On Aug 9, 4:19 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:

Actually I saw it as a trenchant critique of the typical, so-called
'Southern patriot'.

I went through a very brief, sort of pseudo-version of this, but it
all crashed upon uncovering more truths.

I was only offering my own experiences and ideas as an alternative..

Thanks.

Some cursory digging into history uncovers the fact that black people
really have been getting the shaft for a very long time.

Those falling into the second category seem purely reactive and merely
adjust themselves to the accepted current, political boundaries.

Really? From The Ponderosa? (Allright, silly joke)

Michael Mehaffey

Darned, another failure.  It takes a genius to write satire.

What I was aiming at was a description of the sort of mind that would
spy in your posts evidence of your being such a southern patriot.

HL

I drive through there now an then on the way from North Carolina to
Georgia.

Cheraw is a nice little town, maybe in next county to Kershaw. IIRC
Camden is county seat of Kershaw.

HL

http://www.cheraw.com/our_history.html

On Aug 9, 9:10 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:

Don't be so hard on yourself; attribute to it to my slow comprehension
skills.

Perhaps the 'League of  Reasonable Southerners', or something?

Ed Sebesta. I'm having a lot of difficulty finding an impartial
biography of him.

Michael Mehaffey

Nice link, Hugh..

They've got a Jazz Festival!

I didn't know Dizzy Gillespie was from there.

Michael Mehaffey

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:11:34 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Wikipedia offers six ways to identify a Neoconfederate
I list them here with my thoughts of each in parentheses.

Summary of neo-Confederate beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

(1) Honor of the Confederacy and its veterans

(I honor  my ancestors who fought and died for the CSA,   but not the
people who founded and ruled it.)

(2) Economics -- neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market
economy which engages in significantly less taxation

(so-so.  I like free markets and capitalism -- as long as they are
well regulated.  But I prefer taxes to deficits)

(3) History -- many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the
presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of
Reconstruction.

(There is a lot to criticize about a scoundrel who would send armed
forces into a peaceful community).

(4) Culture -- many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian
culture.

(I am a non-practicing member of the Christian culture.  So I can't
complain about that,  too much.  I much prefer it to the leading
alternatives.)

(5) Secession -- many neo-Confederates openly advocate the resecession
of the Southern states

(That is damn stupid).

(6) The Civil Rights Movement -- some neo-Confederates adopt a
paleoconservative view

(Mixed emotions.  Blacks deserve to have their rights.   Had the
Yankees not abandoned them in 1866,  they may well have earned full
citizenship 100+  years ago. )

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:02:27 -0700 (PDT), Michael Mehaffey

There is something basically creepy about people who presume to
"monitor" the (non-criminal) activities of other citizens.  Such as
Sebesta and the SPLC.     I have no love for the KKK,  the Militias,
the ADL or the SPLC.    They all have more similarities than
differences.   They all seek to control how others think.

When the Iron Curtain collapsed -- and their sponsors were lost --
certain (almost) Americans had a lot of time on their hands.

I was throwing too much at you at once, and using the wrong genre
(satire).  I wanted to explain what annoyed you, the attribution to you
of beliefs you don't have.

So, back to square 1.

In the past the dominant faction, the Sectarian Unionists, in this
newsgroup, suspected all Southerners of harboring neo-confederate
sympathies.  Acting on this, they sifted through Southerner's posts
trying to find subtle clues that the Grit in question was trying to
sneak in some neo-confederate ideas.

Disavowing such beliefs was futile, for the SUs assumed that
neo-confederates routinely lied.  Moreover, the SUs wrote as if they
were possessed with great insight into the minds of those they attacked.

(I know this reads like Alice in Wonderland, but that's the way it was.)

If you re-read Ray's posts, you'll see that he strives to identify in
your writing passages that betray hidden neo-confederate tendencies.
You'll see something else, that he uses a communal "we"; like this, "We
have seen your kind before."

In this newsgroup, Ray is the last of the Sectarian Unionists, for all
the others have migrated elsewhere.

The SUs you might say conceived themselves as occupying a noble redoubt
of historical truth, and defending it against the lies of the Lost Cause
history.

But blended in with this historical interest was a certain view of "the
South", as an unworthy community, undeserving of dignity or empathy; of
course by the South, they meant white-southerners, who because of their
supposed unique record or evil have no right to civility. I'm stating
that in extreme terms, for emphasis.

I'll stop here, because this is a subtle matter to discuss. If it
interests you at all, you can comment or query.

Hugh

Why is it creepy?  I've never seen any human community that does not
check up on its members.  

My view: ADL, good; KKK, bad

"to control how others think": that's a loaded description.  The ADL
works by persuasion in the open.  The KKK has historically worked in
secret, using terror, murder, force, and threats.

There is IMO nothing wrong with Sebesta's efforts by persuasion to
discredit neo-confederate organizations and ideas.  You after all are
using your own influence here to discredit him. After all the
neo-confederate organizations are themselves trying to influence others.

HL

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Michael Mehaffey

One of my grandmothers family was from Barnwell SC.    Her grandfather
had been some sort of a squire in the early 1800s.   Her father moved
his family to Alabama in the 1850s.   Grandma came along later -- 1885
-- but she always thought of herself as South Carolinian.
Particularly  Barnwell.       When she was a young lady,  one of her
Barnwell cousins invited her to the St Cecilia's Ball.   She named her
(scotch-irish) son Barnwell.    When I think of her antebellum family
I'm reminded: "how the mighty have fallen"

I have a lot of respect for their toughness and elan in battle, but
not for the cause for slavery, for which they willingly gave their
lives.

 (2) Economics -- neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market

I think this concept may be at odds with paleo-conservatism, a
political belief that many neo-confederates profess.

 > (so-so.  I like free markets and capitalism -- as long as they are

Well regulated free market capitalism seems to beat all of the other
economic systems.

Was he obligated by the Constitution? What's your interpretation? Why
did the Confederates fire the first shot?

 > (4) Culture -- many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian

Do these guys realize that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the
Confederate Constitution?

It's a fairy tale.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Willie. Are you saying the Yankees
abandoned Civil Rights during Reconstruction?

Willie, my old sympathies with neo-confederacism stemmed from the view
that as a warrior society, there would not be as much emphasis on
making money but rather a stronger sense of community, hospitality,
traditions and prowess. Because of its Jeffersonian foundations, the
basic economy would be based the artisan, and the owning of ones own
means of production, so that there would be little, if any, wage
slavery.

I advocated Southern Chivalry because it would introduce and maintain
a true tradition, poetic sensibility and high ethical standards. For
me, the goal was to take this ideal and extend it to all Southerners,
regardless of ethnicity and race.

Some time, study and consideration has pretty much destroyed these
ideals.

1. Southern Chivalry was nothing more than vain exercise in pseudo-
history. The Southern protagonists of this view said they were
hearkening back to a glorious Christian warrior medieval age; but
actually, as long as this philosophy was based on slavery,  there is
no Christian foundation to it at all. Christianity had led Western
Europe to give up the practice of slavery in the 12th Century. The
Bible has many passages condemning the practice. So even Southern
Chivalry was unfounded.

2. Wealthy planters were exempt from fighting in the Rebel army if
they purchased an exemption. Well then. so much for their inflated
claims of honor.

3. The Confederacy definitely existed because of slavery. There is no
other honest way to look at it. Slavery is an abomination.

For all of this, I still believe in the South as a culture, and will
fight for it. What we have to do is get past all of this Lost Cause
rubbish and really give a good, frank, look at ourselves. Then we can
square up, and with hope, find our way in the world.

Michael Mehaffey

That's just what happened to me.

No, not at all. I've experienced this kind of thing before. I had to
deal with almost fanatic anti-Americanism among foreign students and
when abroad. These cretins always have it all figured out and there is
no use reasoning with them; my usual tactic is to verbally beat them
into submission, but that took some time to learn to  do.

Precisely. He never directly used quotes of mine, then later claimed
he did. Then he lectured me on being honest in one's posts.

What a sad man. He is rather pathetic.

It is really a shabby sort of sop they give to their own pitiful egos.

This attitude is a Yankee prejudice that has existed since the
beginning of our country. They always overlook their own racism while
loudly pointing out ours. They  pat themselves on the back for ending
slavery, when in fact the real liberators of the slaves were the
slaves themselves.

I have no tolerance for these shrill, lecturing, self-righteous
dogmatists. What about the depredations of the Union army? Did anyone
know how considerable the amount of Union soldiers raped and pillaged
slaves?  That racism is more palpable in much of the North? You never
read about political struggles in the South to end racism or slavery
in popular literature, but the evidence is there.

Thank you for continuing the topic. I am a good friend of subtle
discussion.

Michael Mehaffey

I am reminded of stories of former South Carolinian aristocrats
scrambling to find work as University presidents or something similar
because their labor had left them. A lot of these nabobs were skilled
in nothing but loafing and dilly-dallying; after the War they shambled
around looking ridiculous.

There is a Confederate Memorial Hall, the old Bleak House Plantation,
in Knoxville. I don't know how many visitors it has, but it seems like
a kind of antique relic that is kept up for appearances but otherwise
ignored. Aside from that, the Confederate Monument and Cemetery is the
only Rebel shrine in the city, and that landmark is covered over with
weeds and has been eclipsed by adjacent government project housing.
There just isn't much interest in East Tennessee for the Lost Cause.
Even the 'Poet of the Confederacy' Father Ryan, just has a historical
marker standing next to his old church.

We ought to take more interest in the divided politics of Knoxville;
it was a very colorful time. The Tennessee Unionists deserve some kind
of recognition. It seems there are more landmarks dedicated to the
frontier settlements and early days of statehood.

Michael Mehaffey

I get along OK with Ray. I apprehend his posts as a kind of game, and
attribute to them the seriousness they merit.

Now to complicate the picture a little.

The Sectarian Unionists were mostly good.  Many of them had worked hard
to develop arguments, based on repectable historical knowledge, to
counter and undermine the Lost Cause mythology.  Their historical
knowledge was superior to the that of the Lost Causers they critiqued.

Their attitudes toward "the South" I classified as abuses and failures
in a system that overall was good.

White people in general have struggled since they realized that the race
problem in America is caused by white people.  For the morally aware
segment, apprehending this through  the study of slavery, white
supremacy, and so on, is a horrendous psychic blow.  The temptation to
self-exculpation, by blaming somebody else is very strong. In the north,
they blame the south, in the upper south they blame the deep south, in
the deep south they blame the rednecks. Talkin' 'bout white people here.

Some of them were like that, but most were not.  But in any case, they
have gone away to other discussion forums.  In effect, hegemonic faction
decamped.

H.L.

In article <1137216d-82b3-4674-90c1-
fad5abf04...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, michael.mehaf...@gmail.com
says...

Holy Mother of God.

How typically pathetic. Just scratch the surface of a confederate
apologist and what do you see? The same damnable thing, time after time.

--
Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
force

news:c728a5d9-4f5a-4f31-bebf-4056bb033302@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

There is a Confederate Memorial Hall, the old Bleak House Plantation,
in Knoxville. I don't know how many visitors it has, but it seems like
a kind of antique relic that is kept up for appearances but otherwise
ignored. Aside from that, the Confederate Monument and Cemetery is the
only Rebel shrine in the city, and that landmark is covered over with
weeds and has been eclipsed by adjacent government project housing.
There just isn't much interest in East Tennessee for the Lost Cause.
Even the 'Poet of the Confederacy' Father Ryan, just has a historical
marker standing next to his old church.

=========================================================================== =====

East Tennessee was a hugly Unionist area and if the Union could have gotten
troops there to protect the inhabitants it would have seperated into a new
state like WV.
I can recall reading that in the Knoxville area the vote was 25,000 against
secession and 5,000 for.
the Union raised several regts of white troops from the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Tennessee_Convention_of_1861

"Gregory E. Garland" <g...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.26cc607653765309989848@216.168.3.70...

 indeed.

the ironic thing about ending slavery was that sharecropping turned out to
be a better deal for the planter.
they still mauintained their social system but got out from under a lot of
overhead expenses.

news:891c315a-b84d-4a9e-8bd0-0c4a4fe2947c@g33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

I have a lot of respect for their toughness and elan in battle, but
not for the cause for slavery, for which they willingly gave their
lives.

 (2) Economics -- neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market

I think this concept may be at odds with paleo-conservatism, a
political belief that many neo-confederates profess.

 > (so-so. I like free markets and capitalism -- as long as they are

Well regulated free market capitalism seems to beat all of the other
economic systems.

Was he obligated by the Constitution? What's your interpretation? Why
did the Confederates fire the first shot?

 > (4) Culture -- many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian

Do these guys realize that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the
Confederate Constitution?

It's a fairy tale.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Willie. Are you saying the Yankees
abandoned Civil Rights during Reconstruction?

Willie, my old sympathies with neo-confederacism stemmed from the view
that as a warrior society, there would not be as much emphasis on
making money but rather a stronger sense of community, hospitality,
traditions and prowess. Because of its Jeffersonian foundations, the
basic economy would be based the artisan, and the owning of ones own
means of production, so that there would be little, if any, wage
slavery.

I advocated Southern Chivalry because it would introduce and maintain
a true tradition, poetic sensibility and high ethical standards. For
me, the goal was to take this ideal and extend it to all Southerners,
regardless of ethnicity and race.

Some time, study and consideration has pretty much destroyed these
ideals.

1. Southern Chivalry was nothing more than vain exercise in pseudo-
history. The Southern protagonists of this view said they were
hearkening back to a glorious Christian warrior medieval age; but
actually, as long as this philosophy was based on slavery,  there is
no Christian foundation to it at all. Christianity had led Western
Europe to give up the practice of slavery in the 12th Century. The
Bible has many passages condemning the practice. So even Southern
Chivalry was unfounded.

2. Wealthy planters were exempt from fighting in the Rebel army if
they purchased an exemption. Well then. so much for their inflated
claims of honor.

3. The Confederacy definitely existed because of slavery. There is no
other honest way to look at it. Slavery is an abomination.

For all of this, I still believe in the South as a culture, and will
fight for it. What we have to do is get past all of this Lost Cause
rubbish and really give a good, frank, look at ourselves. Then we can
square up, and with hope, find our way in the world.

Michael Mehaffey

===============================================================

Southern chivalry?
WTF was that, being polite and saying Sir and Ma'am as they enslaved blacks
pre-war and lynched them posst war and oppressed poor whites all the time?
Actually now that I think of it that was what Chivalry was in old Europe
too.
it was class warfare against the peasantry dressed up nice manners

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Michael Mehaffey

This is hard to explain.  Let be me very careful ----

You see, that is what got me interested in Southern history -- six
years ago.     I'm trying to understand why my poor G-G-Grandfather
would leave his wife and two infant daughters to face destitution just
so he could go and die - fighting for slavery.     Let's face it.
That's not even intelligent,  nor does it display common sense.
Traits the S-I are known to possess.

That is when I came up with the theory that the Scotch-Irish -- being
a  tribal culture and being isolated from other cultures for 400 years
-- made a habit of deferring to the wishes and opinions of their
wealthy neighbors.  (Clan leaders)  Like they had done for centuries
while living in Englands border lands.   It also explains why our
Southern ancestors did so poorly in selecting leaders -- down to my
lifetime.    Gene Talmadge (GA governor 1940s)  was worshipped by my
parents generation.   Gene once went on the radio and told the people
of Georgia:  "Of course I stole !  But I stole for y'all !"  Instead
of lynching him,   the voters praised him !

He had no justification for ordering troops into Virginia.    It is my
(non expert) opinion that Ft Sumter was not an act of war,  but a
local police action.     A community such as Charleston has the right
to police it's town and rid it of vagrants, trash and debris.  Which
is essentially what they did,  

Anyway.  the Feds had closed several forts  -- under duress -- and
never hinted at war.   Why was Sumter so special ?   Because Lincoln,
and the Big Business interests that put him in office,  wanted a war
so they could make money.      The oligarchy of the South seceded in
order to turn a profit.  The Barons of Wall Street ordered the
invasion of the South to turn a profit.  

Here again is a fine line -- when crossed people start screaming
"racism" !    But I do not infer hatred.    

You see,  the yankees freed the blacks and gave them the vote.    But
the blacks lacked any experience in conducting themselves in a free
society.    I would suggest it was incumbent on the people who freed
them to give them an indoctrination into being free men -- in the
Scotch-Irish sense.   Community, responsibility,  rights, etc.       I
would suggest a sort of apprenticeship would have been in order.
The Yankees did not do that,  but left them alone to fend for
themselves under a system not far removed from slavery -- tenant
farming.    

Lincoln -- and the rest -- cared not about the blacks.  The looked at
them as the problem of the South.    Actually -- imo --  I think they
figured the worse the problem was --- the better.    

Lincoln hinted at such in his address to Congress in 1862:

"But why should emancipation south, send the free people north?......

<snip> (and continues )

.......  And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself,
whether to receive them? "

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/74.html#axzz0wJGl...

I think you and I -- and millions like us -- made a mistake when we
attributed our own views and principles to the people who ran the
antebellum South.  

They seem to have missed the fact that the English knights who fought
the crusades had no African slaves -- but the Muslims did.  

We both agree that slavery was bad enough.     I use to try to make
excuses for slavery.    Or at least for the people who owned slaves.
"People looked at things differently back then",  was my usual excuse.

But what bothers me --- and I only learned it recently -- is the that
Confederacy wanted to "extend" and "increase" slavery.    For that ...
there is no excuse.

I love the South.    As I said before,  I love it all -- without the
Lost Cause.    To me the culture of the South is Scotch-Irish. (which
is tribal, agrarian, egalitarian and slaveless)  It was the
bastardized faux chivalry culture of the English nobility that
permitted slavery.    That culture may have been  fine in England in
the Dark Ages.   But it did not travel well to the new world.   Nor
should it have.  

BTW,  Hugh is a scholar.  I'm a hobbyist.   So my ideas are a "work in
progress" :-)

I think we need another thread.  I get lost in this one.

In article <sjd5669u0lcqpac21oa70rnvv2e2med...@4ax.com>,
wiregrass_willieO...@yahoo.com says...

Bullshit, you didn't come up with anything. This scots-irish
clannishness line as an excuse for "why my ancestors didn't fight for
slavery" has been a standard part of the confederate apologist mantra
for years and years.

Nice to see your opinion of the people who wear the uniform of an
American soldier. The order to take Fort Sumter came from the Jefferson
Davis government, and it was done to try and force the upper south off
the fence on secession. The bombardment even began after Anderson
promised in writing to Beauregard (when was he ever part of the
'community of Charleston') that he would surrender the fort in _three_
_days_. The CSA government wanted not just the fort, they wanted the
war.

--
Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
force

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:23:17 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"

I had come to that same conclusion.    The only problem was in slavery
days,  money was not the most important thing to the (so called)
aristocrats.  (I hate that word)  They were trying to ape the nobility
of England as it was four hundred years earlier.    They wanted to be
the Lord of the Manor whose word was law to all his serfs and
villeins.  

Being chief landlord and furnishing-man for 100 share-croppers was
probably more profitable,  but not nearly so emotionally rewarding to
those old villains.

Imagine how rich the richer planters could have been -- had they used
their political influence in the mid-1850s to get the federal
government to compensate them for emancipating the slaves -- and then
turn around and employ the freedmen as share croppers.   Except for
losing their role as "lord of the manor" they would have been much
richer.   They and their children would have had the money to have
owned almost all of what is now the South.

This issue has been studied extensively. You guys are wrong.

HL

news:jn0666her7ngcpvfevksm8b08r76h58o8g@4ax.com...

=====================================================================

actually WG, the English system was like sharecropping and the peasants
weren't serfs.

news:87mxss6etn.fsf@desktop.xx.yy...

 prove it Hugh, your credibility isn't the highest,
especially after your lame attempts at classifying everybody.
 you lrft out a class, the dilitantte, theone you belong in.

Well, Ray, you can think whatever you like.

Hugh