|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is there hope for the Bible Belt?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
No, I don't recall ever perceiving that the water there tasted particularly bad. Certainly nothing at all extreme. However, there are places around that part of the state that have very high naturally occurring flouride content that will cause teeth to have mottled discolouration if drunk during the early years of life before the teeth erupt. It may be that some smaller towns and water wells that don't have treatment to reduce mineral content could result in smelly water. Water softeners are fairly popular appliances there and it's likely that the City of Lubbock filters the drinking water to remove mineral content. However, I believe the water is taken from a man-made resevoir rather than wells. Again, things may have been different at some time prior to the early 1970s when I lived there as a teenager.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
No one said that slavery was not an issue. But it was by no means the only issue. The entire tax system was keenly debated for the entire time from the adoption of the Constitution until the War. Who had the power to tax, the states? the Federal government? Both? What is the legitimate role to the central government? How much power does the Constitution actually permit the central government?
All very good questions. But your following point just goes to show that the foremost issue was slavery:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
2. The South started it, at Fort Sumter.
You could just as easily say that John Brown started it at Harper's Ferry, or the settlers in "Bloody" Kansas started it, or the Founding fathers started it by not abolishing slavery back in 1789.
quote:
Lee invaded Pennsylvania (what? 50 miles if that?) after Grant and co. had captured all of the Mississippi River save Vicksburg (which fell the same day as the Battle of Gettysburg) I don't recall Lee burning a 20 mile wide swath of complete destruction all the way to the sea.
It's not like Lee stopped out of the goodness of his heart. Lee didn't make it more than 50 miles because he lost a major battle. No one knows what he would have done if he had been more successful. If the Union forces' actions were more evil than the Confederates', it's because the Union was simply more successful. It always amuses me when Southerners go on and on about the horrible things that happened during a war that their side was all hot for in the first place, especially when they give the impression that they only think the war was a bad idea because they lost.
quote:
Against the backdrop of a War which claimed over 600,000 lives, the fate of 40 captured freemen is small potatoes, relatively speaking.
Very true. But it's a point worth making on a thread where Southerners are defending their honor as well as trying to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery. Again, the best explanation of the Southern position on this is found in the musical 1776:
Molasses to Rum
Northerners used the slave trade to accumulate vast amounts of wealth which they used to build a manufacturing base. It is interesting to note how poorly they treated the workers in their factories. When their conscience wouldn't allow them to tolerate slavery in the South, what did they do? Did they invest vast sums of money buying the Southern slaves? Doing so would have freed the slaves without destroying the Southern economy. When the decided to invade the South, did they even take up arms and fight themselves? Nope. They paid $300 to send those same mistreated workers and Irish immigrants to fight the war and assuage their feelings of guilt. Then, when the war was over, they basked in their own self-righteousness. They were limousine liberals before the invention of limousines.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery.
Nope. But nice try.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You are the one trying to demonize the South. Let's just put the whole thing in context. The only reason Southerners need to defend their honor is because people from other parts of the country and world are attacking it. I'm not saying the South is perfect. My argument is that other parts of the country are living in glass houses.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Ah, Manichean simplicity. Unless something can be definitively shown to be the worst thing in the history of humanity, it must be "good". ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Gotta respect Matin's honesty, though. Not many would so openly advocate for chattel slavery in this day and age.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've been put off by some of the Yankee and UK prejudices shown here.[...]
Interesting thread, y'all.
Yes, great thread. I haven't seen too many Brits get involved though - virtually all the aggro seems to be from between the various states.
I'd also not noticed before just how strong the north/south political divide is on the Ship. The most passionate US conservatives appear to be southern - e.g. New Yorker, Mere Nick, Maxc (I think), Seraphim, etc.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
You are the one trying to demonize the South. Let's just put the whole thing in context. The only reason Southerners need to defend their honor is because people from other parts of the country and world are attacking it. I'm not saying the South is perfect. My argument is that other parts of the country are living in glass houses.
[Slightly] Shorter Matins: I'm not saying the South is perfect, I'm just saying that only perfect people can make any criticism or observation about it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
You are the one trying to demonize the South. Let's just put the whole thing in context. The only reason Southerners need to defend their honor is because people from other parts of the country and world are attacking it. I'm not saying the South is perfect. My argument is that other parts of the country are living in glass houses.
Again, a nice try.
This is a thread about the Bible Belt. So any criticisms to be leveled are going to be about that part of the country. If you want to dump on the place where I live, go right ahead (and I'll help you out by ranting about the fucked-up state budgeting process and the insanity of our ballot propositions, not to mention the general stupidity of cramming a whole lot of people into a place with not enough water to support them) -- but start a new thread to save confusion.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NemTudom
Shipmate
# 2762
|
Posted
The South sounds like a cool place. Does it have a tourist office? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 236 | From: Budapest | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Originally posted by Nem Tudom: quote:
The South sounds like a cool place. Does it have a tourist office?
Yes. If you go to the Mitteleuropa tourist office, they can tell you where this broadly conceptual place is.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The most passionate US conservatives appear to be southern - e.g. New Yorker, Mere Nick, Maxc (I think), Seraphim, etc.
Thanks, H.L!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
You are the one trying to demonize the South. Let's just put the whole thing in context. The only reason Southerners need to defend their honor is because people from other parts of the country and world are attacking it. I'm not saying the South is perfect. My argument is that other parts of the country are living in glass houses.
[Slightly] Shorter Matins: I'm not saying the South is perfect, I'm just saying that only perfect people can make any criticism or observation about it.
I was making an observation about the Northeast. What's wrong with that?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Thanks, H.L!
I suspect anyone would class you as one of the Ship's most passionate conservatives. Whether that's a good thing or not is more subjective. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery.
Nope. But nice try.
Care to expand on that, or is this the best comeback you can think of? As I read your posts, I came to the same conclusion that Matins did, above.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I find this recurrent question of who was at fault in the Civil War to be very tiresome. It's come up on several threads over time. Let me suggest that most of the states that formed the CSA seceded before Lincoln even took office because they were convinced - irrationally I would think - that Lincoln and the Republicans were going to do away with slavery in one fell swoop. Lincoln OTOH didn't elect to use force to quash the secession in order to free the slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. People may argue that was an abuse of the Constitution and the presidency, but at the end of the day the point is moot: Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase without the approval of Congress, which especially at that point in constitutional history was almost surely an abuse of presidential powers and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the importance of such an enormous territorial expansion trumped worries about the Constitution. Same thing with Lincoln not permitting the Southern states to depart in peace. In some cases the ends arguably do justify the means.
[ 07. May 2009, 20:16: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery.
Nope. But nice try.
Care to expand on that, or is this the best comeback you can think of? As I read your posts, I came to the same conclusion that Matins did, above.
It is . . . notable that for Matins and Padre Joshua the category of "Southerners" seems to implicitly include slaveowners but not slaves. The idea that Southerners could be slaves seems to have either escaped their notice entirely or been outright rejected.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery.
Nope. But nice try.
Care to expand on that,
I did. Read the rest of that post.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It is . . . notable that for Matins and Padre Joshua the category of "Southerners" seems to implicitly include slaveowners but not slaves. The idea that Southerners could be slaves seems to have either escaped their notice entirely or been outright rejected.
Indeed. Also, many Southerners are descended from slaves; I wonder if they refer to the "War of Northern Aggression" or even to the "War Between the States" and if they think slavery and its proposed abolition were the major cause of the war.
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: You find discussion of the causes of the Civil War tiresome, yet you post your own views on the subject?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
What makes it tiresome is that there's no resolution to it -- it's like arguing with the late Gordon Chang. I was merely proposing a settlement: yes, arguably Lincoln abused his authority in a constitutionally ambiguous matter (the ostensible right of secession), but how many here would really think it a good thing if the United States of America had fallen apart? The ordinances of secession of at least some of the Southern states and the oratory of their politicians like Alexander Stephens make it clear that the retention of slavery was a fundamental issue for them. It can't simply be reduced to questions of state sovereignty and the limitations of federal power, because some issues of supposed federal usurpation would not trigger such a drastic act as leaving the Union, but clearly the issue of slavery was an issue that would and did trigger that course of action.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
What makes it tiresome is that there's no resolution to it -- it's like arguing with the late Gordon Chang.
Wouldn't arguing with the late anyone be a trifle one-sided? On the other hand, the absence of objections would make resolution much easier than you seem to think. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Maybe I could post replies on Gordo's behalf. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I was merely proposing a settlement ...
Ah, I get it: it's tiresome that people have views that don't agree with yours.
quote:
how many here would really think it a good thing if the United States of America had fallen apart?
A fair few Southerners, apparently! Haven't you been reading the thread?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Ah, here we go again...Southerners are bad because they had slaves. The Northerners were good because they fought to end slavery.
Nope. But nice try.
Care to expand on that, or is this the best comeback you can think of? As I read your posts, I came to the same conclusion that Matins did, above.
It is . . . notable that for Matins and Padre Joshua the category of "Southerners" seems to implicitly include slaveowners but not slaves. The idea that Southerners could be slaves seems to have either escaped their notice entirely or been outright rejected.
So, you are only demonizing white Southerners? I suppose we can go that route if you like. At this point, I can point out that most white Southerners didn't own slaves and some were negatively impacted by slavery. They still fought against the North.
In the New York draft riots, black people became targets of the rioters frustration at being sent to fight and die in a war that wasn't their fight. Avoiding a war and abolition both could have been accomplished if the North had any inclination to do it. I'm willing to stipulate that rich people in the 19th century United States were jackasses regardless of where they lived. That's it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Maybe I could post replies on Gordo's behalf.
Gordo had an opinion on the United States Civil War?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seraphim
Shipmate
# 14676
|
Posted
With respect to Fr. Sumpter: The South may have fired the first shot, but they didn't start it. The fort was under the command of the officer who had instructed the opposing confederate commander at West Point. They had great respect for each other.
After the act of succession Fr. Sumpter was an occupied possession and its commander was given notice to leave it and go home. He replied that he could not do so without orders from his superiors. He was given permission to contact them. They were further given permission to bring back troop transports to evacuate the union soldiers, but they were not to be accompanied by any reprovision or any warships.
What did Mr. Lincoln do? In order to provoke the south he sent in plenty of reprovisions and a whole flotilla of warships. It was only after that the south opted to fire the first shot, and from that shot the leash was slipped on the dogs of war.
With respect to slavery as an issue: It was an important factor but it was so with respect to the south's economy. The violation of the Missouri compromise left the South feeling that it was seeing the beginning of an assault on its economy whose end was to make the southern agricultural markets, especially that of cotton completely dependent upon the north. It was a shot across the bow. And the south replied the only gentlemanly way it knew, to succeed from the Union which seemed hell bent on economically dominating it. Slavery was therefore more of a symbol than a particularly desired end in itself. Economically it was increasingly unfeasible (a good slave had the rough economic value a a good piece of heavy farm machinery today... very expensive to have many), morally questionable, and there is was no doubt an institution soon to die a natural death. But the chance never came.
Succession Good Idea/Bad Idea: Irrelevant, it was the right of those state who succeeded. As for better off who can say, that depends on how you define better off. We may as a single nation have grow very powerful and very rich but has that necessarily been "good" for us. The cultural divides evident today suggest it has not be quite as good as some thought. The South may not have been as wealthy or powerful as it could have been in Union, but neither would it have had the social problems associated with more liberal parts of the US. Our brands of decadence and hedonism are purely amaturish compared to what has come to us from our two left coasts.
Posts: 354 | From: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Ruth: I really don't believe that most serious Americans living in the Southern States would rejoice to have had their country - the USA - disintegrate.
Seraphim: who is this Father Sumter of whom you speak? I believe the abbreviation for fort is Ft.
Also the Southern states didn't attempt to "succeed" but to secede. You're reinforcing bad stereotypes, dude!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, we certainly don't think that. I'm not even sure how the topic got on the Civil War in the first place. Look I hate living in the South. It's way to hot and protestant. I loved living in the Midwest. I'm willing to give more working class areas of the Northeast a chance. I'd try the wealthy areas as well but let's face it they wouldn't accept me.
That said, broad generalizations about people living in the South are insulting to my family and friends. I've met other people from other parts of the country. Every part of the country has good things about it and bad things about it. I refuse to watch people demonizing my home based on prejudice and stereotypes while maintaining that they are tolerant and inclusive. Our country has a whole host of bad and good things in its history. I refuse to allow one very narrow and incomplete view of a tragedy like the Civil War and slavery be totally placed on the South's doorstep. Plenty of blame for that and a whole host of other negative events in our nation's history can be shared by a plethora of people from all walks of life and areas of the country.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Every part of the country has good things about it and bad things about it.
No one here disputes that. But as I said before, this is a thread about the Bible Belt, so any criticisms to be leveled are going to be about that area of the country. Feel free to start a thread on the evil emanating from La La Land any time you like.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the gnome
Shipmate
# 14156
|
Posted
quote:
Northerners used the slave trade to accumulate vast amounts of wealth which they used to build a manufacturing base. It is interesting to note how poorly they treated the workers in their factories. When their conscience wouldn't allow them to tolerate slavery in the South, what did they do? Did they invest vast sums of money buying the Southern slaves? Doing so would have freed the slaves without destroying the Southern economy. When the decided to invade the South, did they even take up arms and fight themselves? Nope. They paid $300 to send those same mistreated workers and Irish immigrants to fight the war and assuage their feelings of guilt.
The factory workers and immigrants were Northerners too.
As were the small-town New England farm boys who made up a significant percentage of the voluntary recruits. One of them was my great-great-grandfather. (Another of my great-great-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy.) None of them were "limousine liberals."
I've heard, though I don't know that it's true, that there were counties in the monutains of North Carolina and Tennessee that sent more recruits to the Union than to the Confederacy--and that there were parts of Pennsylvania, including the countryside around Gettysburg, that sent significant numbers of recruits to fight for the Confederacy.
All of which is mostly to say that the historical details are considerably more complex than we tend to imagine.
It's also worth noting that factory life in the pre-Civil-War cities of the North wasn't always as bad as we're led to believe. Charles Dickens, certainly no friend to industrial capitalism, visited the factory city of Lowell, Massachusetts, on his American tour in 1842. He had this to say:
There are several factories in Lowell....I went over several of these; such as a
woollen factory, a carpet factory, and a cotton factory: examined them in every part; and saw them in their ordinary working aspect, with no preparation of any kind, or departure from their ordinary everyday proceedings. I may add that I am well acquainted with our manufacturing towns in England, and have visited many mills in Manchester and elsewhere in the same manner.
I happened to arrive at the first factory just as the dinner hour was over, and the girls were returning to their work; indeed the stairs of the mill were thronged with them as I ascended. They were all well dressed...and that phrase necessarily includes extreme cleanliness. They had serviceable bonnets, good warm cloaks, and shawls; and were not above clogs and pattens. Moreover, there were places in the mill in which they could deposit these things without injury; and there were conveniences for washing. They were healthy in appearance, many of them remarkably so, and had the manners and deportment of young women: not of degraded brutes of burden....The rooms in which they worked, were as well ordered as themselves. In the windows of some, there were green plants, which were trained to shade the glass; in all, there was as much fresh air, cleanliness, and comfort, as the nature of the occupation would possibly admit of. Out of so large a number of females, many of whom were only then just verging upon womanhood, it may be reasonably supposed that some were delicate and fragile in appearance: no doubt there were. But I solemnly declare, that from all the crowd I saw in the different factories that day, I
cannot recall or separate one young face that gave me a painful impression; not one young girl whom, assuming it to be a matter of necessity that she should gain her daily bread by the labour of her hands, I would have removed from those works if I had had the power.
My impression is that not every factory was as humanely run as those in Lowell, and that conditions everywhere got worse as the century went on and as more and more of the industrial workers were immigrants rather than native-born Americans. Probably by the time of the war working conditions had deteriorated significantly.
Posts: 99 | From: New England, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
LsK: You are right, this endless debate is getting tiresome. And I apologize for my part in starting and continuing it.
Back to the OP. Gamaliel asked:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is the Bible Belt buckled so tightly that anything other than the stereotypical views that the rest of us ascribe to it cannot breathe? Or does the fertile soil allow (potentially) other flowers to bloom?
Will it loosen up in time?
And if so, will it eventually go the way of the Eastern seaboard and the Pacific coast and become more liberal, more secularised or more pluralist?
I am not sure. The response here seems to indicate that things are changing slowly, if at all, in the Southern U.S. I think that things have come a long way since World War II, and I think things will continue to change. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of debate, but change will happen. It always does.
Many Southerners (along with millions of Americans from across the nation) were in the military during World War II. Being in close contact with people from many different parts of the nation, each with a unique worldview and background, helped to spread ideas and new ways of thinking.
After the war ended, the soldiers and sailors returned home, bringing their expanded horizons and new ideas with them. With the GI Bill to help pay for college, many went on to further their education and find careers away from the family farms and small town businesses. This helped to bring change to the Bible Belt that might not have been introduced otherwise.
Another force, in my opinion, is the popularity of television. Since the majority of television programming originates in major population centers, especially Hollywood, many new ideas and ways of thinking about the world were introduced to the Bible Belt. This has grown gradually, but has increased over the past twenty years or so.
A third force could be the invention and spread of the Internet. This has brought the world to our fingertips, and new ideas are sure to follow.
Many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, have reacted over the years to these changes. Many have tried to staunch the flow, or even reverse it. Some very good things have come from these changes, such as the civil rights movement, but some would argue that there have been some bad things. Such is the nature of change and debate.
Is the Bible Belt changing? No doubt. I think that, overall, it is slowly becoming more like the coasts. Are the changes good? That's a bit more subjective, I think. I doubt we'll ever agree on that one, but the debate is guaranteed to be robust! Will the change last? Again, this is subjective, but personally, I don't think so.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Thanks, Matins, for your last post: on that we can both agree.
Ruth: I don't know if you are saying that the South is fair game just because the OP was focussed on the Bible Belt, or that critiques of Bible Belt religious and political culture can't be contrasted with ones of Northern (and other regions') political and religious cultures.
I do think that the Civil War is a pointless tangent that has only a very limited place in helping us understand the situation of 21st Century America, both in its regions and in its totality as a nation. We really need to look at the tensions and dynamics as they exist in the nation today, with less dwelling on something that happened 150 years ago as if it were some permanent determinant and destiny of the country going forward.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Every part of the country has good things about it and bad things about it.
No one here disputes that. But as I said before, this is a thread about the Bible Belt, so any criticisms to be leveled are going to be about that area of the country. Feel free to start a thread on the evil emanating from La La Land any time you like.
Well the OP contrasted the Bible Belt to the East and West coasts. I think that it is quite acceptable to say that it is not the Bible Belt that needs hope but the Coasts. As it stands faith, hope, and love. With love there is hope when you have faith. So yes there is hope for the coasts and for the bible belt.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fionn:
Rugasaw - I am from LeFlore County. What county are you from?
LeFlore is some beautiful country. Most of my family is from Atoka and Bryan counties. I was actually born near Oklahoma City.
quote:
Originally posted by fionn:
The Cherokee were divided over more than which side to support. Stan Watie of the Southern faction was also a leader of the faction that left Georgia before Jackson forced the bulk of the tribe out.
If you know anything about the Cherokee you know that they are divided on everything.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's not like Lee stopped out of the goodness of his heart. Lee didn't make it more than 50 miles because he lost a major battle. No one knows what he would have done if he had been more successful.
There is no end of speculation about what might have happened, but Lee's overall plan was to take the war to the North, inflict enough pain that those in the North who were already sick of the war would press for a cease fire and allow the "wayward sisters to depart in peace." His plan was to take the state capital turn east and capture Baltimore, thus surrounding Washington, and forcing a cease fire.
quote:
It's a point worth making on a thread where Southerners are defending their honor as well as trying to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
It has already been noted that the South runs on honor. It is something worth defending. It seems that insulting the South is one of the last socially acceptable forms of bigotry.
I have documented proof that my ancestors were slave owners. I am not proud of that fact, but I refuse to apologize for it either. I descend from several CSA veterans. None of my family ever wore blue. I will not apologize for their service to their country. I am also grateful that we lost.
Lost Causes™ are far more romantic, don't you think?
[ 08. May 2009, 02:00: Message edited by: Campbellite ]
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I do think that the Civil War is a pointless tangent that has only a very limited place in helping us understand the situation of 21st Century America, both in its regions and in its totality as a nation.
To say this is to completely misunderstand the South. The War (here it is almost always simply, "The War", if you listen carefully you can even hear the Capitalization) was the crucible which forged the South, and indeed the US as a whole. To dismiss it as irrelevant is to dismiss the South as irrelevant. It's like trying to understand the British Empire apart from Queen Victoria or India without the Raj. The War is interwoven throughout the entire fabric of the region. An Atlas of Virginia reads like a listing of Civil War battles.
Amherst County is the only one out of more than 100 counties in Virginia that did not see a single battle or skirmish.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The most passionate US conservatives appear to be southern - e.g. New Yorker, Mere Nick, Maxc (I think), Seraphim, etc.
Thanks, H.L!
Well, NYC is in Southern New York.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I do think that the Civil War is a pointless tangent that has only a very limited place in helping us understand the situation of 21st Century America, both in its regions and in its totality as a nation.
To say this is to completely misunderstand the South. The War (here it is almost always simply, "The War", if you listen carefully you can even hear the Capitalization) was the crucible which forged the South, and indeed the US as a whole. To dismiss it as irrelevant is to dismiss the South as irrelevant. It's like trying to understand the British Empire apart from Queen Victoria or India without the Raj. The War is interwoven throughout the entire fabric of the region. An Atlas of Virginia reads like a listing of Civil War battles.
Amherst County is the only one out of more than 100 counties in Virginia that did not see a single battle or skirmish.
Yes, it changed the political nature of the American Republic. But don't you think it's time to move on now?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I find this recurrent question of who was at fault in the Civil War to be very tiresome.
When I was but a wee lad in the early 60s it seems I recall the old folks blaming it all on George Bush.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I do think that the Civil War is a pointless tangent that has only a very limited place in helping us understand the situation of 21st Century America, both in its regions and in its totality as a nation.
To say this is to completely misunderstand the South. The War (here it is almost always simply, "The War", if you listen carefully you can even hear the Capitalization) was the crucible which forged the South, and indeed the US as a whole. To dismiss it as irrelevant is to dismiss the South as irrelevant. It's like trying to understand the British Empire apart from Queen Victoria or India without the Raj. The War is interwoven throughout the entire fabric of the region. An Atlas of Virginia reads like a listing of Civil War battles.
Amherst County is the only one out of more than 100 counties in Virginia that did not see a single battle or skirmish.
Yes, it changed the political nature of the American Republic. But don't you think it's time to move on now?
No. That war made Canada too. The need to defend against the largest army raised by the US since 1812 pushed us into Confederation in 1867. Plus 30,000 - 55,000 British North Americans fought in the war, mostly in Union ranks though some fought for the South.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NemTudom:
The South sounds like a cool place. Does it have a tourist office?
Yes it does.
If you can't come, at least send your money for a visit. I'll show it a fine time.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
gaudium
Shipmate
# 13365
|
Posted
Returning to the question in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that Southerners could be slaves seems to have either escaped their notice entirely or been outright rejected.
But black Southerners can still be card-carrying members of the Bible Belt! Consider this news story (more details here ). A group of ministers from predominantly African-American churches held a rally and engaged in lobbying efforts against a proposition to recognize same-sex unions in Washington, D.C. I don't mean to raise a Dead Horse, just give an example. Conservative biblical interpretation is not just the domain of "rednecks" or whites still angry about the Civil War!
Posts: 70 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the gnome:
I've heard, though I don't know that it's true, that there were counties in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee that sent more recruits to the Union than to the Confederacy--
All of which is mostly to say that the historical details are considerably more complex than we tend to imagine.
I don't know about raw numbers, but there were many folks here in the mountains that were Unionists. I don't know for sure about the accuracy, but this may be a good summary of what folks from various regions were thinking and why. I don't know what my ancestors did during the war. From looking at pictures from my mom's side, though, they look like pre-oil Jed Clampetts. Given her father's CO status during WWI (he was drafted but didn't change his mind about shooting folks like Alvin York did), it seems unlikely his grandfather would have risked getting gut shot so some guy with a plantation down east could keep his slaves. But then, no one in the family seems to know. Being invaded could have caused him to fight for the South. The war didn't really come to this particular area, but many men from here were killed. "Approximately one-half of Buncombe County's 5,350 male residents served in the military during the Civil War. At least 551 of these men died in the war, or more than 10% of the County's male population", according to the county's war memorial. There were some on both sides.
There were also black men who fought for the south and there were also free black men who owned slaves.
It's real easy to look at by-gone times, such as the ante bellum South, the war, or at various regions, such as the South, and make broad generalizations that really don't do justice.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Is this becoming one of those threads where it's a family squabble amongst the Americans and the rest of the Ship are just sitting back and watching?
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
... the Civil War is a pointless tangent... only a very limited place in helping us understand... 21st Century America... in its regions and... as a nation.
To say this is to completely misunderstand the South. The War... was the crucible which forged the South... the US as a whole. To dismiss it as irrelevant is... like trying to understand the British Empire apart from Queen Victoria or India without the Raj... Atlas of Virginia reads like a listing of Civil War battles.
Yes, it changed the political nature of the American Republic. But don't you think it's time to move on now?
Most of us have. But we are faced daily with some aspect of culture, some leftover placename or family tomb or whatever, that is a reminder. Not only of that War, but, so far as that goes, of the War of 1812 and the Revolution. Battles fought in our back yards and old town squares, you know?
The only way to have it not matter at all is to not know or care about it at all. So far, cultural ignorance/illiteracy have not wiped our long, long memories -- and no TV or internet or other homogenizing factor has whitebreaded it away.
It's not that the history shapes religion completely -- at least, American history of the past 200 years should not warp people's spiritual lives. We do, after all, claim to follow the God Who has been around a lot longer than a measley couple centuries.
But, whatever shapes a people will partially shape the expression of religion.
This isn't a shocking surprise to anyone, is it?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
To run even further afield, something has always struck me as odd about the battle of Gettysburg.
Until Gettysburg, battles didn't last three days, they lasted one. This was true in the thinking of the military leaders if not always true in reality. Waterloo was considered several battles at the time for example even though it really was just one.
Therefore it is forgivable to see a possible Union loss at Gettysburg. But to me it looks like the Union did lose at Gettysburg -- at least they lost the first two days of the battle.
Now suppose they lost the third day as well. Wouldn't they have been able to win the fourth or fifth day instead? Lee was attempting an end run around the Union lines. But after he was slowed on the first day, every day thereafter he was going to be fighting upstream into Union reinforcements marching from the Washington/Baltimore direction as well as smaller troop movements down from New England.
Merely pushing the Union off the ridge wasn't going to be enough. Lee did not have enough troops to fight continuously in Union territory while guarding his supply lines.
Lee's gamble was that he could get past the Union lines without fighting, then his need for supplies would be minimal and the Union army would have trouble pinning him down. He lost the campaign on the first day even though he won the fighting on the first two days. Had he won on the third day, he would have needed to win on the fourth, fifth, and possibly sixth days as well. Eventually his troops would be exhausted and it would be over.
In Lee's defense, he could not be certain of the Union response after two days of victory. The first day was fighting by scouting forces and the second could have been a desperate Union ditch defense. But it wasn't. The Union army was moving to stop Lee even if Lee could not be sure of that until the third day.
At least that's my take on the battle.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Is this becoming one of those threads where it's a family squabble amongst the Americans and the rest of the Ship are just sitting back and watching?
No. We all have a stake in this. Tony Benn used to say that he could tell anyone's political principles by which side they would have been on at the Battle of Marston Moor (1646). The same could be said of Culloden (1746), Lexington (1775), and Gettysburg (1863).
The US Civil War was just one part of an two-and-a-half centuries long civil war within the English-speaking world: the fights between Parliamentarians and Royalists, between Jacobites and Hannoverians, between Patriots and Tories, and between the Industrial North and the Agrarian South were just different skirmishes in one long war for Anglo-Saxon civilisation (the outcome of which was a victory for mass consumer-capitalism, liberal pluralism and individualism, over all more communal ideas).
In the US Civil War, a sort of localised, decentralised "country whig" aristocratic republicanism, with "gemeinschaft" notions of community, history and hierarchy, was pitted against an imperial, centralised, industrial, individualist, "gesellschaft" ideology. Slavery was just a pawn in this game. To capitalist individualists of the North, chattel slavery was an anathema, but wage slavery was not. To aristocratic republicans of the South, any form of slavery was incompatible with freedom: free men worked their own land and ran their own small businesses, they did not work for hireling wages. The difference was that in the South the chattel slaves were (so it was argued - not in practice) better protected and cared for by their aristocratic planter owners than the wage slaves of the north were by their mill-owing capitalist masters.
(Incidentally, if you read Gaskell's "North and South", which is set in England in the 1850s, you see exactly the same dynamic developing - aristocratic paternalism vs capitalist individualism).
We like to pretend that civil wars happen in other, dustier, places, but it is not so.
[ 08. May 2009, 07:40: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, NYC is in Southern New York.
IIRC New Yorker moved to New York from one of the southern states.
No insult was intended by my observation btw. It just struck me that a lot of the people defending the ***** belt were also ones I tend to disagree with most strongly on political and economic issues. In the UK there's a north-south politicial split but it doesn't seem to be nearly as pronounced.
[Whoa! The message board software has asterixed out "b-i-b-l-e". Has this always happened? ITTWACW]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
A-ha! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 08. May 2009, 08:42: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Janine, I can't help but think that your pleadings about the effects of graves, monuments and battlefields has more to do with mindsets than with the actual physical proximity of those things. I presently live 5 to 10 miles down the road from the site of one of the biggest battles of the Revolution, the Battle of Brandywine. I drive by there frequently and have visited the site. As with my childhood years in northern Virginia, I value living in one of the original 13 colonies where our nation began. As a kid I schlepped round to all the Civil War battlefields with my parents and all the stately historic homes in VA. In Texas, where I spent so many subsequent years of my life, there is a Confederate war memorial on the grounds of most court houses. But while these things hold historic interest, they are all backward looking. Faced with the challenges of advancing the prosperity, social equality, and security of the American people, I just don't see how one can get so exercised over lost causes and monuments to the past. Honour them but don't get so hung up on them. There are more important things and frankly the exaltation of regionalism and preoccupation with ancestor worship have been divisive forces in this federal union of 50 states; the celebration of the past has not helped advance social justice and harmony in the body politic.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
between the Industrial North and the Agrarian South were just different skirmishes in one long war for Anglo-Saxon civilisation (the outcome of which was a victory for mass consumer-capitalism, liberal pluralism and individualism, over all more communal ideas).
I don't see how individualism was a north-south thing here in the US, especially considering life in the Appalachians before electricity, roads and railroads. Can you give more about it?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
