Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The South gets plenty of respect in real life, as multitudes of non-southerners have felt the need and desire to move here over the past thirty years.
The media has little respect for the South, and left-wing ideologues who fancy themselves with cities and city interests, as found on city data, have little respect for the south. The typical American fully embraces the region. The average American shows with their actions and wallets what region they believe to be the Alpha region of the nation.
I tend to think, for northerners, southerners historically have been viewed less sophisticated as their northern brethren in the large cities. Of course that's a complete fallacy but it existed nonetheless and that perception has been passed down from generation to generation through "stories" and even through entertainment outlets that depict southerns in that type of light. On average the pace of a major southern city is about the same pace as a northern city outside of NYC and Chicago. Rural areas in both halves of the country are all about the same pace, slower, where people take time out to actually enjoy things instead of constantly being on the go.
As far as slavery, it wasn't about slavery in the south, that in all actuality wasn't even a factor as congress would have never had the votes to abolish slavery if it weren't for the Civil War. It was slavery in new territories that finally came to a head with the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 and pro-slavery advocates crossing the border from Missouri into Kansas casting fake votes in favor of slavery. You can find the finding on the Making of America, it was housed on the U of Michigan's Web site, not sure if it's still housed there or not, maybe a UM grad can elaborate on that. In the end, the north fired on Fort Sumpter and the Civil War started.
I REALLY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO HONOR THIS LAST POST....BUT I JUST HAD TOIt is the last of your claims that puts the South generally in a dark cast trying to pass the buck sheesh, & particularly the claim about it not being about slavery in the south.You almost sound like a certain party with that denial thing you got goin for ya......YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.You guys still treat blacks as if they've just been emancipated.
I REALLY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO HONOR THIS LAST POST....BUT I JUST HAD TOIt is the last of your claims that puts the South generally in a dark cast trying to pass the buck sheesh, & particularly the claim about it not being about slavery in the south.You almost sound like a certain party with that denial thing you got goin for ya......YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.You guys still treat blacks as if they've just been emancipated.
Huh, see you haven't brushed up on your history. Slavery in the slave states was never an issue. Lincoln may have wanted to end slavery but he COULDN'T. There would never be enough votes in Congress to make it illegal (the civil war made that possible). Lincoln went to war to preserve the union, nothing more, nothing less. The abolishment of slavery with the 13 Amendment (Not the Emancipation Proclamation, people need to learn how government actually works) was only a speech. A great speech, but still a speech that didn't even affect KY, MD and MO as they never succeeded from the union. It was strictly hostile territories, ie the states that succeeded from the union and would never have held up in a court of law (separation of powers).
The reason South Carolina succeeded from the Union was the treatment of Texas, which was a baseless argument as the US Gov't paid Texas not to pursue areas acquired after the Mexican American war with the land Mexico relinquished namely present day New Mexico and Arizona. Texas basically sold out the ideals of the south for a buck. You can look up the South Carolina Declaration of Succession and follow it up with Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and the remaining slave states that succeeded from the union. After that the remaining states that chose to succeed from the union followed suit. Remember Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky NEVER succeeded from the union but were slave states.
There are two issues at play, one history is written by the victor. There's a saying, the truth is a 3-edged sword; your version, their version and what really happened which is normally a combination of both versions.
Second, Americans tend to look at the civil war with the mindset of America today which is country first. Early America wasn't country first, it was state first, country second. You weren't an American, you were a Virginian or a Georgian so it gets hard for us today to get how and why they did some things back then.
You fall into the first one, despite making a baseless claim without anything to back up what you are trying to claim is just that baseless and deep in traditional northern thinking since the north won, their story is a little one sided. You can google the declaration of successions, the Making of America that has scanned in historical documents, one being the findings of the situation in Kansas due to the Kansas Nebraska Act which superseded the compromise measures of 1820 as it was repealed after the Kansas Nebraska act was passed. It only takes a little research.
And for the record, I've been in the north all of my life and well gee I'm black; go figure. Also for the record, the north really wasn't that much of better environment over the south. We were still considered inferior even by our beloved president Lincoln as he so eloquently stated in the Lincoln Douglas debates so don't get it twisted as the north being some new vast utopia for the black population.
Texas ruins it for the rest of the South with that nasty attitude they carry that everythings bigger in Texas. But honestly I think people will always come for the top dog, and clearly people are flocking to the South as a whole. You cant argue againts lower costs, better weather (subjective), and newer overall feel as cities are still growing as opposed to rusting. Now if we could just have a auction for Texas to return to its independent self we would be FLAWLESS lol.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,548,539 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantanative83
Texas ruins it for the rest of the South with that nasty attitude they carry that everythings bigger in Texas. But honestly I think people will always come for the top dog, and clearly people are flocking to the South as a whole. You cant argue againts lower costs, better weather (subjective), and newer overall feel as cities are still growing as opposed to rusting. Now if we could just have a auction for Texas to return to its independent self we would be FLAWLESS lol.
Cities here need to tighten up though. Too much sprawl and destruction of wilderness.
The reason South Carolina succeeded from the Union was the treatment of Texas, which was a baseless argument as the US Gov't paid Texas not to pursue areas acquired after the Mexican American war with the land Mexico relinquished namely present day New Mexico and Arizona. Texas basically sold out the ideals of the south for a buck. You can look up the South Carolina Declaration of Succession and follow it up with Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and the remaining slave states that succeeded from the union. After that the remaining states that chose to succeed from the union followed suit. Remember Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky NEVER succeeded from the union but were slave states.
Msamhunter? With all due respect, you use some faulty history (as to Texas) to make some very good points in the larger scheme of things. So I am only quibbling here with this part of it (that posted above). Othewise? Your general post and points were great!
South Carolina did not secede over the "treatment of Texas." Although it is important to note that at one time, some of the New England states toyed with secession because of Texas original admission into the Union. So there was no love lost between Texans and New Englanders from the start. But anyway, South Carolina's secession document said nothing about Texas per se.
So far as Texas selling out the ideals of the South for a buck? I am not sure what you mean by this. The United States -- under the terms of then annexation treaty (of which Texas became a state) -- paid Texas for some of the land (now eastern New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and a slice of Wyoming) originally claimed by the Republic of Texas. But this had nothing to do with anything connected to Southern interests. It was a good business agreement, nothing more, nothing less.
As it was, Texas was one of the strongest supporters of Southern independence and "Southern Rights". It was one of the original 7 Confederate States, and the second to last to be re-admitted back into the Union. In fact, it is quite plausible that, had (Southern) Unionist Gov. Houston not refused to call the Texas Legislature into special session to consider the issue (knowing full well what the outcome would be), Texas easily could have been the second state to secede. In fact, following on that, it might even be likely, as the Texans were only 15 years removed from having been a nation in their own right; so secession was definitely not something that would have scared the people in Texas! LOL
Texas ruins it for the rest of the South with that nasty attitude they carry that everythings bigger in Texas. But honestly I think people will always come for the top dog, and clearly people are flocking to the South as a whole. You cant argue againts lower costs, better weather (subjective), and newer overall feel as cities are still growing as opposed to rusting. Now if we could just have a auction for Texas to return to its independent self we would be FLAWLESS lol.
Msamhunter? With all due respect, you use some faulty history (as to Texas) to make some very good points in the larger scheme of things. So I am only quibbling here with this part of it (that posted above). Othewise? Your general post and points were great!
South Carolina did not secede over the "treatment of Texas." Although it is important to note that at one time, some of the New England states toyed with secession because of Texas original admission into the Union. So there was no love lost between Texans and New Englanders from the start. But anyway, South Carolina's secession document said nothing about Texas per se.
So far as Texas selling out the ideals of the South for a buck? I am not sure what you mean by this. The United States -- under the terms of then annexation treaty (of which Texas became a state) -- paid Texas for some of the land (now eastern New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and a slice of Wyoming) originally claimed by the Republic of Texas. But this had nothing to do with anything connected to Southern interests. It was a good business agreement, nothing more, nothing less.
As it was, Texas was one of the strongest supporters of Southern independence and "Southern Rights". It was one of the original 7 Confederate States, and the second to last to be re-admitted back into the Union. In fact, it is quite plausible that, had (Southern) Unionist Gov. Houston not refused to call the Texas Legislature into special session to consider the issue (knowing full well what the outcome would be), Texas easily could have been the second state to secede. In fact, following on that, it might even be likely, as the Texans were only 15 years removed from having been a nation in their own right; so secession was definitely not something that would have scared the people in Texas! LOL
Anyway, just wanted to note all that!
You are correct, I was thinking Mississippi, "The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico." which of course is baseless, it's not an issue of whether or not Texas took the money which obviously they did, it's a matter of taking the money and then crying foul over the territory they sold out for which Texas did cry foul. The compromise measures of 1820 is what really governed new states, for every non-slave state admitted, one slave state. The southern states agreed to this as it passed Congress and signed into law by the POTUS, whether or not they had faith in it is irrelevant, they agreed to it.
If slavery was not a component of the civil war, would someone please care to explain Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech?"
For those who aren't aware, he was the vice president of the confederacy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander Stephens
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution,were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
FTR, my dad is from the South, most of my family is in the South. We have an old 8mm of my dad, as a little boy, dressed up in a Confederate uniform shooting capuns when he was a kid. I have nothing against the region or the people who live there now by any stretch. But this whole "It wasn't about slavery... it was about states' rights!" is only true in that the main state's right up for debate was whether or not it was legal, moral, or right to own slaves. No one should be held accountable for their ancerstors' actions, but history is history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the last of your claims that puts the South generally in a dark cast trying to pass the buck sheesh, & particularly the claim about it not being about slavery in the south.You almost sound like a certain party with that denial thing you got goin for ya......YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.You guys still treat blacks as if they've just been emancipated.
But honestly I think people will always come for the top dog, and clearly people are flocking to the South as a whole. You cant argue againts lower costs, better weather (subjective), and newer overall feel as cities are still growing as opposed to rusting. Now if we could just have a auction for Texas to return to its independent self we would be FLAWLESS lol.
