You'd better believe it.
ivy_mike
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/1004georgia/19govpoll.html
Of course the AJC will not mention it, but the old lie about
giving Georgians a chance to vote on the '56 flag will play
a substantial role in his chances. *Many* natives all across
the state won't forget. They axed Barnes for what he did, and
the axe is hanging over Sonny's neck for his betrayal of the
real people of Georgia. Believe it.
--
Regards, IM
KevinXKitchen
>giving Georgians a chance to vote on the '56 flag will play
>a substantial role in his chances. *Many* natives all across
>the state won't forget. They axed Barnes for what he did, and
>the axe is hanging over Sonny's neck for his betrayal of the
>real people of Georgia. Believe it.
Oh so the "real" people of Georgia (who in fact are a couple of toothless
shoeless trailer park dwellers) are going to throw Sonny out? And they will
vote in liberal Mark Taylor who not only opposed your beloved Confederate
Battle Flag but also opposed ANY Confederate flag including the one we are
flying now (yes it is a Confederate flag even if the dumbass trailer dwellers
don't know the history of their own state)? Hmmmm we will see....
ivy_mike
>Oh so the "real" people of Georgia (who in fact are a couple of toothless
>shoeless trailer park dwellers) are going to throw Sonny out?
This moronic statement proves how clueless so many of you carpetbaggers
are about the state. You are totally out of touch with Georgia natives.
I know literally hundreds of Georgians (some of whom could probably buy you
30 times over) who detest the traitor Sonny, simply because of his lie
about the flag. Hell, I've only been inside a trailer home maybe a couple
of times in my life, and that was when I was maybe 20, and some guys I
knew had one for a party place on their family's farm (they didn't live there).
But keep living in your world of make believe if it makes you feel better.
>And they will
>vote in liberal Mark Taylor who not only opposed your beloved Confederate
>Battle Flag but also opposed ANY Confederate flag including the one we are
>flying now
But did he make a big promise to the people who put into office, then
backpeddle? Sonny needs to be taught a lesson, like Barnes. Traitors
are one of the lowest forms of life in a lot of people's minds, including
mine.
--
Regards, IM
Andy Walton
<ivy_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Poll says Sonny vulnerable in '06.
>
> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/1004georgia/19govpoll.html
>
> Of course the AJC will not mention it, but the old lie about
> giving Georgians a chance to vote on the '56 flag will play
> a substantial role in his chances. *Many* natives all across
> the state won't forget. They axed Barnes for what he did,
I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the voters in the state vote based
on the flag. Maybe a bit higher because it's an off-year election, and
the "flaggots" (Neal Boortz's term) are motivated to turn out. But
they're politically homeless -- they won't find a candidate in either
major party who'll put the 1956 flag on the ballot. It's a dead issue,
and most Georgians are happy to leave it buried.
> and
> the axe is hanging over Sonny's neck for his betrayal of the
> real people of Georgia. Believe it.
Spare me the "real people of Georgia" nonsense. It's an echo of "the
real America" -- which is a code phrase for not urban or suburban, not
too rich or too poor, and definitely white. It sounds wonderful, but
serves to exclude too many Americans or Georgians as somehow not
"real."
Am I one of the "real people of Georgia"? I grew up in Decatur,
attended DeKalb County schools and Emory, and I'm more familiar with
the layout of Lenox Square than I am with the feel of a plow handle.
I've split my time between Decatur, Buckhead, and one regrettable year
I lived in Smyrna. I'm just another suburban white kid, but my
ancestors fought and died under that flag that all the froofraw is
about.
--
"I'm just a stranger [who] loves the blues and
the Braves." -- Al Jarreau, "Moonlighting"
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
ivy_mike
> I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the voters in the state vote based
> on the flag. Maybe a bit higher because it's an off-year election, and
> the "flaggots" (Neal Boortz's term) are motivated to turn out. But
> they're politically homeless -- they won't find a candidate in either
> major party who'll put the 1956 flag on the ballot. It's a dead issue,
> and most Georgians are happy to leave it buried.
We'll see, stay tuned. You're quite correct about not finding a candidate
who will honor Sonny's promise. The point is that Sonny will probably
be *defeated*, largely by those white natives outside of Atlanta
(but I know some in Atlanta too), who won't forget him lying and using
them to gain office.
> Am I one of the "real people of Georgia"? I grew up in Decatur,
> attended DeKalb County schools and Emory,
...and a bonafide, dyed-in-the-wool leftwinger, like the late
Lloyd, who was also a Georgia boy. You two were against the
'56 flag probably from the moment you were told it was offensive
to blacks.
--
Regards, IM
Andy Walton
<ivy_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<201020040054513081%att...@mindspring.com>...
>
> > I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the voters in the state vote based
> > on the flag. Maybe a bit higher because it's an off-year election, and
> > the "flaggots" (Neal Boortz's term) are motivated to turn out. But
> > they're politically homeless -- they won't find a candidate in either
> > major party who'll put the 1956 flag on the ballot. It's a dead issue,
> > and most Georgians are happy to leave it buried.
>
> We'll see, stay tuned. You're quite correct about not finding a candidate
> who will honor Sonny's promise. The point is that Sonny will probably
> be *defeated*, largely by those white natives outside of Atlanta
> (but I know some in Atlanta too), who won't forget him lying and using
> them to gain office.
Fair enough. They're probably more upset about the betrayal thn the
flag.
> > Am I one of the "real people of Georgia"? I grew up in Decatur,
> > attended DeKalb County schools and Emory,
>
> ...and a bonafide, dyed-in-the-wool leftwinger, like the late
> Lloyd, who was also a Georgia boy. You two were against the
> '56 flag probably from the moment you were told it was offensive
> to blacks.
I'll admit that the issue wasn't on my personal radar until Zell Miller
raised it. And yes, I opposed the 1956 flag, because I think a flag
should be a matter of consensus, not bare majority. Any emblem that
offends a large chunk of the population is unsuitable.
So am I one of the "real people of Georgia" or not?
--
"Five tacos, one taco burger. Do you know where the American Dream is?"
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
KevinXKitchen
>are about the state. You are totally out of touch with Georgia natives.
And I want to stay out of touch with many of them too. White sheets and burning
crosses just don't fit me too well.
KevinXKitchen
>real America" -- which is a code
You note that the "real people" of Georgia apparently don't include the 35% of
blacks that were born here.
ivy_mike
>
> So am I one of the "real people of Georgia" or not?
Well, you're certainly a Georgia native, geographically speaking,
being born and raised here. But the fact that you were born and
raised in a large urban area, in an environment with most likely a
decidedly leftist idealogy, I doubt that most Georgians across the state
would consider you a kindred spirit, but an anomaly of sorts, and not
a "real Georgian." Have you ever shelled butterbeans or peas by hand?
Ever worked with peanuts during the harvest; ever loaded watermelons
onto a truck?
--
Regards, IM
Andy Walton
<ivy_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<201020042141506673%att...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> > So am I one of the "real people of Georgia" or not?
>
> Well, you're certainly a Georgia native, geographically speaking,
> being born and raised here. But the fact that you were born and
> raised in a large urban area, in an environment with most likely a
> decidedly leftist idealogy, I doubt that most Georgians across the state
> would consider you a kindred spirit, but an anomaly of sorts, and not
> a "real Georgian."
Georgia's population in 2000 was about 8.1 million. Metro Atlanta's
population was 4.2 million, which is a majority, without even counting
Macon (222,000), Savannah (293,000), Columbus (281,000) or Augusta
(500,000). Most Georgians live in cities or suburbs.
> Have you ever shelled butterbeans or peas by hand?
> Ever worked with peanuts during the harvest; ever loaded watermelons
> onto a truck?
That's the kind of bigotry I was talking about. If you work the land,
you're a "real Georgian" (or, more commonly, a "real American"). If you
live in or near a major city, as most Georgians and most Americans do,
you're some kind of second-class citizen. You've laid out a definition
by which Dr. King was not a "real Georgian."
You're far from the first person to make that kind of comment. It's
irked me for a while, which is why I pounced on it.
--
"Grown men, he told himself, in flat contradiction
of centuries of accumulated evidence about the
way grown men behave, do not behave like this."
-- Douglas Adams (RIP), "So Long, And Thanks..."
Jim
>> Have you ever shelled butterbeans or peas by hand?
>> Ever worked with peanuts during the harvest; ever loaded watermelons
>> onto a truck?
>
> That's the kind of bigotry I was talking about. If you work the land,
> you're a "real Georgian" (or, more commonly, a "real American"). If you
> live in or near a major city, as most Georgians and most Americans do,
> you're some kind of second-class citizen. You've laid out a definition
> by which Dr. King was not a "real Georgian."
>
> You're far from the first person to make that kind of comment. It's
> irked me for a while, which is why I pounced on it.
And don't forget Ivy's other definition of a real Georgian: You must react
to black folks as if they were a majority of the population and as if their
only thought is to persecute the white man and deny him his natural rights.
Otherwise, you're not a real Georgian.
ivy_mike
> And don't forget Ivy's other definition of a real Georgian: You must react
> to black folks as if they were a majority of the population and as if their
> only thought is to persecute the white man and deny him his natural rights.
> Otherwise, you're not a real Georgian.
Uh, just where did Ivy give this definition? You been smoking some of
your Russian wife's weed or something, or is this just more of your usual
misfiring when this subject comes around?
There would be no Georgia if not for white Georgians; and if these white
Georgians had up and left decades ago, leaving the blacks to their own
devices here, you'd have 58,000 square miles of Bankhead (or worse)
by now.
--
Regards, IM
Gary James
This is not a group in which to attempt a serious post, but I'll try
anyway. And I certainly don't want to get involved in a racist rant.
Life is too short.
Since I took an early retirement 6 years ago, I decided, as a 7th
generation Georgian, to spend some spare time trying to educate myself
about the history of Georgia. Not by reading books on the subject,
most of which were written in recent years by people whose ancestors
were nowhere near the USA until 80 to 100 years ago. But by reading
documents and papers of the AnteBellum era myself and making my own
judgement as to what people of that period actually thought.
It's amazing how such an effort will alter your preconceived beliefs.
Before I started my research, I was under the impression that the
Civil War was fought because of either (a) slavery (Modern Yankee
view) or (b) tariffs (Modern Southern view). It was really neither.
I soon learned that one of the primary purposes of the Civil War, to
the people who started it, was to isolate slavery (and more
importantly, blacks) to the deep South. Not abolish it. From their
vantage point they could see that it was only a matter of time before
the USA would take in all of it's Western territory. The Southern
planters wanted to expand to the new territory and but Yankee didn't
want any blacks, slave or free, to compete with them or live near
them. The Civil War was suppose to have kept all Southern blacks
away from the North. This plot worked pretty well until the
Depression in the 1930s and blacks moved North.
Some noted Yankee sociologists in the 1860s proposed that all blacks
be forcibly settled on the strip of land (running along the coast
about 60 miles deep) from about Tallahassee to the banks of the Brazos
in TX. What we think of affectionately as the redneck riviera. It's
only looking back we can see the wisdom of this idea.
The problem people were looking at in 1861, North and South, was the
exorbitant cost of returning slaves back to Africa. This was
Lincoln's preference as with most Southerners and many Yankees. But
the South figured they were better off with slavery than to free
slaves and then have to pay for their repatriation to Africa. Gov Joe
Brown of GA calculated it would cost the average Georgian about $40
(in taxes) a year for 15 years to free the blacks. That when most
people didn't see $100 a year in cash. Abolition without re-location
was not an option for either side, so we had a war.
Andy Walton
<gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
> I soon learned that one of the primary purposes of the Civil War, to
> the people who started it, was to isolate slavery (and more
> importantly, blacks) to the deep South. Not abolish it. From their
> vantage point they could see that it was only a matter of time before
> the USA would take in all of it's Western territory.
More or less. In the pre-Civil War period, the pitched battle was over
slavery in the new territories, which would soon become new states.
Bleeding Kansas and all that.
But it wasn't just about containing slavery -- both sides took the long
view, and knew that when those territories became states, there would
be two new senators from each. Each new free state loosened the South's
fingerhold on the Senate, and inched the country closer to abolition.
> Some noted Yankee sociologists in the 1860s proposed that all blacks
> be forcibly settled on the strip of land (running along the coast
> about 60 miles deep) from about Tallahassee to the banks of the Brazos
> in TX. What we think of affectionately as the redneck riviera. It's
> only looking back we can see the wisdom of this idea.
It wouldn't have changed much. Have you seen the Gulf coast lately?
High-rise beachfront condos as close together as they can pack them in.
If that land had been given to freedmen, they would have gotten screwed
on land deals -- offered some sum eye-popping to a subsistence farmer,
but far below its actual value -- and dispersed throughout the country
with their little pocketfuls of money.
--
"I'd love to sell out completely. It's just
that nobody has been willing to buy." -- John Waters
Gary James
wrote:
>In article <tq8nn09fnn9b8fvdi...@4ax.com>, Gary James
><gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I soon learned that one of the primary purposes of the Civil War, to
>> the people who started it, was to isolate slavery (and more
>> importantly, blacks) to the deep South. Not abolish it. From their
>> vantage point they could see that it was only a matter of time before
>> the USA would take in all of it's Western territory.
>
>More or less. In the pre-Civil War period, the pitched battle was over
>slavery in the new territories, which would soon become new states.
>Bleeding Kansas and all that.
Exactly, but much deeper. This is the angle where we are taught that
the North invaded the South because we were so hot and bothered over
the expansion of slavery. This was true, but only to large planters
who comprised less than 5% of the South. My question was simple: Why
did my ancestors (and millions like them), mostly small farmers and
store owners, risk life, limb and fortune to protect the interest of
the wealthiest people in the South ? Those people may not have been
highly educated but they weren't stupid. What happened was the
politicos of the day put the question (of War) to working Georgians in
this manner: (1) Yankees will free slaves. (2) Slaves will mix with,
murder and rape your family. End of argument. Your choice to
prevent this is to (a) Fight or (b) Be taxed half of your yearly
earnings for the next 10 or 15 years to pay for returning the freed
slave to Africa.
Looked at like that, they had litttle choice but to fight. I would
have never known this had I not read newspapers (micro film) of those
days.
>But it wasn't just about containing slavery -- both sides took the long
>view, and knew that when those territories became states, there would
>be two new senators from each. Each new free state loosened the South's
>fingerhold on the Senate, and inched the country closer to abolition.
This is very true but it only brings us back to the question: Why
should the Southern men have cared if the North did control the
government ? I don't refer to the politicos and the Planters who
yanked their chain, but to the men who would have to fight. We are
back to the choice of fighting to defend slavery or paying for it's
abolition. Not much of a choice. The North had a tremendous
advantage because they faced no such a choice.
>> Some noted Yankee sociologists in the 1860s proposed that all blacks
>> be forcibly settled on the strip of land (running along the coast
>> about 60 miles deep) from about Tallahassee to the banks of the Brazos
>> in TX. What we think of affectionately as the redneck riviera. It's
>> only looking back we can see the wisdom of this idea.
>
>It wouldn't have changed much. Have you seen the Gulf coast lately?
>High-rise beachfront condos as close together as they can pack them in.
Much to my sorrow, I have been and I did see. The Gulf use to be
such a beautiful place. As recent as the early 1980s I would drive
all night just to watch the sunrise over the dunes west of Panama
City. But no more.
>If that land had been given to freedmen, they would have gotten screwed
>on land deals -- offered some sum eye-popping to a subsistence farmer,
>but far below its actual value -- and dispersed throughout the country
>with their little pocketfuls of money.
A good point. It would have been Indian re-settlement all over again.
Jim
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:12:49 GMT, Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <tq8nn09fnn9b8fvdi...@4ax.com>, Gary James
>><gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I soon learned that one of the primary purposes of the Civil War, to
>>> the people who started it, was to isolate slavery (and more
>>> importantly, blacks) to the deep South. Not abolish it. From their
>>> vantage point they could see that it was only a matter of time before
>>> the USA would take in all of it's Western territory.
>>
>>More or less. In the pre-Civil War period, the pitched battle was over
>>slavery in the new territories, which would soon become new states.
>>Bleeding Kansas and all that.
>
> Exactly, but much deeper. This is the angle where we are taught that
> the North invaded the South because we were so hot and bothered over
> the expansion of slavery. This was true, but only to large planters
> who comprised less than 5% of the South. My question was simple: Why
> did my ancestors (and millions like them), mostly small farmers and
> store owners, risk life, limb and fortune to protect the interest of
> the wealthiest people in the South ? Those people may not have been
> highly educated but they weren't stupid.
There is a lesson here that any future leader of the United States needs to
remember before he launches a war of choice in hopes of "liberating" others
and indulging in nation building. Outsiders who come in through force will
always be perceived as enemies. If many in the South today still resent
Northerners, think how long it will be before the average Iraqi stops
resenting us.
Glenn Snyder
> Northerners, think how long it will be before the average Iraqi stops
> resenting us.
Apples and oranges.
The south and the rest of the US were saddled
with an imperial federal government.
That would be a step forward for the Iraqis.
It was a huge step backward for the US.
Andy Walton
<gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:12:49 GMT, Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <tq8nn09fnn9b8fvdi...@4ax.com>, Gary James
> ><gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I soon learned that one of the primary purposes of the Civil War, to
> >> the people who started it, was to isolate slavery (and more
> >> importantly, blacks) to the deep South. Not abolish it. From their
> >> vantage point they could see that it was only a matter of time before
> >> the USA would take in all of it's Western territory.
> >
> >More or less. In the pre-Civil War period, the pitched battle was over
> >slavery in the new territories, which would soon become new states.
> >Bleeding Kansas and all that.
>
> Exactly, but much deeper. This is the angle where we are taught that
> the North invaded the South because we were so hot and bothered over
> the expansion of slavery. This was true, but only to large planters
> who comprised less than 5% of the South. My question was simple: Why
> did my ancestors (and millions like them), mostly small farmers and
> store owners, risk life, limb and fortune to protect the interest of
> the wealthiest people in the South ? Those people may not have been
> highly educated but they weren't stupid. What happened was the
> politicos of the day put the question (of War) to working Georgians in
> this manner: (1) Yankees will free slaves. (2) Slaves will mix with,
> murder and rape your family. End of argument.
The "mix with, murder and rape your family" was the more lurid side of
racist propaganda, but I'd postulate that "do your job for half the
pay" entered into it as well. Poor tenant farmers had few people to
look down on, and accepting blacks as their equals, as fellow human
beings was galling.
Non-slave-owning white Southerners were pretty effectively manipulated
by the planter class. This pattern was repeated in the
post-Reconstruction era, when the remnants of the planter class
returned to power -- if working whites and working blacks had
effectively worked together, they could have brought real change.
The Good Ole Boys knew this, and effectively used racist propaganda and
Jim Crow laws to keep the poor divided and the sharecroppers under
their heel. Poor whites and poor blacks never joined forces in the
South, and still haven't very often to this day.
Yes, I am aware that this reads very much like a Marxist analysis of
history. Unlike Marxists, I do not believe that all of history is a
tale of class struggle. But that particular chapter was a pretty
clear-cut case.
> Your choice to
> prevent this is to (a) Fight or (b) Be taxed half of your yearly
> earnings for the next 10 or 15 years to pay for returning the freed
> slave to Africa.
>
> Looked at like that, they had litttle choice but to fight. I would
> have never known this had I not read newspapers (micro film) of those
> days.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that repatriating
blacks to Africa would have been far less costly for the Southern
states than the Civil War was. For that matter, it would have been
cheaper to offer each slave a writ of manumission and a sturdy pair of
shoes on the condition they move north of the Mason-Dixon.
Or, of course, they could simply accept blacks as full citizens, but
that was beyond the pale.
> >But it wasn't just about containing slavery -- both sides took the long
> >view, and knew that when those territories became states, there would
> >be two new senators from each. Each new free state loosened the South's
> >fingerhold on the Senate, and inched the country closer to abolition.
>
> This is very true but it only brings us back to the question: Why
> should the Southern men have cared if the North did control the
> government ? I don't refer to the politicos and the Planters who
> yanked their chain, but to the men who would have to fight. We are
> back to the choice of fighting to defend slavery or paying for it's
> abolition. Not much of a choice. The North had a tremendous
> advantage because they faced no such a choice.
There was also the issue of tariffs. The war wasn't "about slavery" or
"about tariffs," as competing oversimplified versions would have it --
those issues were of a piece. Tariffs benefitted Northern sellers of
manufactured goods and harmed Southern exporters of raw materials
(cotton in particular, but also lumber). Slaveowners and
non-slaveowners were united by that issue. Slave labor made the massive
scale cotton plantations possible, and the poor farmer growing an acre
or two of cotton got his little dribble from that torrent of money.
I honestly don't know how many poor farmers in the South aspired to own
slaves one day -- that could be another factor tying the poor farmer to
the planter class, despite the fact that they shared few interests.
> >It wouldn't have changed much. Have you seen the Gulf coast lately?
> >High-rise beachfront condos as close together as they can pack them in.
>
> Much to my sorrow, I have been and I did see. The Gulf use to be
> such a beautiful place. As recent as the early 1980s I would drive
> all night just to watch the sunrise over the dunes west of Panama
> City. But no more.
In the last year, I've been to the Gulf Coast and to the Outer Banks.
Both are overbuilt as hell, but I'd by a hypocrite if I complained too
loudly -- I've stayed in those hotels and wouldn't turn down a stay in
one of those houses if you offered. Government parks have preserved
some unspoiled beaches -- the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the
Atlantic and Perdido Key on the Gulf spring to mind.
When I was down on the Redneck Riviera, I brought a tent, hoping to
wake up to the sound of the surf at least one morning. But at every
campground I came to, I would have awakened to the sound of RV air
conditioners. Screw it. If I have to deal with that noise, I might as
well stay at a hotel.
Perdido Key has a state park with primitive beach camping. No hookups,
no water, not even shade. The campsites start only a mile from the
parking area. Out of shape though I am, I could hump a pack a mile or
two without distress. Problem was, I didn't bring a pack. I had no way
to carry a tent (you can sleep on the beach without a tent, if you
don't mind being eaten alive by sand fleas) and a day's supply of
water. When I go back, I'll be better prepared.
--
"Five tacos, one taco burger. Do you know where the American Dream is?"
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Gary James
wrote:
I think you read far too much into the psyche of people 150-200 years
ago. They neither hated nor feared the black so much as they were
simply repelled by them. I speak of the ordinary man both in the
North and South. The Planter had a higher opinion of the slave than
did normal people. The people of that time, who had spent their life
among their own, thought anything else was disgusting. The Anglo
thought the Celt was physically repulsive. What must he have thought
of the Black ?
>Non-slave-owning white Southerners were pretty effectively manipulated
>by the planter class. This pattern was repeated in the
>post-Reconstruction era, when the remnants of the planter class
>returned to power -- if working whites and working blacks had
>effectively worked together, they could have brought real change.
You make valid arguments but I would point out that the planter's hold
on the poorer farmers was more one of family than oppressor as was the
case with political bosses in the North. A Planter in South GA with 8
daughters had to find husbands for them and there were not may "peers"
in the area. Check old genealogies and you will fnid a lot of this.
A man could marry into, and control eight poorer (but respectable)
families by doing this. These extended relations gave a wealthy
planter a strong base of operations. He was looked up to first
because he was a distant relative, second because they sought to
emulate him and third because he had money enough to bring them all
together.
>The Good Ole Boys knew this, and effectively used racist propaganda and
>Jim Crow laws to keep the poor divided and the sharecroppers under
>their heel. Poor whites and poor blacks never joined forces in the
>South, and still haven't very often to this day.
You will recall that Tom Watson had a plan to unite poor whites and
blacks into a political force. It would have worked but the blacks
sold out to the Bourbons, leaving Watson and his dreams of unity out
on the proverbial limb.
>Yes, I am aware that this reads very much like a Marxist analysis of
>history. Unlike Marxists, I do not believe that all of history is a
>tale of class struggle. But that particular chapter was a pretty
>clear-cut case.
I find myself much further left in my social observations now than I
did. I suppose that I've only recently had the time to examine the
issues in other than knee a jerk manner.
You hear people quote the old saw: "a man who is not liberal by age
25 has no heart and a man who is not conservative by age 40 has no
brain." I concur, but I would add that a man who is a fiscal
conservative past age 55 has no foresight.
>> Your choice to
>> prevent this is to (a) Fight or (b) Be taxed half of your yearly
>> earnings for the next 10 or 15 years to pay for returning the freed
>> slave to Africa.
>>
>> Looked at like that, they had litttle choice but to fight. I would
>> have never known this had I not read newspapers (micro film) of those
>> days.
>
>With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that repatriating
>blacks to Africa would have been far less costly for the Southern
>states than the Civil War was. For that matter, it would have been
>cheaper to offer each slave a writ of manumission and a sturdy pair of
>shoes on the condition they move north of the Mason-Dixon.
The Yankees had an extreme fear of this happening. Lincoln addressed
it in his 1864 speech to Congress where he assured them in words to
the effect: "If the free negro wishes to come North, need you accept
them". They had a different attitude towards civil rights in those
days.
>Or, of course, they could simply accept blacks as full citizens, but
>that was beyond the pale.
I wouldn't touch that with a fork. (The Pale was in Ireland).
>> >But it wasn't just about containing slavery -- both sides took the long
>> >view, and knew that when those territories became states, there would
>> >be two new senators from each. Each new free state loosened the South's
>> >fingerhold on the Senate, and inched the country closer to abolition.
>>
>> This is very true but it only brings us back to the question: Why
>> should the Southern men have cared if the North did control the
>> government ? I don't refer to the politicos and the Planters who
>> yanked their chain, but to the men who would have to fight. We are
>> back to the choice of fighting to defend slavery or paying for it's
>> abolition. Not much of a choice. The North had a tremendous
>> advantage because they faced no such a choice.
>
>There was also the issue of tariffs. The war wasn't "about slavery" or
>"about tariffs," as competing oversimplified versions would have it --
>those issues were of a piece. Tariffs benefitted Northern sellers of
>manufactured goods and harmed Southern exporters of raw materials
>(cotton in particular, but also lumber). Slaveowners and
>non-slaveowners were united by that issue. Slave labor made the massive
>scale cotton plantations possible, and the poor farmer growing an acre
>or two of cotton got his little dribble from that torrent of money.
>
>I honestly don't know how many poor farmers in the South aspired to own
>slaves one day -- that could be another factor tying the poor farmer to
>the planter class, despite the fact that they shared few interests.
I would say that most did. It's a new revelation to me, but if you
read the old papers you will find that slave owning was as quick and
sure a way to wealth, in the eyes of the young men of the early 1800s,
as the dot coms are today. All it took was credit and connections.
>> >It wouldn't have changed much. Have you seen the Gulf coast lately?
>> >High-rise beachfront condos as close together as they can pack them in.
>>
>> Much to my sorrow, I have been and I did see. The Gulf use to be
>> such a beautiful place. As recent as the early 1980s I would drive
>> all night just to watch the sunrise over the dunes west of Panama
>> City. But no more.
>
>In the last year, I've been to the Gulf Coast and to the Outer Banks.
>Both are overbuilt as hell, but I'd by a hypocrite if I complained too
>loudly -- I've stayed in those hotels and wouldn't turn down a stay in
>one of those houses if you offered. Government parks have preserved
>some unspoiled beaches -- the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the
>Atlantic and Perdido Key on the Gulf spring to mind.
>
>When I was down on the Redneck Riviera, I brought a tent, hoping to
>wake up to the sound of the surf at least one morning. But at every
>campground I came to, I would have awakened to the sound of RV air
>conditioners. Screw it. If I have to deal with that noise, I might as
>well stay at a hotel.
>
>Perdido Key has a state park with primitive beach camping. No hookups,
>no water, not even shade. The campsites start only a mile from the
>parking area. Out of shape though I am, I could hump a pack a mile or
>two without distress. Problem was, I didn't bring a pack. I had no way
>to carry a tent (you can sleep on the beach without a tent, if you
>don't mind being eaten alive by sand fleas) and a day's supply of
>water. When I go back, I'll be better prepared.
As a young man, my idea of "roughing it" in Panama City was to spend
a weekend in a third floor room of the Foutainbleau, facing west,
with a bottle of Bourbon, a companion and good room service.
Andy Walton
<gnja...@OMITyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:56:21 GMT, Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The "mix with, murder and rape your family" was the more lurid side of
> >racist propaganda, but I'd postulate that "do your job for half the
> >pay" entered into it as well. Poor tenant farmers had few people to
> >look down on, and accepting blacks as their equals, as fellow human
> >beings was galling.
>
> I think you read far too much into the psyche of people 150-200 years
> ago. They neither hated nor feared the black so much as they were
> simply repelled by them. I speak of the ordinary man both in the
> North and South. The Planter had a higher opinion of the slave than
> did normal people. The people of that time, who had spent their life
> among their own, thought anything else was disgusting. The Anglo
> thought the Celt was physically repulsive. What must he have thought
> of the Black ?
That's a fair observation. We moderns, who rub up against (literally,
if we ride big-city subways) all kinds of people tend to forget how
insular populations were in the 19th century and right on into the
20th. I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up exclusively
dealing with people who look like, sound like and smell like me, and
then suddenly encounter a black person, or someone who eats a lot of
garlic or curry.
I remember one TV interview from the "Mississipi Burning" days. It was
with a middle-aged Philadelphia, Mississippi, woman in a polyester
pantsuit and a bouffant hairdo, straight out of central casting. Her
assessment of blacks, delivered in a thick backwoods patois: "They're
nasty. They stink." It's easy to dismiss that as blind bigotry, but
think about it: She had probably never encountered a black person who
didn't lead a life of hard physical labor. She didn't exactly have a
representative sample.
But your point feeds my point. That other-ness, and a repugnance born
of ignorance, feeds into the general hostility. You want me to wait in
the polling line behind *that*? The seeds of racial propaganda fell on
fertile ground.
> >Non-slave-owning white Southerners were pretty effectively manipulated
> >by the planter class. This pattern was repeated in the
> >post-Reconstruction era, when the remnants of the planter class
> >returned to power -- if working whites and working blacks had
> >effectively worked together, they could have brought real change.
>
> You make valid arguments but I would point out that the planter's hold
> on the poorer farmers was more one of family than oppressor as was the
> case with political bosses in the North. A Planter in South GA with 8
> daughters had to find husbands for them and there were not may "peers"
> in the area. Check old genealogies and you will fnid a lot of this.
> A man could marry into, and control eight poorer (but respectable)
> families by doing this. These extended relations gave a wealthy
> planter a strong base of operations. He was looked up to first
> because he was a distant relative, second because they sought to
> emulate him and third because he had money enough to bring them all
> together.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of, but it makes sense. It's not too
different from the way royals and nobles in Europe managed marriages
for centuries. The Old South has been called the last outpost of
feudalism, and that theory fits in with that structure.
Georgia has an absurd number of counties for a state its size. My
hypothesis -- which I haven't researched -- is that the number of
counties equals the number of leading families who wanted their own
little fiefdoms.
> >The Good Ole Boys knew this, and effectively used racist propaganda and
> >Jim Crow laws to keep the poor divided and the sharecroppers under
> >their heel. Poor whites and poor blacks never joined forces in the
> >South, and still haven't very often to this day.
>
> You will recall that Tom Watson had a plan to unite poor whites and
> blacks into a political force. It would have worked but the blacks
> sold out to the Bourbons, leaving Watson and his dreams of unity out
> on the proverbial limb.
The late 19th century Tom Watson, sure. The early 20th century Tom
Watson became the foulest sort of lynch-mob populist. The only
explanation I can offer for this radical turn-around is that he felt
betrayed by blacks, and decided to avenge himself.
> >Yes, I am aware that this reads very much like a Marxist analysis of
> >history. Unlike Marxists, I do not believe that all of history is a
> >tale of class struggle. But that particular chapter was a pretty
> >clear-cut case.
>
> I find myself much further left in my social observations now than I
> did. I suppose that I've only recently had the time to examine the
> issues in other than knee a jerk manner.
>
> You hear people quote the old saw: "a man who is not liberal by age
> 25 has no heart and a man who is not conservative by age 40 has no
> brain." I concur, but I would add that a man who is a fiscal
> conservative past age 55 has no foresight.
I'm kind of a fiscal agnostic. I'm a "liberal" in the sense that I
don't resent paying taxes, and feel that I get pretty good value from
them. If Social Security went away, I'd have to support my grandmother,
but if FICA taxes went away, it'd be easier for me to do so. Replace
gas taxes with toll roads, and it's about a wash for me. Higher taxes
and more services or lower taxes and fewer services, I can adjust
either way.
What I cannot abide is lower taxes and increased spending. What Bush is
doing. What Reagan did. Republicans love to decry "tax and spend"
liberals, but taxing and spending is a damned sight more responsible
than borrowing and spending.
The conservative position is to cut both taxes and spending, but in
practice they jump halfway across that chasm. One conspiracy theory --
one I'm almost ready to buy into -- is that the Republicans
deliberately drive up deficits to create a debt crisis, so they can
force cuts in social programs that the electorate would not abide in
more comfortable times.
> >With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that repatriating
> >blacks to Africa would have been far less costly for the Southern
> >states than the Civil War was. For that matter, it would have been
> >cheaper to offer each slave a writ of manumission and a sturdy pair of
> >shoes on the condition they move north of the Mason-Dixon.
>
> The Yankees had an extreme fear of this happening. Lincoln addressed
> it in his 1864 speech to Congress where he assured them in words to
> the effect: "If the free negro wishes to come North, need you accept
> them". They had a different attitude towards civil rights in those
> days.
Exactly. The Quaker abolitionists had a pretty expansive view of human
rights, but that was not the rule in the North. Working whites did not
want the competition for jobs, and that fed the draft riots. The
climate was such that, whatever was in his heart of hearts, politically
Lincoln could not accept blacks as equal to whites in his debates with
Douglas.
I should emphasize that I do not, and cannot, know what Lincoln
believed. I know what he said. And whether he was true to his beliefs
or spinning to the electorate, in either case it tells us a lot about
the tenor of the times. It tells us that there was not a consensus in
the North in favor of freeing the slaves and welcoming them as American
citizens.
> >Or, of course, they could simply accept blacks as full citizens, but
> >that was beyond the pale.
>
> I wouldn't touch that with a fork. (The Pale was in Ireland).
I thought "the Pale" was between England and Scotland, where Hadrian's
Wall later became a more permanent barrier. So I looked it up, and was
a bit surprised what I found. First, but not most interestingly, that I
was completely wrong.
Pale = "pole" from Latin via French. Essentially a fence. That part, I
knew. "Beyond the Pale" was where the Barbarians dwelt.
"The English pale" was used to refer to areas of France ruled by
England in the 15th century. "The pale" was also used to refer to
Jewish enclaves in Tsarist Russia.
But, according to the OED:
> The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several
> specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale
> (see sense 4c) or the Pale of Settlement in Russia (see sense 4e), is
> not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a
> later rationalization.
The derivation appears to be based on the general concept, not any
specific application of it.
> >I honestly don't know how many poor farmers in the South aspired to own
> >slaves one day -- that could be another factor tying the poor farmer to
> >the planter class, despite the fact that they shared few interests.
>
>
> I would say that most did. It's a new revelation to me, but if you
> read the old papers you will find that slave owning was as quick and
> sure a way to wealth, in the eyes of the young men of the early 1800s,
> as the dot coms are today. All it took was credit and connections.
That's one weakness of Marxist analysis of history, particularly in
societies without a rigid class structure. It has been pretty
consistent throughout the history of democracies. If you treat history
as purely a class struggle, it's bewildering how often the proletariat
votes with the bourgiose against, it could be argued, their own
interests.
Many of poor don't want to "soak the rich" because they aspire to be,
in fact expect to be, among them one day. That goes a long way toward
explaining why people from family farms would fight for slavery, though
it was against their interest, as slave labor increased the market
advantage of big planters over small farmers.
Gratuitous dig at Microsoft: You might expect young entrepeneurs to be
more hostile to MS than they are. But many of them aren't looking to
create a ground-breaking technology and bring it to market. All they
need to do is create a promising new technology threatening enough that
MS will buy and quash it. Either way, they're retired in their 30s.
> >Perdido Key has a state park with primitive beach camping. No hookups,
> >no water, not even shade. The campsites start only a mile from the
> >parking area. Out of shape though I am, I could hump a pack a mile or
> >two without distress. Problem was, I didn't bring a pack. I had no way
> >to carry a tent (you can sleep on the beach without a tent, if you
> >don't mind being eaten alive by sand fleas) and a day's supply of
> >water. When I go back, I'll be better prepared.
>
> As a young man, my idea of "roughing it" in Panama City was to spend
> a weekend in a third floor room of the Foutainbleau, facing west,
> with a bottle of Bourbon, a companion and good room service.
To every thing there is a season. The kind of escape you describe is
far more common in my life than the one I described, but every now and
then, it does a man good to strip away the distractions of modern life,
to pare life down to its essentials.
Not that I fancy myself a latter-day Thoreau -- I like my fast Internet
access and air conditioning. Thoreau spent two years at Walden. I just
like the occasional long weekend.
--
"Grown men, he told himself, in flat contradiction
of centuries of accumulated evidence about the
way grown men behave, do not behave like this."
-- Douglas Adams (RIP), "So Long, And Thanks..."
Gary James
wrote:
Exactly! IMO too many of us like to judge the morality of people of
other eras and other places by what we are comfortable with. Had the
lady in your illustration met only blacks who were MDs and educated at
Harvard, her attitude would have been totally different. And just as
superficial. I say superficial because although the latter attitude
would be applauded by todays PC crowd, it would have been no more
based on truth or fact than the former.
>> >Non-slave-owning white Southerners were pretty effectively manipulated
>> >by the planter class. This pattern was repeated in the
>> >post-Reconstruction era, when the remnants of the planter class
>> >returned to power -- if working whites and working blacks had
>> >effectively worked together, they could have brought real change.
>>
>> You make valid arguments but I would point out that the planter's hold
>> on the poorer farmers was more one of family than oppressor as was the
>> case with political bosses in the North. A Planter in South GA with 8
>> daughters had to find husbands for them and there were not may "peers"
>> in the area. Check old genealogies and you will fnid a lot of this.
>> A man could marry into, and control eight poorer (but respectable)
>> families by doing this. These extended relations gave a wealthy
>> planter a strong base of operations. He was looked up to first
>> because he was a distant relative, second because they sought to
>> emulate him and third because he had money enough to bring them all
>> together.
>
>That's an angle I hadn't thought of, but it makes sense. It's not too
>different from the way royals and nobles in Europe managed marriages
>for centuries.
I suppose anyone whose ancestors were in GA prior to 1860 can find
indications of this. I recently ran across a third Great Grandfather
who I was unfamiliar with. He was a small planter in SW GA in 1860
and the census indicates six of his young sons-in-laws (and s-i-l to
be) were just starting out as small farmers and teachers with a tiny
net worth. By the 1880 census, four of them are leading lights in
the Democrat party and two are members of the Legislature. My guess
is the old planter did more for them than they did him. Counting all
of their parents, uncles and cousins, imagine how many men looked to
him for guidance circa 1860-70.
Let's assume the Planter had a couple of brothers in the same general
area. Their family would translate into a lot of political power
with no bribes or intimidation. I find this interesting. Recall
also that most of these young men were of the Scot Irish persuasion.
Which meant they would do anything for a friend but their credo was:
"ain't no sumbitch gonna tell me what to do".
FWIW, I have not run across any Georgians who referred to themselves
a "planters". They seemed to have only considered themselves
farmers.
>The Old South has been called the last outpost of
>feudalism, and that theory fits in with that structure.
The American Plantation system (I won't say Southern, because it was
just as popular in the North before the Industrial Revolution) was
unique in that it provided a common man with the same way of life that
had, up until then, been reserved for Europeans born of Aristocratic
blood. Where else could a man become "Lord of the Manor" by winning
land on the frontier in a lottery. Then borrowing money for a few
slaves from relatives, and then literally having power of life and
death over all the whites and blacks living on his plantation. (I
understand the law, but let's look at reality).
>Georgia has an absurd number of counties for a state its size. My
>hypothesis -- which I haven't researched -- is that the number of
>counties equals the number of leading families who wanted their own
>little fiefdoms.
You may be on to something ;> It would be worth a little time to
research. I know there were over 30 counties established after the
Civil War and before 1925.
Not being blessed with the power of divination, we have to take them
all at their word. This is what bothers me about so many of the more
recent "historians". They will tell you what Lincoln said and then
spend a chapter telling you why he really didn't mean what he said.
"Why, Lincoln didn't have a racist bone in his body". Sure he
didn't.
>> >Or, of course, they could simply accept blacks as full citizens, but
>> >that was beyond the pale.
>>
>> I wouldn't touch that with a fork. (The Pale was in Ireland).
>
>I thought "the Pale" was between England and Scotland, where Hadrian's
>Wall later became a more permanent barrier. So I looked it up, and was
>a bit surprised what I found. First, but not most interestingly, that I
>was completely wrong.
>
>Pale = "pole" from Latin via French. Essentially a fence. That part, I
>knew. "Beyond the Pale" was where the Barbarians dwelt.
>
>"The English pale" was used to refer to areas of France ruled by
>England in the 15th century. "The pale" was also used to refer to
>Jewish enclaves in Tsarist Russia.
>
>But, according to the OED:
>
>> The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several
>> specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale
>> (see sense 4c) or the Pale of Settlement in Russia (see sense 4e), is
>> not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a
>> later rationalization.
>
>The derivation appears to be based on the general concept, not any
>specific application of it.
You have broadened my perspective. I had accepted the following as
the definition:
"...In the 15th century the Pale became the only real piece of Ireland
under the control of the English King's Dublin government and a
tenuous foothold for the English on the island of Ireland..."
A google gives me this additional thought :
(the word "pale" has etymological links with palisade)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pale
>> >I honestly don't know how many poor farmers in the South aspired to own
>> >slaves one day -- that could be another factor tying the poor farmer to
>> >the planter class, despite the fact that they shared few interests.
>>
>>
>> I would say that most did. It's a new revelation to me, but if you
>> read the old papers you will find that slave owning was as quick and
>> sure a way to wealth, in the eyes of the young men of the early 1800s,
>> as the dot coms are today. All it took was credit and connections.
>
>That's one weakness of Marxist analysis of history, particularly in
>societies without a rigid class structure. It has been pretty
>consistent throughout the history of democracies. If you treat history
>as purely a class struggle, it's bewildering how often the proletariat
>votes with the bourgiose against, it could be argued, their own
>interests.
>
>Many of poor don't want to "soak the rich" because they aspire to be,
>in fact expect to be, among them one day. That goes a long way toward
>explaining why people from family farms would fight for slavery, though
>it was against their interest, as slave labor increased the market
>advantage of big planters over small farmers.
Let me offer this speech by Gov Brown as a statement from the "horses
mouth" as to why non slave owners should go to war. I read it at the
library a few months back before finding it on the net. Not born of
the Planter class, Brown was what we would call a self made man.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/jbrown.html
>Gratuitous dig at Microsoft: You might expect young entrepeneurs to be
>more hostile to MS than they are. But many of them aren't looking to
>create a ground-breaking technology and bring it to market. All they
>need to do is create a promising new technology threatening enough that
>MS will buy and quash it. Either way, they're retired in their 30s.
I suppose this is along the lines of how Floridians use to make a
little extra money. According to my Grandfather, who hated open
range, the farmers in FL back 60 years ago, would keep one hog for
hard times. When short of cash, they would take him to the railroad
track so a train would kill him. Then make a claim at the local JP to
collect from the Railroad.
>> >Perdido Key has a state park with primitive beach camping. No hookups,
>> >no water, not even shade. The campsites start only a mile from the
>> >parking area. Out of shape though I am, I could hump a pack a mile or
>> >two without distress. Problem was, I didn't bring a pack. I had no way
>> >to carry a tent (you can sleep on the beach without a tent, if you
>> >don't mind being eaten alive by sand fleas) and a day's supply of
>> >water. When I go back, I'll be better prepared.
>>
>> As a young man, my idea of "roughing it" in Panama City was to spend
>> a weekend in a third floor room of the Foutainbleau, facing west,
>> with a bottle of Bourbon, a companion and good room service.
>
>To every thing there is a season. The kind of escape you describe is
>far more common in my life than the one I described, but every now and
>then, it does a man good to strip away the distractions of modern life,
>to pare life down to its essentials.
>
>Not that I fancy myself a latter-day Thoreau -- I like my fast Internet
>access and air conditioning. Thoreau spent two years at Walden. I just
>like the occasional long weekend.
I hadn't thought of it before, but now just might be a good time for
a young Thoreau. Instead of books, he would want an internet
connection and a couple of years to leisurely soak up the knowledge
available on the net.
Gary James
wrote:
I suppose it's safe to assume that Watson did indeed feel like he had
been stabbed in the back by the very people he sought to help. I bet
he wasn't the last.
>> >Yes, I am aware that this reads very much like a Marxist analysis of
>> >history. Unlike Marxists, I do not believe that all of history is a
>> >tale of class struggle. But that particular chapter was a pretty
>> >clear-cut case.
>>
>> I find myself much further left in my social observations now than I
>> did. I suppose that I've only recently had the time to examine the
>> issues in other than knee a jerk manner.
>>
>> You hear people quote the old saw: "a man who is not liberal by age
>> 25 has no heart and a man who is not conservative by age 40 has no
>> brain." I concur, but I would add that a man who is a fiscal
>> conservative past age 55 has no foresight.
>
>I'm kind of a fiscal agnostic. I'm a "liberal" in the sense that I
>don't resent paying taxes, and feel that I get pretty good value from
>them.
That's one thing I never objected to, even in my most Conservative
moments. I was taught that we should be honored to pay taxes for that
proves the United States has given us the opportunity to earn a decent
living. Something we would not have had in most places on Earth.
>If Social Security went away, I'd have to support my grandmother,
>but if FICA taxes went away, it'd be easier for me to do so. Replace
>gas taxes with toll roads, and it's about a wash for me. Higher taxes
>and more services or lower taxes and fewer services, I can adjust
>either way.
When I hear people complain, I really can't understand their vision on
what kind of a country we should have. They seem to think that they
were born "booted and spurred", (as Jefferson put it) to make a good
life with all of the advantages they receive from our culture/society
with no debts or obligations to same. Without the protection of the
American nation, they would be no better situated today than a
Bushman born in Central Africa. Like the Bushman, they would be too
concerned to find a few bugs to eat than to complain about paying
taxes.
We help the elderly today, because they helped us when we were young
and helpless. They provided a system of protections that permitted
us to grow up in the greatest nation in history, and now it is our
turn to help them. What's so difficult about that ? Why do they
hate to assume their responsibility ?
>What I cannot abide is lower taxes and increased spending. What Bush is
>doing. What Reagan did. Republicans love to decry "tax and spend"
>liberals, but taxing and spending is a damned sight more responsible
>than borrowing and spending.
I spent my working life cussing the "tax and spend" Democrats. Now I
find that the "borrow and spend" Republican is a far more vile
miscreant.
It has only been in the past four years that I notice most new
Conservatives refer to themselves a "Fiscal Conservative and Social
liberals". I have news for them: there is no such animal. What they
mean is they are just to cheap and stingy to pay taxes. In this same
period, I have begun to think of myself as a "Fiscal Liberal and
Social Conservative". which is what most of our Georgia ancestors
have been going back to Oglethorpe ;>
>The conservative position is to cut both taxes and spending, but in
>practice they jump halfway across that chasm. One conspiracy theory --
>one I'm almost ready to buy into -- is that the Republicans
>deliberately drive up deficits to create a debt crisis, so they can
>force cuts in social programs that the electorate would not abide in
>more comfortable times.
I've not given it a lot of thought, but I suppose this theory just
might be right.