Southern Culture

[Sir_Winston54]

I personally find nothing glorious about The Civil War, artifacts from it or old Southern society. I've lived in the South all my life but none of that interests me. I think it's pretty sad and horrible.

It's part of our history, FF. Learning about it, the people (and mindsets) involved, the places. And while slavery/abolition was A trigger to its onset, for most in the South - and many in the North, as well! - the key issue was not whether they could continue to keep slaves, it was whether or not the people of the individual states had the right to pilot their own futures (e.g., secede if they disagreed with the policies or laws of the Union).

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Yes, it was sad and horrible. Many things are. Shall we just turn our heads from them and pretend they don't exist?

 

[JMohegan]

It's part of our history, FF. Learning about it, the people (and mindsets) involved, the places. And while slavery/abolition was A trigger to its onset, for most in the South - and many in the North, as well! - the key issue was not whether they could continue to keep slaves, it was whether or not the people of the individual states had the right to pilot their own futures (e.g., secede if they disagreed with the policies or laws of the Union).

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Yes, it was sad and horrible. Many things are. Shall we just turn our heads from them and pretend they don't exist?

There's a difference between acknowledging history and celebrating that history.

I didn't read her comment as suggesting that we pretend the Civil War or the Old South never existed. She's just saying she finds nothing glorious about it.

 

[JMohegan]

I'll add, genuine patriotism.

Sarah, is that you?

 

[JMohegan]

I grew up in what used to be the South (near Harper's Ferry)

That's some very beautiful country.

 

[JMohegan]

Putting peanuts in your coke.

I've never heard of this before. Is the point to change the flavor of the coke, or the peanuts, or both?

I had peanut soup last night, for the first time ever. It was surprisingly good.

 

[WriterDom]

I've never heard of this before. Is the point to change the flavor of the coke, or the peanuts, or both?

I had peanut soup last night, for the first time ever. It was surprisingly good.

peanut soup? sounds gross but keep exploring. Lots of cool things. but syd is scared of a billboard from 30 years age? Jews are welcome!

 

[ZRT]

I've never heard of this before. Is the point to change the flavor of the coke, or the peanuts, or both?

Crunchy coke, basically. Used to do that when I was a kid.

 

[LifelongCyn]

peanut soup? sounds gross but keep exploring. Lots of cool things. but syd is scared of a billboard from 30 years age? Jews are welcome!

I've had a delicious African chicken soup that included peanuts, it was sort of like gumbo but thinner.

 

[FurryFury]

And you hate college football.

I hate spectator football, yes, but I love to play.

 

[FurryFury]

There's a difference between acknowledging history and celebrating that history.

I didn't read her comment as suggesting that we pretend the Civil War or the Old South never existed. She's just saying she finds nothing glorious about it.

Exactly.

Thank you.

 

[00Syd]

peanut soup? sounds gross but keep exploring. Lots of cool things. but syd is scared of a billboard from 30 years age? Jews are welcome!

Jesus christ, it was just a story my mother told me when I was like, 9 years old or some shit that gave me the willies, the same way watching documentaries about the civil rights movement give me the willies. Just the fact that those things existed, in this world, not that long ago, not that far from me, freaks me out. Shit.

 

[LilyBart]

I am finding this discussion to be interesting. At least raising ideas I hadn't thought of before. While I no longer live there, I consider myself a Virginian at heart and found myself getting kind of emotional, sort of. I mean in the sense that I love Virginia.

But then, for a long time, Martin Luther King day was celebrated as Lee-Jackson-King day in Virginia. So, yeah, an imperfect state. But still, the prettiest state on the planet, IMHO.

I am off to contemplate thoughts on the confederacy... not that I supported those thoughts, but the idea of how southerners view that history.

Thanks for bringing this up.

~LB

 

[FurryFury]

Oh yeah. I remember when they changed the holiday a paid government employee off day, from Robert E. Lee Day to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. My grandparents, both state employees were pissed as hell. Too bad.

I'm so glad they changed it. My only wish is that it had happened sooner.



BTW, I've never put peanuts in coke. I drink pepsi and I've never put peanuts in that either.



My personal fav soft drink is Dr. Pepper though. When I was a kid we weren't allowed soft drinks. Back then it was Kool Aid, milk or water, for kids.

 

[Homburg]

The lower level of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond has an exhibit called: "Virginia and the Confederacy, a Quadricentennial Perspective." Basically, it asks the question - out of 400 years of history, why are these 4 such a focus for so many?

Maybe because 620,000 Americans died in battle in those four years, more than the rest of the wars from Revolution to Viet Nam combined. Little bit of an important figure. See, people try to blow it off, or question why the fascination, and they don't think about what made that war different.

It was fought on American soil.
It was Americans killing Americans.
It introduced a myriad of new technologies such as the repeating rifle, repeating pistols, ironclad ships, dragoon tactics, automatic machine guns, etc, which contributed to the horrific casualty toll.
It introduced new medical technologies such as safer amputations, meaning a lot more troops survived that would not have otherwise.
It thus introduced to the populace at large the wounded and disabled veteran.
It introduced the Executive Branch as an actual tyrannical power, as opposed to a theoretical one.
It rewrote the map of this nation, politically, geographically, and ethically.
It killed 620,000 Americans. That was 2% of the population. In today's terms, it would be as if we lost six million people.

While I do not glorify the war, it was not just four little years. It was the inevitable ending of the Revolutionary War, and the war that actually set this country on the path it is on today, in many ways.

 

[LilyBart]

Maybe because 620,000 Americans died in battle in those four years, more than the rest of the wars from Revolution to Viet Nam combined. Little bit of an important figure. See, people try to blow it off, or question why the fascination, and they don't think about what made that war different.

It was fought on American soil.
It was Americans killing Americans.
It introduced a myriad of new technologies such as the repeating rifle, repeating pistols, ironclad ships, dragoon tactics, automatic machine guns, etc, which contributed to the horrific casualty toll.
It introduced new medical technologies such as safer amputations, meaning a lot more troops survived that would not have otherwise.
It thus introduced to the populace at large the wounded and disabled veteran.
It introduced the Executive Branch as an actual tyrannical power, as opposed to a theoretical one.
It rewrote the map of this nation, politically, geographically, and ethically.
It killed 620,000 Americans. That was 2% of the population. In today's terms, it would be as if we lost six million people.

While I do not glorify the war, it was not just four little years. It was the inevitable ending of the Revolutionary War, and the war that actually set this country on the path it is on today, in many ways.

Nice summary, Homburg. I will add, that, more soldiers died during the Civil War than before or after, as I recall. (Not fact checking tonight, but I am pretty sure of this.)

Not a defense. Just a little history as I remember...

~LB

 

[JMohegan]

Maybe because 620,000 Americans died in battle in those four years, more than the rest of the wars from Revolution to Viet Nam combined. Little bit of an important figure. See, people try to blow it off, or question why the fascination, and they don't think about what made that war different.

It was fought on American soil.
It was Americans killing Americans.
It introduced a myriad of new technologies such as the repeating rifle, repeating pistols, ironclad ships, dragoon tactics, automatic machine guns, etc, which contributed to the horrific casualty toll.
It introduced new medical technologies such as safer amputations, meaning a lot more troops survived that would not have otherwise.
It thus introduced to the populace at large the wounded and disabled veteran.
It introduced the Executive Branch as an actual tyrannical power, as opposed to a theoretical one.
It rewrote the map of this nation, politically, geographically, and ethically.
It killed 620,000 Americans. That was 2% of the population. In today's terms, it would be as if we lost six million people.

While I do not glorify the war, it was not just four little years. It was the inevitable ending of the Revolutionary War, and the war that actually set this country on the path it is on today, in many ways.

The Museum of the Confederacy was not trying to "blow it off." The point of the exhibit was to ask why those four years have been *celebrated* by many in the South. Personally I was stunned by the candor in the answer given.

Your list is a great summary of reasons why any historian would consider the Civil War a major event in U.S. history. There's nothing about your list that reflects a uniquely southern perspective.

 

[ZRT]

There's nothing about your list that reflects a uniquely southern perspective.

I will say that the point about a tyrannical executive power is a deeply rooted southern thing. Going back to the founders, the Virginia founders were the ones who most feared the power of the executive. Hamilton, Adams, and the other Federalists wanted to invest monarchical power in the executive branch, and that fear of a Federal government that essentially overrode state interests at whim was at the root of the war. Jefferson and Monroe were very cognizant of the lessons of Athens and the threat of tyranny of the majority. That's why the CSA was very specifically a confederacy.

Past that, though, I agree with you.

 

[JMohegan]

I am finding this discussion to be interesting. At least raising ideas I hadn't thought of before. While I no longer live there, I consider myself a Virginian at heart and found myself getting kind of emotional, sort of. I mean in the sense that I love Virginia.

Virginia gave us the heroes of the Constitution (Madison), Declaration of Independence (TJ), and Revolutionary War (GW). Plus five other presidents and a host of other key players in the foundation of this country. No other state can match Virginia in contribution to the establishment of this country.

The fact that the grand avenue of Virginia's state capital honors a bunch of generals from a war for secession is both ironic and incredibly sad.

 

[JMohegan]

I will say that the point about a tyrannical executive power is a deeply rooted southern thing. Going back to the founders, the Virginia founders were the ones who most feared the power of the executive. Hamilton, Adams, and the other Federalists wanted to invest monarchical power in the executive branch, and that fear of a Federal government that essentially overrode state interests at whim was at the root of the war. Jefferson and Monroe were very cognizant of the lessons of Athens and the threat of tyranny of the majority. That's why the CSA was very specifically a confederacy.

Past that, though, I agree with you.

I assumed that Homburg was speaking in hyperbole.

Are you saying that you actually, literally, consider the President of the United States to be a tyrant?

 

[ZRT]

I assumed that Homburg was speaking in hyperbole.

Are you saying that you actually, literally, consider the President of the United States to be a tyrant?

Lincoln assumed certain dictatorial powers in order to prosecute the war, such as the suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of civil law, shutting down newspapers that opposed him and he had thirteen thousand people arbitrarily arrested. When the Supreme Court declared that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln disregarded it and the prisoners stayed imprisoned.

Regardless of justification the actions were tyrannical, and they were exactly what the Republican-Democrats of Jefferson's era feared in the usage of executive power.

The modern day presidency isn't a tyranny because the system still works to remove presidents (in a peaceful fashion, thankfully), and Congress and the Supreme Court can still act as checks upon its power. But it does have the potential to act in very tyrannical fashion given the proper circumstances, and Lincoln set the precedent.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I personally find nothing glorious about The Civil War, artifacts from it or old Southern society. I've lived in the South all my life but none of that interests me. I think it's pretty sad and horrible.

It's part of our history, FF. Learning about it, the people (and mindsets) involved, the places. And while slavery/abolition was A trigger to its onset, for most in the South - and many in the North, as well! - the key issue was not whether they could continue to keep slaves, it was whether or not the people of the individual states had the right to pilot their own futures (e.g., secede if they disagreed with the policies or laws of the Union).

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Yes, it was sad and horrible. Many things are. Shall we just turn our heads from them and pretend they don't exist?

There's a difference between acknowledging history and celebrating that history.

I didn't read her comment as suggesting that we pretend the Civil War or the Old South never existed. She's just saying she finds nothing glorious about it.

You are quite right, sir. In reading her post, I focused on "artifacts from it or old Southern society. I've lived in the South all my life but none of that interests me," and skipped over/missed her preface ("I personally find nothing glorious about The Civil War"), thus mis-responding to at least some degree. Ms. FF, I apologize.

 

[JMohegan]

Lincoln assumed certain dictatorial powers in order to prosecute the war, such as the suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of civil law, shutting down newspapers that opposed him and he had thirteen thousand people arbitrarily arrested. When the Supreme Court declared that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln disregarded it and the prisoners stayed imprisoned.

Regardless of justification the actions were tyrannical, and they were exactly what the Republican-Democrats of Jefferson's era feared in the usage of executive power.

The modern day presidency isn't a tyranny because the system still works to remove presidents (in a peaceful fashion, thankfully), and Congress and the Supreme Court can still act as checks upon its power. But it does have the potential to act in very tyrannical fashion given the proper circumstances, and Lincoln set the precedent.

The difference between "tyrannical behavior" and "that which is necessary in an emergency" depends on where you're sitting - and I don't mean north vs. south.

Look at the response to the Bush/Cheney expansion of executive power. Somehow I don't recall the southern states as centers of outrage or resistance on that front.

 

[WriterDom]

The difference between "tyrannical behavior" and "that which is necessary in an emergency" depends on where you're sitting - and I don't mean north vs. south.

Look at the response to the Bush/Cheney expansion of executive power. Somehow I don't recall the southern states as centers of outrage or resistance on that front.

suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of civil law, shutting down newspapers that opposed him and he had thirteen thousand people arbitrarily arrested. vs Listening to people plotting to kill us and sending terrorists from the battlefield to Gitmo .

Nope, no outrage there.

 

[ZRT]

The difference between "tyrannical behavior" and "that which is necessary in an emergency" depends on where you're sitting - and I don't mean north vs. south.

Look at the response to the Bush/Cheney expansion of executive power. Somehow I don't recall the southern states as centers of outrage or resistance on that front.

Group psychology 101- It's good if our gang does it, bad if their gang does it. I was actually intending to make a very similar point- one man's dictator is another man's national savior.

My point is that it was precisely this sort of assumption of power that was intensely feared by the Virginia planters, who were inherently oligarchic in nature. They were the spiritual descendants of the European nobility, and had the view that their plantations and their states were quasi-independent fiefdoms that had banded together for a very limited set of purposes, including mutual defense.

Where Jefferson, Monroe and Madison were right is that the assumption of imperial presidential power would inevitably lead to infringement of civil liberties. Pick your example such as suits your ideology- Bush, FDR and the Japanese internment, Lincoln, Wilson, etc. The founders had fought a war against that sort of power, and very likely would be willing to consider it an obligation to fight another if the circumstances presented.

Mind you, Jefferson's agrarian utopia concept was entirely unrealistic and he even abandoned it himself during his own presidency. Furthermore, he tried to neuter the Supreme Court before the Court even had a chance to become a viable third branch of government. Jefferson essentially tried to railroad Aaron Burr to the gallows in what appeared to be pursuit of a vendetta stemming from their election fiasco.

Basically, there's no simple and clear answer on this, we just have to bear in mind that there are damn few saints out there, and pretty much none among those who pursue power.

 

[JMohegan]

suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of civil law, shutting down newspapers that opposed him and he had thirteen thousand people arbitrarily arrested. vs Listening to people plotting to kill us and sending terrorists from the battlefield to Gitmo .

Nope, no outrage there.

Your list is a bit thin. Executive Power Outrage.

The point is not Bush vs. Lincoln. The point is that the notion of the south as perpetually wary of excess Executive power (moreso than any other region) seems insupportable.