Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
North VS. South
- Thread starter TSE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm part Irish, part Black, part Jewish (amoung other things in that famous "Kechup with a kick") I hold no bitterness for slavery of any of my ancestry nor the other atrocities against these. Too many generations distant for me to demand 40 acres and a mule, a free ticket to the holy land, or official recognition by the UK for past indiscretions. Nor would I ask for an acre of land on a reservation to start a small casino even though I am also Blackfeet.
I don't really think it's fair to say that there aren't any differences unless you've lived in both for an extended period of time.
Well, that's only logical. Today, Civil War Tourism is a major industry in virtually all of the 11 states once in the Confederacy. "In the state of Georgia, heritage tourism brings in more than $450 million a year." In order for that sort of tourism to be successful the citizens of a given local area has to make an effort to "remember" and otherwise observe the happenings of the war and to become proactive in terms of informing the traveling public about the events that took place locally during the Civil War.
There is far much more physical evidence, ranging from simple markers to preserved battlefields in state and national parks, that still serves to remind people living in Georgia today of the Civil War than one would find anywhere in Ohio. During the Civil War there were only two small battles fought in Ohio compared to over a couple dozen large battles fought in Georgia, as well as the destruction from the siege of Atlanta, the devastation rendered during Sherman's March to the Sea, and so on.
And since the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War begins in 2011 "remembrances" of the war are likely to become even more numerous in the South.
North FTW. The beer's cheaper, people are friendlier, and a typical house doesn't cost 30 times national average wage
Wait, what? You meant South. Everything is cheaper in the South.
Different country.
I have a question: Why do people from the South, or at least supporters of the South in this thread, seem to be all incensed when someone says the Civil War was about slavery? Is there some reason they get mad and try to insist it was for states rights? I've never really debated this point so I don't have experience in knowing what people's general arguments are on either side, but am I right in deducing that it's some strange way of justifying slavery and justifying the war?
My family arrived at Ellis Island from Norway on Aug. 14th 1924. I grow up in a family who was removed from the Civil war. There was not any stories about life before and during the civil war. No stories about how people in Minnesota felt about the differences between the north & south, and no stories about the families stance on slavery.
I can't speak for everyone, but my guess Andy is that it's a guilt by association stereotype thing. Some people from the South are sensitive to the jokes that we are all rednecks, or that we still don't wear shoes, etc. etc, (insert your own Southern joke here). Thus, in response to the perceived "put down" by associating or linking growing up in the South with approval of and defense of slavery, some of us Southerners get defensive. Being born and raised in the South I can tell you that Southern pride is real and that we do study our history. The war was fought over states rights and as some have pointed out above, one of those rights was the right to own slaves. So, in truth it's really an issue of semantics or emphasis and if I was weighing in on two people arguing the issue I would have to say "you are both correct. Now don't make me separate you two or worse yet beat you like a ...." Oops, just ignore that last part.
David Goldfield's book, Still Fighting the Civil War: The American South and Southern History, is a good read on the subject. Excerpts are available at Google Books. In the author's words, the book is an attempt to relate "why southerners have remembered the Civil War and Reconstruction as they have." Goldfield states that in the South history "is not learned; it is remembered, it is handed down like a family heirloom through generations."
This all actually makes me glad that my ancestors weren't even part of the country at the time all of this was going on. They had their own Nation (which I'm proud to be a part of). None of my ancestors were slaves (though people consider me to be Black), when I'm half Black/Half Amer. Indian.
Back on topic though. Some say that the Civil War was about States' rights. If that were the case, then looking at the Constitution at the time (which there were only 12 amendments), you had the 10th amendment going against itself, the 9th Amendment, and the whole bloody Preamble to the Constitution.
States rights? Keep in mind that the 10th Amendment states:
9th Amendment states:
All bold for emphasis.
You know the Preamble. If you don't, go slap your 8th grade Social Studies teacher.
For those of you who say it wasn't about slavery, but was about States' rights, here is one question: Do you or do you not believe that those who were enslaved were people? If you don't, then I'd venture to say that you have some serious racial issues that need to be dealt with, on top of some bitterness.
If so, then you know that those people were protected by the same rights granted by the Constitution that the slaveowners were granted. By Law, they violated the constitutional rights of each and every person they owned, and were too prideful and stubborn to admit it.
It sucks that it took a war and the killing of an absolutely brilliant man to see that. And personally, I'm more than honoured (I'm lucky, and my mother timed it right) to share my birthday with that man.
If the values he and his followers in his party had were in existence today, I probably would switch to the Republican party, for those people were the GOP. It's sad that that is lost on those in the Reds today.
BL.
Back on topic though. Some say that the Civil War was about States' rights. If that were the case, then looking at the Constitution at the time (which there were only 12 amendments), you had the 10th amendment going against itself, the 9th Amendment, and the whole bloody Preamble to the Constitution.
States rights? Keep in mind that the 10th Amendment states:
9th Amendment states:
All bold for emphasis.
You know the Preamble. If you don't, go slap your 8th grade Social Studies teacher.
For those of you who say it wasn't about slavery, but was about States' rights, here is one question: Do you or do you not believe that those who were enslaved were people? If you don't, then I'd venture to say that you have some serious racial issues that need to be dealt with, on top of some bitterness.
If so, then you know that those people were protected by the same rights granted by the Constitution that the slaveowners were granted. By Law, they violated the constitutional rights of each and every person they owned, and were too prideful and stubborn to admit it.
It sucks that it took a war and the killing of an absolutely brilliant man to see that. And personally, I'm more than honoured (I'm lucky, and my mother timed it right) to share my birthday with that man.
If the values he and his followers in his party had were in existence today, I probably would switch to the Republican party, for those people were the GOP. It's sad that that is lost on those in the Reds today.
BL.
I know all about Civil War tourism. Or rather, antebellum tourism. My hometown claims to have the most pre-war buildings in the South. It's the oldest (European) settlement on the Mississippi river, and escaped any major battles or seiges. Since most of the major industry left town, tourism is now the major industry in town. Entire tour buses show up to take what's called the pilgrimage, the tour of various antebellum plantation homes. I have toured some of these homes, and they are impressive, but they always bring to mind how they were built.
Like I (and you) said...it's the legacy of the Lost Cause movement that started after the war, and Reconstruction. Reconstruction played a huge part in shaping the modern southern view on the war.
When this little cease-fire in the War of Northern Aggression is over, the South will rise quicker than my grandmaw's biscuits on Christmas mornin'.
Now will all y'all kindly just plum flat right up out and hush up?
Now will all y'all kindly just plum flat right up out and hush up?
Missouri is one of those interesting states where you can live in both the north and the south practically at the same time. St. Louis is much like the north, but you really don't have to venture too far outside the metro area to be in the south, and I lived in a small rural MO town for 4 years that was very much the south, and the differences are vast.
In my experience goodolboyism is far more rampant in the south, but in the present culturally I feel like the US is far more divided east to west. There is also a huge cultural divide between the two coasts and the middle (appalachia to the rockies).
This thread makes me think of Hank Williams Jr. and his song, "If the South Would've Won."
Link to lyrics
As a Yankee who spent quite a bit of time in the South (mostly Arkansas but other States, as well), I can say that there is a perceptable difference in attitude and lifestyle. The bigger cities are more homogenized, though. So there is more cultural blending. Smaller towns seem to retain their cultural differentiation, though.
Link to lyrics
As a Yankee who spent quite a bit of time in the South (mostly Arkansas but other States, as well), I can say that there is a perceptable difference in attitude and lifestyle. The bigger cities are more homogenized, though. So there is more cultural blending. Smaller towns seem to retain their cultural differentiation, though.
Illinois as well. The Northern part of the state is almost a black and white difference from the Southern part of the State.