
closer to the truth than I was five years ago. But you are still not
quite there.

Then enlighten me. I will listen.

Secondly, money greases the wheel of politics, and these southern senators have all been the recipients of very generous campaign contributions from those foreign companies. And that happens to be a matter of public record. So, like all good politicians, they represent not the interests of the people who elected them, but the interests of the people who funded their election.

The contradiction lies in the fact that the southern mentality, which accounts for the southerners' continual wrapping themselves in the flag and standing on their patriotic soapboxes, is compromised by the fact that these companies are foreign, and thus producing a conflict. Problem is any good, uneducated southerner( as Glenn would say )


It has nothing to do with education or intelligence. Which is why it
fascinates and puzzles me.

I suppose you have a point. I just used poetic license. But if these people ARE educated, then apparently their education had less of an effect on their prejudices than it should. However, i still stand on my explanation which follows.

would act on his innate stupidity and core beliefs of class structure, and go for the American as opposed to the foreigner. The fact that money has caused a reversal of this is something which we should stand up and take notice of. We've been trying to defeat the southern mentality by education and reason, when we should have been trying to BUY it, as we see has been done here.


The Southern mentality is a product -- not of education or it's lack
-- but of culture. The Scotch-Irish culture to be exact.

Regardless of where it came from, it was crystallized by the American experience.

But let us talk education for a moment since it interests you and
Glenn so much.

Pooler is an idiot; always was and always will be. He is just as ideological and prejudiced as those exhibiting the southern mentality. It was fascinating, however, that his prejudices should have been somewhat founded.

I don't have any statistics to prove it -- but my
observations of -- and participation in -- American life has taught me
one thing about ethnic group-intelligence. The two most intelligent
ethnic groups in this country are Jews and Crackers. There is only
one big difference in them. The Jewish culture respects and promotes
education -- and the Cracker culture does not. So, imo, the
uneducated Cracker has just as much intelligence as the educated Jew.
But not as much knowledge. It is the lack of knowledge that hinders
my tribe.

Let me share with you one sentence that is the root of the Southern
problem. The idea may or may not be true. But the fact that
Southerners have thought it to be true for 200 years -- is our big
stumbling block.

"...In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial
duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring
but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are
vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would
not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and
refinement..."

Sen. James Henry Hammond (D-SC)
March 4, 1858 in the US Senate

Apparently this validates what I have asserted.

But I still think the GOP wins this one battle. The Southern senators
will be re-elected. And Bush's support will be remembered -- and
will help the GOP candiates in some of the Northern states.

Gary, already these senators are being colored as unpatriotic.


I know that. But we are not talking patriotism, we are talking
politics. And politically they win.

Not when they can be quite correctly accused of being unpatriotic. emotionalism plays a very large role.

They're toast when the new congress convenes, and if any are up for reelection soon, they are likely to be gone. The country is not coming out of this recession any time soon, and they will be painted, quite properly, as impediments to change to better times.

Gary, these Southern Senators have executed the 2008 version of Picket's charge, and like Picket and the Army of Virginia, shot their last load and will go down to defeat. And the sooner, the better.


If you recall, Pickett -- though a fool -- is probably still popular
in the South.

Regardless, the analogy is correct. Both were the last gasp in a losing cause, just as Hitler's Ardennes offensive was in 1944.

OK, Allan. Thanks for your patience. I am not trying to BS you.
But this is a subject that interests me. Why ? Because only if we
can figure out why people do stupid things -- can we help them see the
error of their ways. I know that in the North people like to say it's
because Southerners are stupid. That is not the reason. Some of
the smartest people I have ever met -- north or south -- subscribe to
these opinions.

As I said, prejudice is based on innate values, which really don't require any rational basis, and usually don't. the mentality must be excised by repeated defeats, just as segregation was. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional reason for SCOTUS to get involved, as this is economic, and money talks. The only way to defeat it is through economics. The right-to-work laws must be chipped away at, and then when labor realizes they're better off, the tide will change.

The question is : How can Southerners look down on their own class ?
As crazy as it sounds -- we do. A working man thinks himself to be
in the same class as Ted Turner. That is what we were taught in the
ante-bellum South.

Hint: The Border-landers of Scotland -England were a classless
society. They were tribal and the only person they followed was
their tribal leader. Moving from the borderlands to a slave culture
kept their centuries old culture intact.

A parting thought from page 41 "Mind of the South" by Wilbur Cash 1941

"...If the common white was scorned, yet that scorn was so attenuated
and softened in its passage down through the universal medium of this
manner, struck at last so obliquely upon his ego, that it glanced off
harmless. When he frequented public gatherings, what he encountered
would seldom be naked hauteur. Rather, there would nearly always be a
fine gentleman to lay a familiar hand on his shoulder, to inquire by
name after the members of his family, maybe to buy him a drink,
certainly to rally him on some boasted weakness or treasured
misadventure, and to come around eventually to confiding in a hushed
voice that that damned ***-loving scoundrel Garrison, in Boston-in
short, to patronize him in such fashion that to his simple eyes he
seemed not to be patronized at all but actually deferred to, to send
him home, not sullen and vindictive, but glowing with the sense of
participation in the common brotherhood of white men...."

.

Loading