On the South
I posted in a comment on Brian's website that I think the south needs to be reminded that they lost the civil war. Again. My good friend Will (and I don't mean good friend in the Marc Antony/Julius Ceaser sense) said that the larger problem is that the North feels that they have to rub it in is a bigger problem.
I completely disagree.
It has been my experience, in the north, that most people who did not grow up in the south don't pay much attention to the Civil War. Note I'm saying most people. There are a lot of people who collect civil war memorabilia, and the civil war fascinates an even larger percentage of people; however, I do not believe that these people are in the majority.
In my conversations with my friends who are from the south, or live in the south, the civil war is reported as the "War of Northern Aggression." This could be exaggeration, but even so, it can also be considered indicative of how the civil war is perceived. While I am not a civil war buff, so a number of the finer points of the war may escape my attention; regardless, the battle of Fort Sumter began when Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter, an Union Army Base. So, if the South fired on the North first, how can they consider it to a war of Northern Aggression? From my understanding the reason stems from the election of Lincoln. His election has been sited as one of the reasons that began the process of secession. We can take this antipathy toward Lincoln a step further, and examine why most southerners were Democrats until the Switch of Strom Thurmond. Lincoln, a Republican, represented for almost 100 years, the War and The Reconstruction. When the Democratic party pushed for civil rights in congress, he filibustered and then became a Republican. He also helped get Nixon elected. This set the stage for a shift in the solidly Democratic south, culminating (If I remember right) the term "Dixiecrats" who helped elect Ronald Regan twice. Now this is not to say that Strom is completely representative of the South. He is, in my opinion, representative of a very vocal minority of people that have a strong sense of southernism that the North has to pander to.
Vicki brought up how Ft. Sumter and another famous fort were in Confederate Territory, and that the CSA was trying to extend its sovereignty over its territory. This point brings up two issues: whether or not it was Constitutional for the CSA to break away from the rest of the Union, that by keeping the old forts, the Union was participating in Aggression. Interesting points indeed. Keeping the forts in Union territory is probably example sited by historians as to why the Civil War should be know as the War of Northern Aggression. The counter argument, of trying to keep the Union intact, seems to be, at least, provoking towards the CSA. I guess points are in order for Vicki for making me understand why the shots were fired… However, does this provocative fact excuse, or explain, the very nature of secession? I do not believe it does. But, that is a debate for another rant, so lets move on. Seriously. Move on. Vicki proved her points, and I don’t even know her.
This pandering is clearly evident during an election cycle. National candidates make a point on not addressing issues that stem from the Civil War--The Stars and Bars, Institutionalized Racism, Affirmative Action--while in the South. Instead, the candidates play politics to get as many delegates and as much money as possible. Take Dean for example, with his comment that we "need to court the guy with the confederate flag in the window on his pick up truck." Ignore for a minute that the comment was pulled out of context by just about every special interest group out there. His point was that the Democratic party has to make inroads with the South. That we have to, at times, moderate some of our messages and concentrate our efforts at defeating Bush.
I do not believe we need to moderate our message to get more money or more delegates. We need to clearly define ourselves as being Liberal, progressive. Different than the centrists and center-rights. The Dixiecrats have more in common with the views of the Republican Party than the Democrats; but what has kept them from registering as Republican is Lincoln's legacy. Moderating our progressive ideals and values, pandering to Dixiecrats, is not going to do a damn thing to sway voters.
Now, as I write this, I cannot think of major ways that the North rubs in the Civil War victory. April 9, the signing of the Union Victory, is not a US holiday. Lincoln's birthday is in Illinois--the guy was from here--but it has been replaced as a Federal holiday with Presidents day. There are a preponderance of Redneck/Hillbilly jokes; however, those jokes do not just refer to the "Southern" states. In fact, in Chicago, most of the Counties outside of DuPage, Cook and Lake counties all ready have that connotation. Indiana, a very Northern state, has that connotation...then again, it was also one of the big Klu Klux Klan States. If I think of more, or someone can tell me about how the North rubs it in...
However, I don't think bringing up the Stars n'Bars is a good example. The Stars n'Bars represented, and have come to represent, slavery. I originally commented on the severity of slavery in the south, as it is regarded as being one of the worst forms of slavery ever implemented. However, as I want to only discuss North vs South, and not the extent of Slavery in the American South, I will only say that the form of slavery that our government sanctioned was horrific and continues to have serious repercussions 140 years after it officially ended.
As for the attitude of the south, we have the "War of Northern Aggression," Dixiecrats and the moderation of progressive values to recapture said Dixiecrats. We can also include how "the South" (Georgia, the Carolinas, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee) reacted to Brown v Board of Education. Granted, race riots occurred in a number of cities throughout the country, however, those states reacted in exceptionally violent ways. The arguments presented at the time, in addition to segregationist, involved "Orders from Washington," further instilling the idea that the South is being attacked by the North. There is also the popular, "The south will rise again!" line, that can be heard on occasion during rock concerts, comedy shows and other places where alcohol is served. As far as I know, there isn't really a rallying cry of "Let's go and teach them another lesson!" for the North.
I would prefer if people could give me more examples of either scenario--that the South's attitude of "We Shall Rise Again" / their consistent victimization or the North's Aggression/Constant ribbing of the South--so I can get a better understanding of the North/South divide. Granted, for me the South has come to represent a few negatives, such as institutionalized racism and the Bible Belt, but I am going to try and wrap my brain around this one.
posted by Pretentious Bastard @ 2/03/2004 05:50:00 PM
<< Home