Southern Identity on Decline, Study Says
Name withheld by request
Southern Identity on Decline, Study Says
By AMBER McDOWELL : Associated Press Writer
Oct 1, 2003 : 9:52 am ET
FRANKLIN, Tenn. -- Relaxing on the verandah of a refurbished Victorian
home turned tea room, Dot Fleming nibbled coconut pie and extolled the
virtues of life in the South.
"It's just an easier, more relaxed lifestyle, with friendly people,
home-cooking and big families," said the 55-year-old Fleming, whose
family has lived in this affluent town south of Nashville since the
early 1900s.
A new Vanderbilt University study found that the number of people like
Fleming, who are fiercely proud to be called Southerners, is being
noticeably diluted by newcomers and those who just plain reject the
label.
From 1991 to 2001, the number of people living in the South who
identified themselves as "Southerners" declined 7.4 percentage points,
from about 78 percent to 70 percent.
The study found that only Republicans, political conservatives and the
wealthy bucked this trend, keeping the same percentage of
self-described "Southerners."
"As with other parts of the country, continuing urbanization and
immigration have had an impact on the South," said sociology professor
Larry Griffin, who headed the study.
The researchers analyzed data from 19 polls conducted by the
University of North Carolina from 1991-2001 that asked respondents if
they considered themselves Southerners. The findings will be included
in the article "Enough About the Disappearing South -- What About the
Disappearing Southerner?" as part of the fall edition of Southern
Cultures, the journal of UNC's Center for the Study of the American
South.
The polls surveyed 17,600 people in 13 states -- Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
The decline spanned all races, ethnic and age groups, researchers
said. But Republicans held steady at about 74 percent, political
conservatives at 78 percent and the rich at 69 percent.
"Though the South has changed (over the decade), those three groups
still see themselves as in the South or of the South," Griffin said.
"For persons of color, the poor, for political liberals or Democrats,
it may be an image they reject."
As for Fleming, she said she understands why conservatives continue to
classify themselves as Southerners.
"In general, when you're conservative, you don't like change," said
Fleming, who says she's probably in the upper middle class financially
and neither conservative nor liberal.
Elouise North, a 79-year-old gift shop manager at Carter House,
describes herself as both a Southerner and a conservative.
"It's a way of life," she said. "You don't rush things too much here.
In my generation, you weren't rude, you had manners, you said 'Yes,
ma'am' and 'No, ma'am.'"
North was born in Gallatin, 25 miles northeast of Nashville, but moved
to Franklin 44 years ago after she married. During that time, she says
she's seen so many new people move here that "it's no wonder" the
number of self-described Southerners has dropped.
http://www.herald-sun.com/nationworld/14-397615.html
...Never put a sock in a toaster, never put jam on a magnet, never put
your granny in a bag, never suck all the juice out of a vampire, never
lean over on a Tuesday...
Faye
news:10664297...@irys.nyx.net...
> From 1991 to 2001, the number of people living in the South who
> identified themselves as "Southerners" declined 7.4 percentage points,
> from about 78 percent to 70 percent.
I heard this several days ago and my immediate reaction was that 70 percent
is *phenomenal* considering all factors.
Screw vOnderbilt and the carpetbags they drag with them.
Faye
Jeff Martin
southern gentleman who got rid of his yankee wife and is now dating a
beautiful southern belle.
kcaj
>"Name withheld by request" <anon...@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:10664297...@irys.nyx.net...
>
> Southern Identity on Decline, Study Says
>
> By AMBER McDOWELL : Associated Press Writer
> Oct 1, 2003 : 9:52 am ET
>
> FRANKLIN, Tenn. -- Relaxing on the verandah of a refurbished Victorian
> home turned tea room, Dot Fleming nibbled coconut pie and extolled the
> virtues of life in the South.
>
> "It's just an easier, more relaxed lifestyle, with friendly people,
> home-cooking and big families," said the 55-year-old Fleming, whose
> family has lived in this affluent town south of Nashville since the
> early 1900s.
>
> A new Vanderbilt University study found that the number of people like
> Fleming, who are fiercely proud to be called Southerners, is being
> noticeably diluted by newcomers and those who just plain reject the
> label.
Atlanta has rebuffed it's Southern heritage a long time
It's too 'red' for them. They are afraid their necks will
turn red and besides many saw the movie Easy Rider in
1969 and later. Everybody knows this is what happens to
people from Atlanta who venture outside the city limits. Even
30 years ago it was taught to people that being a plowboy
was the worst thing that a person could be. Listen to the
radio and TV commercials. How many southern accents
do you hear?? 1 or 2 if any and many times none. The advertisers
act like they are ashamed of being in the south. Southernisms are
presented as ignorance and backwards and something to be
ashamed of by the establishment to the public. The South
continues to be the whipping boy even though the present modern
South isn't any different than any other place. It blew me
away how as city as Southern as Atlanta could be ashamed of
it's Southern heritage. That's like Jews being ashamed of Moses.
I don't care if anybody flys a confederate flag or not. I like it from
a historical heritage and think it can be used any way a person
wants to use it. I'm going to buy a 10' x 12' or so confederate flag
and hang it on a wall where I live to remind me of the idiots and
their jackass establishment that want to confiscate and destroy
genuine history.
Faye
news:Pj3kb.8518$W77....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> How come I never get asked to take surveys like this?
I certainly don't fit their mold of those who "bucked this trend." I guess
all those living in hollows in Robertson County and on hillsides in Jackson
County with the battle flag flying in their front yards would fall under the
republican or conservative category, certainly not the wealthy. I wonder
how many of those folks were queried? Also, no percentage was given of the
population in the South that immigrated to the South over the same ten year
period. I'd imagine it would hover *at least* around seven percent. They's
ever'where!
Wonder why this study was undertaken at this time? Could it have had
anything to do with shoring up reasoning for renaming Confederate Hall just
in case such had been needed as a little bit of extra ammunition in court?
Why does vOnderbilt feel the constant need to jab at the South, to work
towards the undoing of things Southern?
I'm a proud
> southern gentleman who got rid of his yankee wife and is now dating a
> beautiful southern belle.
I've often wondered how different history might have been had Bill married
Tipper. She'd have jerked a knot in his tail from the gitgo.
You know what I love about Southern men? Whether he's the leader of the
free world or a redneck from Podunk County, when you're with him, you just
never know, never, when all hell is going to break loose. : )
Faye
"If I had a thousand lives, I would lose them all before I would betray my
friends or the confidence of my informer. I am ready." --Sam Davis, Boy
Hero of the Confederary, standing at the gallows
Olin Murrell
very heart of redneck country, wound up in a career that led him to
interview presidents, Senators, Congress folk, wannabes, a buttload of
entertainment stars and travel much of the world, who is NOT at all ashamed
to be a Southernor.
Not particularly proud of it either.
It's mostly inconsequential, seeing as how most of us had, really, nothing
to say about where we were born and raised... including those enlightened
denizens of the northern or California persuasion.
There are things, Southern, that I cannot abide... geographic jingoism among
them, but most of these things exist just about everywhere, so I mostly
ignore them.
The Civil War's over. It was in all the papers, and I wish us Southernors
would quit whining about it and that our brethren of the Yankee persuasion
would quit bragging about it.
Being born a Texan, to some, will always make me an inbred redneck, to be
schooled by such as that lady from some years ago who drew national
publicity by opening a school to teach Southern "bidness" men, specifically
Texans, how to talk correctly so they wouldn't be laughed at in meetings
with their Northern counterparts.
It apparently never dawned upon her that while they were laughing, those
"ignernt bidnessmen" were making off with the lion's share of the deal at
hand.
I will say, and it's sad to note, that much of what was grand about the old
South (and most other distinct regionalisms too, BTW) seem to be
disappearing into the great homogenizing effect of distances being shrunk by
faster transportation and communication.
What you are is more important than where you are.
"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:xo4kb.183143$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Doug Smith W9WI
> how many of those folks were queried? Also, no percentage was given of the
> population in the South that immigrated to the South over the same ten year
> period. I'd imagine it would hover *at least* around seven percent. They's
> ever'where!
Count me as one, from Madison WI. My next-door neighbors are from
Chicago. We've got at least two other Chicagoans at work, plus three
Milwaukeeans and not too long ago lost another Madisonian. I'm seeing a
New Yorker. And count one each Californian and Minneapolitan in our
local ham club. I guess that makes something pretty close to 10%
Yankees among my acquaintanences, (know darned well that last word's
misspelled!) not counting those back home..
> Why does vOnderbilt feel the constant need to jab at the South, to work
> towards the undoing of things Southern?
Well, Cornelius V. *was* a Yankee <grin, kinda>
http://voteview.uh.edu/vanderb2.htm , scroll down to "C"..
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
Bob
>
> "It's a way of life," she said. "You don't rush things too much here.
> In my generation, you weren't rude, you had manners, you said 'Yes,
> ma'am' and 'No, ma'am.'"
Nowadays in Nashville people act surprised when I say sir, ma'am,
please & thank you. Manners & politeness aren't some sort of gay
affectation, or a sign of weakness, as many Northerners think. It's a
way for strangers to relate on some common ground.
Having stayed in Ney Yawk City a few times, the people I interacted
with were most all nice enough. Too much fast loud talking though.
Several transplanted Northerners I've met around town, really do
qualify as Carpetbaggers; taking advantage and dragging standards
down.
Doug Smith W9WI
> Nowadays in Nashville people act surprised when I say sir, ma'am,
> please & thank you. Manners & politeness aren't some sort of gay
> affectation, or a sign of weakness, as many Northerners think. It's a
> way for strangers to relate on some common ground.
- It's not really a good idea to lump everyone from north of the
Mason-Dixon line together. A Minneapolis insurance executive has about
as much in common with one in NYC as he does with one in Birmingham.
- Northerners aren't being discourteous when they don't use "sir" or
"ma'am". They still respect you. We weren't taught to use those words,
except possibly in the military! Seriously, IMHO Northerners are more
likely to respect others as equals and less likely to respect others as
superiors. We were taught to say "please" and "thank you" (and IMHO
most of us do) but not "sir" and "ma'am".
Mary B
"kcaj" <kcaj_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The South
> continues to be the whipping boy even though the present modern
> South isn't any different than any other place.
Q: How does a whipping boy get to, for lack of a better phrase, basically
control the national political agenda?
A: It doesn't.
Conclusion: The South stopped being anyone's whipping boy long ago.
Most folks simply haven't realized it.
Mary
--
watch out for spam filter. take my name out of the domain.
Bob
>Bob wrote:
>>..Manners & politeness aren't some sort of gay
>> affectation, or a sign of weakness, as many Northerners think..
>
>- It's not really a good idea to lump everyone from north of the
>Mason-Dixon line together. ..
Generalities are a matter of convenience, unfair as they may be in
specific cases. But usually a stereotype has some basis in fact.
Richard Thomas
<oli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The Civil War's over. It was in all the papers, and I wish us Southernors
>would quit whining about it and that our brethren of the Yankee persuasion
>would quit bragging about it.
Perhaps because it was not a civil war, it was a conflict about the
balance of power between federal and state government and although, to
coin a phrase, "major combat operations [...] have ended.", it is a
struggle that continues.
Of course, there are those that see it as nothing more than "The South
should be separate from the North". But for some, the spirit behind
the fight still has meaning.
Rich
kcaj
>"Mary B" <spa...@butlermary.net> wrote in message
news:spambox-30F82F...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <bmqhn2$pjo7r$1...@ID-39789.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "kcaj" <kcaj_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The South
> > continues to be the whipping boy even though the present modern
> > South isn't any different than any other place.
>
> Q: How does a whipping boy get to, for lack of a better phrase, basically
> control the national political agenda?
>
> A: It doesn't.
They have been recognizing how stupid their
Democrat party is, especially in Georgia. You're
not speaking about all Southerners, only Democrat
dummies who voted for Mr. Peanut Carter, Bubba Bill
' Mr. Penis' Clinton, almost Al Dummy Gore and even as
far back as Mr. Crook from Texas, LBJ. The other
Southerner who is a Republican is unusual from the dummies
from the South. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Penis brought more
shame to America than all the Republicans rolled into one,
including Richard Nixon. The Democrat party is bringing
nothing but shame to Dixie.
Boston Blackie
"kcaj" <kcaj_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They have been recognizing how stupid their
> Democrat party is, especially in Georgia. You're
> not speaking about all Southerners, only Democrat
> dummies who voted for Mr. Peanut Carter, Bubba Bill
> ' Mr. Penis' Clinton, almost Al Dummy Gore and even as
> far back as Mr. Crook from Texas, LBJ. The other
> Southerner who is a Republican is unusual from the dummies
> from the South. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Penis brought more
> shame to America than all the Republicans rolled into one,
> including Richard Nixon. The Democrat party is bringing
> nothing but shame to Dixie.
That would be the "Democratic" party.
And it certainly did bring shame, on itself at least, for its early
support of Segregation.
Foxbat
"kcaj" wrote:
>
> They have been recognizing how stupid their
> Democrat party is, especially in Georgia. You're
> not speaking about all Southerners, only Democrat
> dummies who voted for Mr. Peanut Carter, Bubba Bill
> ' Mr. Penis' Clinton, almost Al Dummy Gore and even as
> far back as Mr. Crook from Texas, LBJ. The other
> Southerner who is a Republican is unusual from the dummies
> from the South. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Penis brought more
> shame to America than all the Republicans rolled into one,
> including Richard Nixon. The Democrat party is bringing
> nothing but shame to Dixie.
>
Jack,
Take your tommyrot and wash it down with a hit off
the Clorox jug.
By the way, Texas is NOT part of the South.
Clinton did make a mistake. He forgot to tell us that
he was running the country with his pants at half mast.
Honesty is not exactly a hallmark of the current tenant at 1600.
Why don't you ask him about Funeralgate, the violation of the 12th
Amendment, Enron, Halliburton, date rape of Arlington TX taxpayers.
Abuse of alcohol and drugs. Let's not forget that little "Where's Waldo"
absence from the National Guard. There is so much more but you get
the idea. The Dixie Chicks were right!
--
Olin Murrell
"Richard Thomas" <news...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3f91f123...@news.bna.bellsouth.net...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:03:45 -0500, "Olin Murrell"
> <oli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >The Civil War's over. It was in all the papers, and I wish us Southernors
> >would quit whining about it and that our brethren of the Yankee
persuasion
> >would quit bragging about it.
>
> Perhaps because it was not a civil war, it was a conflict about the
> balance of power between federal and state government and although, to
> coin a phrase, "major combat operations [...] have ended.", it is a
> struggle that continues.
>
Pray tell, when HAS a war been "civil?"
More to the point, when has such a conflict NOT been about the "balance of
power?"
> Of course, there are those that see it as nothing more than "The South
> should be separate from the North". But for some, the spirit behind
> the fight still has meaning.
>
Obviously. It's merely that I see little reason for the "meaning," either
for those who whine OR brag about the outcome... especially closing in on
140 years since "major combat operations ended."
I suppose there are still those who hold animosity toward the crown, but...
what's the point? After all, that little revolution was also, in no small
part, about "balance of power" and destiny control.
Boston Blackie
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Seriously, IMHO Northerners are more
> likely to respect others as equals and less likely to respect others as
> superiors. We were taught to say "please" and "thank you" (and IMHO
> most of us do) but not "sir" and "ma'am".
It's a funny thing, the older I get the more likely I am to use the
terms 'sir' and 'ma'am' in my everyday speech.
Perhaps, for me at least, it takes the place of the word 'like.'
I'm, like...
you're, like...
he, she or it's, like...
I was, like...
you were, like...
he, she or it was, like...
I will have been, like...
you will have been, like...
he, she or it will have been, like...
...
Olin Murrell
"Foxbat" <cal...@nyetspamatt.net> wrote in message
news:S0okb.20481$5n....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "kcaj" wrote:
> >
> > They have been recognizing how stupid their
> > Democrat party is, especially in Georgia. You're
> > not speaking about all Southerners, only Democrat
> > dummies who voted for Mr. Peanut Carter, Bubba Bill
> > ' Mr. Penis' Clinton, almost Al Dummy Gore and even as
> > far back as Mr. Crook from Texas, LBJ. The other
> > Southerner who is a Republican is unusual from the dummies
> > from the South. Jimmy Carter and Mr. Penis brought more
> > shame to America than all the Republicans rolled into one,
> > including Richard Nixon. The Democrat party is bringing
> > nothing but shame to Dixie.
> >
>
> Jack,
>
> Take your tommyrot and wash it down with a hit off
> the Clorox jug.
>
> By the way, Texas is NOT part of the South.
>
Yeah, it is. It's also a part of the Southwest, but as a member of the old
Confederacy, it definitely has to be considered a part of the South.
Besides, there are some counties in East Texas where the Civil War is still
being fought.
> Clinton did make a mistake. He forgot to tell us that
> he was running the country with his pants at half mast.
>
Why was anybody surprised? He was a twelth degree horndog in high school,
college, his state political career and anybody who figured he'd change his
stripes in the White House was self-deluded.
> Honesty is not exactly a hallmark of the current tenant at 1600.
> Why don't you ask him about Funeralgate, the violation of the 12th
> Amendment, Enron, Halliburton, date rape of Arlington TX taxpayers.
> Abuse of alcohol and drugs. Let's not forget that little "Where's Waldo"
> absence from the National Guard. There is so much more but you get
> the idea. The Dixie Chicks were right!
>
And they've found out that "being right" is not always the best thing. I'm a
huge Dixie Chicks fan, still, but who cares what an entertainer thinks of
politics? 'Bout like letting John Stennis determine what movies we watch and
what songs we listen to.
Shrub has a record to run on now, and even his biggest fans have to admit
there are blemishes on it... including no Hussein, no Bin Laden, no WMDs, a
quick war resulting in an expensive and bloody occupation, the outing of a
CIA field operative (and probably her network as well), followed by the lame
excuse from Robert Novak, the conserative wag writer, that he didn't know
her day gig was "a secret" and his successor in Texas trying to piss in the
Comptroller's Cheerios over the budget and puting himself in a position
where SHE will take him apart.
Both parties have a history of overreaching their positions from time to
time, and even some republicans are now worried that might be happening,
what with naked power grabs like the Tom DeLay orchestrated re-districting
fight in Texas.
kcaj
What's so really good about the Northerners
who have moved to Atlanta in droves in the
last 20 years or so is many of them vote
Republican. I praise God for this. They have
broken the backbone of the hardcore, generational
and braindead Democrat zombies. They brought
the fresh blood back into the Georgia political
system that has almost gone completely stagnant
with the cancer of the controlled Democrat party.
It's always expected that you are autommatically
Democrat above and beyond almost anything else.
Praise God for the Yankee Republicans. There
is a light at the end of this tunnel. Southern Democrats
have to understand the Republicans of today aren't
the same Republicans that were the carpetbaggers
after the Civil War that Grandpas and Grandmas have
been telling Southerners about over a hundred years.
Kevin
Boston Blackie
wrote:
> Maybe the Dixie sluts will spin in.
I wonder what the male equivalent of "slut" would be?
Moonraker
"Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bblackie-7F608B...@library.airnews.net...
Bill Clinton?
Boston Blackie
"Moonraker" <moon...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
too obvious.
Boston Blackie
Jim Garrett <jim-g...@NSatt.net> wrote:
> > Bill Clinton?
>
> Schwarzenegger, with his bragging about his escapades, would seem to
> be much closer to the mark, but, of course, he is a Republican. Speak
> no evil, and all that.
The problem with both suggestions is that identify the concept with an
individual. I think there's not a general term with the same
connotation for males. And IIMSS, that's a sad commentary on attitudes
toward women.
Doug Smith W9WI
Most Minnesotans would agree that New Yorkers are rude and lacking in
manners.
(and knowing the New Yorkers I've known, they'd be wrong... except
maybe for the one who pointed out to me the obvious fact I was stuck
behind someone who'd decided to triple-park on Broadway one afternoon!)
I simply think you're misinterpreting Northern behavior. Yes, in
general, Northerners are less likely to address people with certain
salutations. No, in general that *doesn't* mean they don't respect the
people they're addressing.
kitty
"kcaj" <kcaj_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bmt50k$p6g05$1...@ID-39789.news.uni-berlin.de...
yep--count me in as a Repub/Indepen Yankee! I will say this tho---there is
so much corruption and back room dealing --it does NOT matter what party or
who they are....
we are all being sold down the river by all elected officials--the only one
I 1/2 way respect and I am skeptical is Rep Tancredo in CO. I have contacted
his office numerous times begging him to move to GA and run against Clown
Majette ! no luck....
also keep in mind that our country is being DILUTED with massive immigration
both legal and illegal and we will soon be under the control of the
UN.....if you don't believe it--check the UN site and search for UNESCO
Biospheres {MAB}--or do a search MAB Kentucky....its all there --but very
hush hush..............
kitty
Boston Blackie
Jim Garrett <jim-g...@NSatt.net> wrote:
> Reckon this is just English, or are other languages as gender biased
> in this regard?
Excellent question. I may have to look into that.
jakdedert
Lounge Lizard, maybe? Actually, I've heard men described as sluts before.
I think there's more, if I took time to think about it, but IMO, it's a
pretty lame excercise.
jak
jakdedert
"Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QtSdnfb2q9U...@comcast.com...
us Missourians--especially south-Missourians--the benefit of the doubt
because MO was a 'swing state' during the war; one which which endured a
battle or two.), I'd have to say that I rarely gave the Civil War a second
thought until my first foray below the Mason-Dixon. THERE'S the real
difference. Far from bragging about it, it rarely ever enters the 'yankee'
mind. We rarely even used the term 'yankee' unless someone from the South
mentioned it first (or we're discussing the current team in the World
Series). I'm sure those in New England do so with a little more regularity,
but it has nothing to do with that war. I remember clearly the first time I
got called a yankee. My inner response was a mixture of amusement and
sadness.
Like Olin said...that one was over a long time ago. If 'yankees' brag about
it, it's usually in reaction to animosity displayed by some Southerner who
just exposed his 'button' by complaining about 'yankees.' You walk around
with a chip on your shoulder--about anything--and there's always gonna be
someone willing to knock it off. It's not about attitudes toward the South
in general, it's about Southerners who can't get over their 140 year old
feud....
jak
jakdedert
Dedert was my father, and he died back in the 70's...same with obligitory
titles like 'sir.'
I've been know to use them, myself...but only when it seems
warranted...mainly when addressing someone in authority, or of well-advanced
age...or someone with whom I am not aquainted; as in 'Excuse me, sir. Did
you drop this?'
jak
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3F92E058...@invalid.invalid...
Olin Murrell
"jakdedert" <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qCIkb.25424$5n.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Well, even though Texas did secede, and did fight on the side of the
Confederacy, like Tennessee, there was considerable anti-slavery,
pro-northern sympathies down there. Matter of fact, until a surreptitious
wrecking ball destroyed its existance, one of my favorite downtown Austin
landmarks was a place called the "Shot Tower." It was, at times, a meeting
place for northern sympathizers and a storage facility for shot headed for
yankee military. Throughout the South, such sentiment helped establish
underground railroads, so it's rather difficult to characterize the region
as entirely of one mind, even DURING the shooting.
I know folk in Texas who consider anybody from North of the Pecos River to
be yankees, and that includes several hundred miles of TEXAS! So, believe me
when I say I know the arrogance/ignorance that can exist among my fellow
Southerners. That said, I've also experienced much the same
arrogance/ignorance first hand from some Northern brethren and sisteren
(yeah, I know... it's not a word, but it is sooooo cool to say), as well as
a few Californians a couple generations removed from Okie sharecropping, the
rather pointed view that any and all who live East of Arizona and South of
Kentucky are just too stupid to pour piss from a boot.
Some are. Some aren't... most, in fact, but the characterization still holds
with far too many people... just as the characterization that any and all
from New York are rude, crude and mostly crotch scratching cabbies who are
also too stupid to pour... well, you get the picture.
Anybody who makes generalizations, based on place of origins, is as likely
to lose whatever encounter they find themselves in as not, and that is
regardless of where they happen to hail from.
Bob
>
>The problem with both suggestions is they identify the concept with an
>connotation for males. And IIMSS, that's a sad commentary on attitudes
>toward women.
Gigolo comes close. :-)
It's a reflection of the the outcome of reproduction. Women have more
at stake.
Doug Smith W9WI
> I'd have to say that I rarely gave the Civil War a second
> thought until my first foray below the Mason-Dixon. THERE'S the real
> difference. Far from bragging about it, it rarely ever enters the 'yankee'
> mind.
Precisely. Same thing further north: the Civil War is something that
happened 140 years ago. Once the last history final is passed, the
Northener pretty much forgets it ever happened.
> We rarely even used the term 'yankee' unless someone from the South
> mentioned it first (or we're discussing the current team in the World
> Series).
In Wisconsin, a "Yankee" is someone from New England.
========================
You know, the thing that bothers me about said war...
is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede. We
*acknowledged* that organized groups of people may wish to throw off
their governments from time to time - we'd just done so ourselves. But
then we never provided any way for our new states to change their minds
and leave the Union, short of an ambigious Second Amendment that might
suggest a right to bear arms against a central government.
IMHO we need a Constitutional amendment laying forth a peaceful (but not
easy) method for states to secede should they decide such a drastic step
is necessary.
Doug Smith W9WI
> When one of my new employees address me as 'Mr. Dedert' I tell them the Mr.
> Dedert was my father, and he died back in the 70's...same with obligitory
> titles like 'sir.'
>
> I've been know to use them, myself...but only when it seems
> warranted...mainly when addressing someone in authority, or of well-advanced
> age...or someone with whom I am not aquainted; as in 'Excuse me, sir. Did
> you drop this?'
Absolutely, they're really the best terms to use when addressing someone
whose name you don't know. I suppose "Hey, you!" might be grammatically
correct but certainly isn't polite...
I've not found it necessary to use the terms when speaking to people in
authority. (though I've not served in the military where it's of course
obligatory) IMHO one's manner of speaking says a lot, and the person
being addressed rapidly knows whether you respect their authority.
Of course, it's possible to say "Yes, Sir!" in a tone that makes it
obvious you *don't* respect the listener.
Boston Blackie
b...@mindspring.invalid (Bob) wrote:
> It's a reflection of the the outcome of reproduction. Women have more
> at stake.
On the other hand, it might be a reflection of property rights. Men's
ownership of women loses value when the women stray.
Boston Blackie
"jakdedert" <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I've been know to use them, myself...but only when it seems
> warranted...mainly when addressing someone in authority, or of well-advanced
> age...or someone with whom I am not aquainted; as in 'Excuse me, sir. Did
> you drop this?'
Excuse me, sir, but your fly is open.
Kevin
--... ...--
Plesant View , TN.
Was once the home of the snake pit on old US 41. A tourist trap back in
the late 50's early 60's. Ask the old timers.
jakdedert
<snip>
> That said, I've also experienced much the same
> arrogance/ignorance first hand from some Northern brethren and sisteren
> (yeah, I know... it's not a word, but it is sooooo cool to say),
Down on the farm, we got our drinking water from one of those (only we
spelled it 'cistern').
>as well
The water we bathed in came from the above ;-)
<snip>
> Anybody who makes generalizations, based on place of origins, is as likely
> to lose whatever encounter they find themselves in as not, and that is
> regardless of where they happen to hail from.
True to a point, but as I said; we 'yankees' rarely think about the Civil
War--who won or lost. That's pretty much a Southern phenomenon.
Generalizations aside, IME, the percentage of Northerners who *don't* think
daily or even weekly about the Civil War, would probably about equal the
percentage of Southerner who do so.
jak
>
>
jakdedert
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> jakdedert wrote:
> > When one of my new employees address me as 'Mr. Dedert' I tell them the
Mr.
> > Dedert was my father, and he died back in the 70's...same with
obligitory
> > titles like 'sir.'
> >
> > I've been know to use them, myself...but only when it seems
> > warranted...mainly when addressing someone in authority, or of
well-advanced
> > age...or someone with whom I am not aquainted; as in 'Excuse me, sir.
Did
> > you drop this?'
>
> Absolutely, they're really the best terms to use when addressing someone
> whose name you don't know. I suppose "Hey, you!" might be grammatically
> correct but certainly isn't polite...
>
> I've not found it necessary to use the terms when speaking to people in
> authority. (though I've not served in the military where it's of course
> obligatory) IMHO one's manner of speaking says a lot, and the person
> being addressed rapidly knows whether you respect their authority.
It's a characteristic of our language which requires the extra pronouns to
convey respect. A German friend of mine was confused as to how one did so
in English. While there are such words in his language, German uses a
familiar and formal form of salutation which conveys the effect without the
added titles. If one intends to convey disrespect, one uses the familiar
'du' (you) and it's derivitives, instead of the more formal 'sie' (again,
'you'--pronounced 'zee'). It's an elegant solution, although for a
foreigner, it requires the rote memorization of all the forms; as well as
the danger of accidentally conveying disrespect by using the wrong one.
It's also an illustration of how differently (even) European cultures
interact. To communicate with such widely different cultures as the Arab
and Oriental world without accidently offending is even more difficult.
jak
jakdedert
"Just advertising, Madame...."
jak
Anonymouse
Hi,
thankfully we in Mississippi are proud of our southern heritage.
we -KEPT- our Flag and the yankees can just go to hell.
ttyl
akia
--
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted,
and I won't be layed a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people,
and I require the same from them"
J.B. Books (John Wayne)
Anonymouse
James Earl Carter was an Naval Officer and a Gentleman.
he was not the son of a rich yankee who enlisted in the national guard
then went awol.
he offered medical care to a sick old man.
and when a buncha nutcases took hostages he sent in troops (not enough
to be sure... but it wasn't like he was trading arms with the enemy like
reagan/bush/north... that is when they weren't working insurance fraud,
gun running, and cocaine smuggling).
and if you want to see who's hurting the bill of rights look at the
repubs... most of the anti 2nd legislation/orders have come via reagan,
bush, and dole.
gw's done NOTHING to correct it.
Olin Murrell wrote:
--
Mary B
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> You know, the thing that bothers me about said war...
>
> is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
> establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
That was left up to the states, apparently. Vermond and - I think -
New Hampshire wrote it into their state constitutions that they
could secede whenever they felt like it.
> We
> *acknowledged* that organized groups of people may wish to throw off
> their governments from time to time - we'd just done so ourselves. But
> then we never provided any way for our new states to change their minds
> and leave the Union, short of an ambigious Second Amendment that might
> suggest a right to bear arms against a central government.
>
> IMHO we need a Constitutional amendment laying forth a peaceful (but not
> easy) method for states to secede should they decide such a drastic step
> is necessary.
This may be possible at the state level.
Mary
--
watch out for spam filter. take my name out of the domain.
Mary B
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
> > When one of my new employees address me as 'Mr. Dedert' I tell them the Mr.
> > Dedert was my father, and he died back in the 70's...same with obligitory
> > titles like 'sir.'
>
> Absolutely, they're really the best terms to use when addressing someone
> whose name you don't know. I suppose "Hey, you!" might be grammatically
> correct but certainly isn't polite...
>
> I've not found it necessary to use the terms when speaking to people in
> authority. (though I've not served in the military where it's of course
> obligatory) IMHO one's manner of speaking says a lot, and the person
> being addressed rapidly knows whether you respect their authority.
>
> Of course, it's possible to say "Yes, Sir!" in a tone that makes it
> obvious you *don't* respect the listener.
I've heard and used "sir" above the Mason-Dixon plenty.
"Ma'am" is a different animal; in the Northeast, it's a term reserved
for elderly women. Call a 30 year old "ma'am" in NY and be prepared
for a nasty look or come-back. And "Madam" is someone who is
either a grand society dame or someone who runs a brothel.
That pretty much leaves "lady" or "Miss" as the generic
ways to address an unknown female.
Now that I'm accustomed to it, I prefer "Ma'am," as it carries no
assumptions.
Mary B
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
> > I'd have to say that I rarely gave the Civil War a second
> > thought until my first foray below the Mason-Dixon. THERE'S the real
> > difference. Far from bragging about it, it rarely ever enters the 'yankee'
> > mind.
>
> Precisely. Same thing further north: the Civil War is something that
> happened 140 years ago. Once the last history final is passed, the
> Northener pretty much forgets it ever happened.
I feel the need to hop in with a "me too," Olin. The average
northerner studies the Civil War in HS for a month or two
and then moves on. A Yank who's never spent any length
of time in the South has no idea how much the wound
still festers for some. If you could accuse the North
of anything it would be negligence, not bragging.
Olin Murrell
>
> "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:veOdnXiOhLi...@comcast.com...
> <snip>
> > That said, I've also experienced much the same
> > arrogance/ignorance first hand from some Northern brethren and sisteren
> > (yeah, I know... it's not a word, but it is sooooo cool to say),
>
> Down on the farm, we got our drinking water from one of those (only we
> spelled it 'cistern').
>
Well, yeah, but what's the point of spelling in correctly when you're going
for a gag?
> >as well
>
> The water we bathed in came from the above ;-)
>
Same here.
> <snip>
>
> > Anybody who makes generalizations, based on place of origins, is as
likely
> > to lose whatever encounter they find themselves in as not, and that is
> > regardless of where they happen to hail from.
>
> True to a point, but as I said; we 'yankees' rarely think about the Civil
> War--who won or lost. That's pretty much a Southern phenomenon.
> Generalizations aside, IME, the percentage of Northerners who *don't*
think
> daily or even weekly about the Civil War, would probably about equal the
> percentage of Southerner who do so.
>
All I'm saying is... that I, personally, have heard a similar number from
both sides of the Mason Dixon pontificate to their particular preference in
the matter.
As for me, it rarely crosses my mind, and my sympathies most assuredly do
not lie with the Confederacy.
Over all, I'd guess you're probably right about the percentages.
Olin Murrell
being a part of the South.
FWIW, I concur with your assessment of Carter and the Reagan/Bush/Bush
bunch.
One minor quibble, find and read the book on the Iran Hostage Rescue attempt
by the man who planned it, Col. Charles Beckwith (now deceased, I think). He
was not a Carter fan by any means, but he would defend the man to Ronald
Reagan hisownself, and clearly state that Carter called for and approved a
solid plan, but it was mucked up by the forced involvement of every other
branch of the military. Beckwith ran Delta Force, and planned the mission.
It likely would have succeeded, had they not, for example, used Marine
Helicopters and pilots, designed and trained for over-water operations, and
cut the number of birds to boot.
"Anonymouse" <any...@anywhere.org> wrote in message
news:3f944...@news.utk.edu...
Olin Murrell
"Mary B" <spa...@butlermary.net> wrote in message
news:spambox-567557...@news.newsguy.com...
Again, all I'm speaking from is personal experience. I have heard both sides
pontificate to exasperation on the subject. My whole point is, it's OVER...
ancient history.
Joseph Crowe
> Again, all I'm speaking from is personal experience. I have heard both sides
> pontificate to exasperation on the subject. My whole point is, it's OVER...
> ancient history.
If only people would learn the lessons from the history...that's what
the War Between the States could really provide in terms of valid
lessons, even to this day. FWIW, from an economic PoV, the Confederacy
did not seem to offer much of an improvement over the U.S. in terms of
its intended policies.
One lesson that the WBtS could have taught us that's applicable to
the situation in Iraq right now is that when a superior power goes in
and conquers another culture and then piles atrocity after atrocity on
the vanquished, that power should expect long, bitter and acromonious
resistance from the vanquished. In the WBtS, the atrocities included
Sherman's march to the sea and the entire Reconstruction experience. In
Iraq, the same type of mistakes occur on a daily basis.
--
Joseph Crowe
Joseph Crowe
> I've heard and used "sir" above the Mason-Dixon plenty.
>
> "Ma'am" is a different animal; in the Northeast, it's a term reserved
> for elderly women. Call a 30 year old "ma'am" in NY and be prepared
> for a nasty look or come-back.
Perhaps if a Yankee calls another Yankee ma'am, that reaction may
occur, but my experience in NYC has been different in the recent past.
Of course, I have a fairly southern dialect so as always, YMMV.
And that stereotype of rude New Yorkers has never been true in my
experience....certainly not in the number of times I've visited since
the 80s....same goes for Paresians.....
> Mary
--
Joseph Crowe
Joseph Crowe
> In article <3F93E225...@invalid.invalid>,
> Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > You know, the thing that bothers me about said war...
> >
> > is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
> > establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
>
> That was left up to the states, apparently. Vermond and - I think -
> New Hampshire wrote it into their state constitutions that they
> could secede whenever they felt like it.
That was one of the coups that the Federalists pulled off in the
drafting of the U.S.C. It amounted to a gentlemen's agreement that any
state could secede at any time.....originally, the U.S. was considered a
loosely bound confederation of autonomous states with common interests.
It was not until Lincoln's actions that the federal government started
trending towards the behemoth it has become. For this reason, I think
that people can benefit from really reading and understanding
history...it can lead to a real understanding of how states, governments
and empires come and go. By the way, New York seriously considered
secession over the issue of the draft, and even had riots against the
draft (tangentially covered in The Gangs of New York).
>
> Mary
>
--
Joseph Crowe
Joseph Crowe
> IMHO we need a Constitutional amendment laying forth a peaceful (but not
> easy) method for states to secede should they decide such a drastic step
> is necessary.
It may not come to that.....the country as we currently know it has
little overwhelming need to continue having direction and
self-contradictory "law" issue forth from inside the beltway. It's
quite possible to see a future where regions abandon centralized control
for a more regional focus on problems. Should be interesting in the
meantime.
>
--
Joseph Crowe
Olin Murrell
"Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.031020...@eris.io.com...
But, that's just it. We rarely ever learn from history. Even when we do, we
tend to repeat it more often than avoid same.
I guess my whole whining/abuse rant boils down to this... if one "side" were
to just give it up and either not start something or not respond, the more
inflammatory aspects of any discussion of the Civil War would likely
disappear.
Faye
>
> Hi,
>
> thankfully we in Mississippi are proud of our southern heritage.
>
> we -KEPT- our Flag and the yankees can just go to hell.
The attempt to get rid of Colonel Reb at Ole Miss has apparently fizzled.
Faye
Faye
news:3F92E058...@invalid.invalid...
> I simply think you're misinterpreting Northern behavior. Yes, in
> general, Northerners are less likely to address people with certain
> salutations. No, in general that *doesn't* mean they don't respect the
> people they're addressing.
Which doesn't mean that it is not perceived as disrespectful, especially
when it would be easy and painless to do as Romans when in Rome.
Faye
Doug Smith W9WI
>>is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
>>establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
>
> That was left up to the states, apparently. Vermond and - I think -
> New Hampshire wrote it into their state constitutions that they
> could secede whenever they felt like it.
>
>
> This may be possible at the state level.
Well, South Carolina tried, and triggered a war...
Doug Smith W9WI
> That was one of the coups that the Federalists pulled off in the
> drafting of the U.S.C. It amounted to a gentlemen's agreement that any
> state could secede at any time.....originally, the U.S. was considered a
> loosely bound confederation of autonomous states with common interests.
> It was not until Lincoln's actions that the federal government started
> trending towards the behemoth it has become. For this reason, I think
> that people can benefit from really reading and understanding
> history...it can lead to a real understanding of how states, governments
> and empires come and go. By the way, New York seriously considered
> secession over the issue of the draft, and even had riots against the
> draft (tangentially covered in The Gangs of New York).
I'm not as well-read on this as I should be. But it sure seems like the
drift from a collection of 13 countries with a common market and defense
pact, to a single country divided into administrative units, was not a
step function. We moved that way gradually.
Nor is it necessarily a bad thing that it happened. Could 50 mid-sized
countries with their own special interests have succeeded in defeating
Germany in WW2?
Anti-draft riots in parts of the North have certainly come to light
recently, though I'd never heard of any Northern state considering
secession over the issue.
(was not the Civil War-era draft a state function? It was my
understanding each state (both North and South) was expected to provide
a certain number of troops - once they ran out of volunteers both sides
resorted to conscription.
I suppose any threat by NYS to secede may have been a protest against
high troop quotas imposed by Washington.)
I've recently read of problems with conscription in the *South*.
(admittedly in a work of fiction but one that appears to be based in
fact) It suggests there was a need for enforcement crews to round up
deserters and draft evaders. This deserves more reading to find whether
it did in fact happen. It certainly passes the "smell test", given that
many of those fighting for the Confederacy really didn't have a whole
lot to lose if the Union won.
Ktreemn
>> > Precisely. Same thing further north: the Civil War is something that
>> > happened 140 years ago.
>Again, all I'm speaking from is personal experience. I have heard both sides
>pontificate to exasperation on the subject. My whole point is, it's OVER...
>ancient history.
Fuck you , Olin; you substanceless piece of shit excuse for a human, Texan
reject~!
The Civil War shaped the future~!
The same as ghwb's OWNERS would shape our nation to a retarded crap of "we
would be better off as slaves" if they continue to get their way.
Chat away, turdface Olin~! : ) Lala
Doug Smith W9WI
> It's a characteristic of our language which requires the extra pronouns to
> convey respect. A German friend of mine was confused as to how one did so
> in English. While there are such words in his language, German uses a
> familiar and formal form of salutation which conveys the effect without the
> added titles. If one intends to convey disrespect, one uses the familiar
> 'du' (you) and it's derivitives, instead of the more formal 'sie' (again,
> 'you'--pronounced 'zee'). It's an elegant solution, although for a
> foreigner, it requires the rote memorization of all the forms; as well as
> the danger of accidentally conveying disrespect by using the wrong one.
When studying Spanish, I was taught one was to use "Vusted" (probably
spelled wrong but definitely abbreviated "Vd.") instead of "Usted" (Ud.)
when referring to a "You" for whom respect was intended.
I have yet to encounter any Spanish-speaking person - in person, on TV,
or in print - actually using that formal version. Even in situations,
such as speaking with the president of a country, where one would
certainly expect the formal version to be used.
(which of course doesn't mean such things aren't a regularly-used part
of some other cultures)
Ktreemn
>New York seriously considered
>secession over the issue of the draft, and even had riots against the
Crap~! They had riots against the buying out of the draft~!
What would an anarchist know about *anything*~!?
Pompous crap~! hahahahaha
Tell us s'more ecunomecs, prick~! : ) Lalahahahahaha
Ktreemn
hahahahahaha Let's wait a lifetime to affect our lives~! Lala
Olin Murrell
You actually dare to call someone substanceless?
Go take some of your self-claimed intelligence, get a job, earn a dollar or
two and buy a clue.
You are absolutely no better than your worst enemy... maybe far worse, as
you will resort to totally un-called for ad hominem at the drop of a hat,
and usually without apparent provocation.
Somewhere, there's a village wondering where it's idiot went. I think I
know.
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031021011938...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Doug Smith W9WI
*That* is awfully hard to argue with.
Ktreemn
hahahahahaha
Your remarks were *entirely* "ad hominem."
Mine were a *delightful* blend of substance, refuting your dismissal of the
imperative; and personal attack upon one who *began* personal attack upon me.
I wish they whom cry, "ad hominem" could address the substance of my comments
within their "ad hominem" remarks.
Thanks for your ad hominem remarks, please reply to the substance, in the
future~!~ : ) Lala
jakdedert
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
IME, German speakers very strictly address people with whom they have not
made an aquaintance as 'sie.' Once they have been introduced, depending on
the formality of the situation, they may or may not switch to the more
familiar 'du.' Children are always referred to in the familiar form, 'du,'
and it's dirivitives. When one intends to insult a stranger, the familiar
is used, as in "du Aschloche" (you asshole) or "du Scheisskopf (sh*thead).
A more subtle insult is to simply substitute the familiar form in
conversation, as if addressing a child; without resorting to invective.
jak
Joseph Crowe
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
K
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
> I'm not as well-read on this as I should be. But it sure seems like the
> drift from a collection of 13 countries with a common market and defense
> pact, to a single country divided into administrative units, was not a
> step function. We moved that way gradually.
This is somewhat true, but the trend was established at the
constitutional convention in Philadelphia. The adoption of the
constitution, especially before the BoR was added, amounted to a foot in
the door. The execution of the War Between the States blew the doors to
central government abuse right off the hinges.
>
> Nor is it necessarily a bad thing that it happened. Could 50 mid-sized
> countries with their own special interests have succeeded in defeating
> Germany in WW2?
That's another thread. IMO, we would have fared much better staying
out of yet another European war, based on long history. But after all,
thanks to yet another lying politician, the U.S. government helped set
the stage for WWII and the rise of Hitler.
> Anti-draft riots in parts of the North have certainly come to light
> recently, though I'd never heard of any Northern state considering
> secession over the issue.
Well, actually, those draft riots were quite well known to many
people of Irish descent.
>
> (was not the Civil War-era draft a state function? It was my
> understanding each state (both North and South) was expected to provide
> a certain number of troops - once they ran out of volunteers both sides
> resorted to conscription.
On the Union side, it was federal in nature, pushed by Lincoln.
>
> I suppose any threat by NYS to secede may have been a protest against
> high troop quotas imposed by Washington.)
The draft riots in NYC occurred between July 11 and July 13, 1863.
They were the result of Lincoln's use of his March 3, 1863 Enrollment
Act of Conscription being pressed to add 300,000 more draftees after
the particularly deadly battle of Gettysburg. Other dissent appeared in
other NE cities but the situation in NYC was particularly hostile.
>
> I've recently read of problems with conscription in the *South*.
> (admittedly in a work of fiction but one that appears to be based in
> fact) It suggests there was a need for enforcement crews to round up
> deserters and draft evaders. This deserves more reading to find whether
> it did in fact happen. It certainly passes the "smell test", given that
> many of those fighting for the Confederacy really didn't have a whole
> lot to lose if the Union won.
Don't get me wrong, the people who executed the war on the side of
the confederacy were not angels and the ones who largely died in the
conflict were probably no more educated or there for principled reasons
than the modern equivalent in Iraq. However, make no mistake, the WBtS
amounted to an invasion of another country by the U.S. and the
similarites to the situation in Iraq still remain. Again, remember
Santayana's observation.
By the way, are you referring to Cold Mountain? What a fantastic
first novel for an author.
--
Joseph Crowe
Joseph Crowe
> Mary B wrote:
> >>is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
> >>establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
> > This may be possible at the state level.
> Well, South Carolina tried, and triggered a war...
For historical accuracy, the southern states succeeded in secession
and were recognized by other countries, notably France and England.
--
Joseph Crowe
Faye
> Hi Doug, et al,
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> > (was not the Civil War-era draft a state function? It was my
> > understanding each state (both North and South) was expected to provide
> > a certain number of troops - once they ran out of volunteers both sides
> > resorted to conscription.
>
> On the Union side, it was federal in nature, pushed by Lincoln.
It was the demand by Lincoln that Tennesseans take up arms against South
Carolina that precipitated calling the question on secession a second time
in the Volunteer State.
February 9, 1861 - Tennesseans, by a margin of nearly four to one, voted
against calling a convention to consider secession from the United States. A
month earlier on January 7, a special session of the Tennessee Legislature,
called by Governor Isham Harris, convened and passed a resolution calling
for the February vote.
April 25, 1861 - As decreed in a proclamation issued by Governor Isham G.
Harris to deal with "an alarming and dangerous usurpation of power by the
President of the United States" which had "precipitated a state of war
between the sovereign States of America," the Tennessee General Assembly
convened at noon at the state capitol. Governor Harris presented a special
message to both houses of the legislature to make clear his feelings about
the path he believed his state should take since Abraham Lincoln had
"wantonly inaugurated" civil war and had issued an "imperial proclamation"
declaring the Confederate States of America and their symapathizers
"rebels." He recommended that the legislature perfect an ordinance to be
voted on by the people to declare Tennessee independent from the Union. And
because outright independence would be too risky, he further recommended
passage of an ordinance, to be voted on by the people, that would allow for
Tennessee to join the Confederacy. On May 6, the General Assembly passed the
legislation that Governor Harris had requested in a bill entitled "An act to
submit to the vote of the people a Declaration of Independence, and for
other purposes." The special legislative session ended May 9 with submission
by a joint committee of a "Legislative Address to the People of Tennessee"
to explain to Tennesseans what their representatives had done during the
session and why. It called for a vote on separation from the Union and on
uniting with the Confederacy to be held on Saturday, June 8, 1861. The
document concluded, "Tennessee has taken her position and has proudly
determined to throw her banners to the breeze, and will give her strength to
the sacred cause of freedom for the white man of the south."
May 6, 1861 - The Tennessee General Assembly passed legislation calling for
a vote of the people on the questions of secession from the Union and
joining the Confederacy. "An Act to submit to the vote of the people a
Declaration of Independence, and for other purposes" set Saturday, June 8,
1865, as the election day when voters would be asked to write "Separation"
or "No Separation" on their ballots in answer to the sucession question and
"Representation" or "No Representation" on the question of joining the
Confederacy.
June 8, 1861 - A general election was held in Tennessee to decide the
question of separation from the Union. Two months earlier President Abraham
Lincoln had asserted federal supremacy by sending supplies to the Union
garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Confederate troops retaliated
by firing on the fort forcing its surrender on April 14, 1861. When Lincoln
issued a call for troops to put down the rebels, he asked for two regiments
from Tennessee. Governor Isham G. Harris refused to comply with the
requisition causing the general election to be called. Separationists won by
a vote of 108,511 to 47,238. Most of the Unionist votes came from East
Tennessee. In August, Tennesseans ratified the Confederate Constitution
becoming the last state to join the South in the long and bitter struggle
that would leave its imprint on the land and its people for generations to
come.
...........
Faye
Daily View in Tennessee History
http://www.joelton.com/tennessee
jakdedert
"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ejflb.188152$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Interesting wording in the paragraph above; 'freedom for the *white* man of
the south.' Indicates to me that the war was at least partly about slavery
from the outset--contrary to sentiments often expressed..
jak
<sni>
Mary B
Doug Smith W9WI <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Mary B wrote:
> >>is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
> >>establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
> >
> > That was left up to the states, apparently. Vermond and - I think -
> > New Hampshire wrote it into their state constitutions that they
> > could secede whenever they felt like it.
> >
> ...
> >
> > This may be possible at the state level.
>
> Well, South Carolina tried, and triggered a war...
Good point, that.
Faye
> Interesting wording in the paragraph above; 'freedom for the *white* man
of
> the south.' Indicates to me that the war was at least partly about
slavery
> from the outset--contrary to sentiments often expressed..
It speaks to me that you choose to emphasize white and not man.
Faye
jakdedert
though. Every document of it's type in that era used the word 'man,' or
'mankind' to refer to humanity...nothing surprising to see it used thus.
Apologists have continually asserted, however, that the Civil War had
nothing to do with slavery--that the issue was only taken up after the
conflict started. The quote seems to imply that Tennesseans, at least, had
it in mind from the outset.
Of course, that might be a sign of the times as well. Perhaps ALL legal
doc's of the time used that wording....
jak
>
Joseph Crowe
> > It called for a vote on separation from the Union and on
> > uniting with the Confederacy to be held on Saturday, June 8, 1861. The
> > document concluded, "Tennessee has taken her position and has proudly
> > determined to throw her banners to the breeze, and will give her strength
> to
> > the sacred cause of freedom for the white man of the south."
>
> Interesting wording in the paragraph above; 'freedom for the *white* man of
> the south.' Indicates to me that the war was at least partly about slavery
> from the outset--contrary to sentiments often expressed..
OTOH, the issue of slavery really was used by Lincoln, belatedly in
that case, much in the way that WMD was used to justify the aggressive
acts by the Bush admin in Iraq.
The so-called emancipation proclamation did not even "free" the
slaves until 1863 and even then only the ones in the confederacy. Reading
Lincoln's written works will dispell any notion that slavery was a real
issue with him. That said, enslaving any man or woman defines the very
basis of tyranny. As Olin has pointed out, the WBtS has long past but
the effects of it and the subsequent "Reconstruction" contributed vastly
to the antipathy of various subcultures in the U.S. even to this day.
> jak
--
Joseph Crowe
Faye
> Not my battle, although it is interesting as you say.
You're not black either, jak.
Faye
Faye
> OTOH, the issue of slavery really was used by Lincoln, belatedly in
> that case, much in the way that WMD was used to justify the aggressive
> acts by the Bush admin in Iraq.
> The so-called emancipation proclamation did not even "free" the
> slaves until 1863 and even then only the ones in the confederacy. Reading
> Lincoln's written works will dispell any notion that slavery was a real
> issue with him. That said, enslaving any man or woman defines the very
> basis of tyranny. As Olin has pointed out, the WBtS has long past but
> the effects of it and the subsequent "Reconstruction" contributed vastly
> to the antipathy of various subcultures in the U.S. even to this day.
Too often that period in history is studied without proper consideration of
the zeitgeist. Slavery is/was an abomination. It was also legal in the
United States. I've often pondered how different this country might have
been had the FF properly addressed the issue from the gitgo. Again, the
zeitgeist. In considering economic factors as a primary cause of the war,
it is
a given that slavery was a component of the South's agrarian economy, but
not the only economic factor that caused rifts. Others here understand and
can address tariffs and other such factors in much more learned fashion than
I. But it only makes sense to me that if the Wahwuh was about slavery that
the Congress and the president would have made the practice illegal *before*
sending in troops and waging war.
Faye
jakdedert
reconstruction of Iraq *is* causing more problems than the war. I just
caught a news clip about a particular Army unit (82nd Airborne?) which is
coming under (political) fire for its unusually harsh reaction to being
challenged. The gist of the story was that they've been given some
additional training, and will try to be more moderate; but likely the damage
in Iraqi attitudes has already been done.
OTOH (again), just what did the administration--and the majority of the U.S.
public who supported this debacle--expect? I think the teaser for the clip
said something about 'trying to make peace using the tools of war' or
something to that effect. They don't train soldiers for peace. They train
them for war...it's like asking a surgeon to prescribe medicine for an
ailment. A surgeon only knows to cut. Who was it that said, 'If the only
tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.'? Probably, if
we're going to continue using soldiers as 'peacekeepers' all around the
world, then we'd better start training them appropriately.
jak
jakdedert
What I meant to say, was that's my wife's battle. She did a good deal of
research on womens issues on the way to getting her Doctorate. It's not
that I'm insensitive it's just like I said. I never saw a legal document
which made the point of mentioning 'white men' as opposed to just men. The
latter I saw--and see, still--all the time. It was the zeitgeist, like
Joseph said. Consequently, I thought it remarkable.
jak --Sensitive New Age Guy
>
>
alsdf
> Atlanta has rebuffed it's Southern heritage a long time
> It's too 'red' for them.
since when? i ask as a resident of atlanta.
atlanta to me is as much 'traditionally southern' as other places
i've lived -- memphis, east tennessee, north carolina. By 'traditionally
southern' i mean extremely conservative, heavy religious influence, etc.
Read the letters to the editor of the AJC on any given day... bashing
the AJC for being run by left-wingers, god praise Bush & the Republicans,
let's watch out for the queers, etc... the same types of letters i see in
every other
southern newspaper. We have our 24/7 religious channels that come with
basic cable...
I hear this from people all the time, but they're typically those who do not
live here. Spend some time in atlanta & then spend some time in another
city outside the South. Ask someone from Seattle about Atlanta....
i've lived both inside & outside the South.
i think a fair number of folks here who have moved from outside the South
are those who seem to identify with what they see as 'southern.' i have a
work
colleague from that hotbed of liberalism, madison, wisconsin. He decided to
move
here 17 yrs. ago after college. He's a fundamentalist Christian who
home-schools
his kids...
> radio and TV commercials. How many southern accents
> do you hear?? 1 or 2 if any and many times none. The advertisers
> act like they are ashamed of being in the south.
i hear plenty. A lot of people from the South who claim they have
no accent are full of it... it may be somewhat muted, but folks in other
parts of the country will detect it. And so will you if you listen closely.
It may not be 'out there,' since what Hollywood seems to do as 'southern'
often is heavily exaggerated.... i cringe at many of those.
i've been told by fellow Southerners i have no discernable 'Southern
accent,'
& i tell them they're not listening closely. i go to Denver or NYC or
Philly,
& they'll definitely know i'm from the South.
radio DJs and newscasters tend to go from place to place, the goal
being to get to the biggest markets, so they're no accurate gauge anywhere.
It's an advantage to them to sound as generic as possible.
> I don't care if anybody flys a confederate flag or not. I like it from
> a historical heritage and think it can be used any way a person
> wants to use it. I'm going to buy a 10' x 12' or so confederate flag
> and hang it on a wall where I live to remind me of the idiots and
> their jackass establishment that want to confiscate and destroy
> genuine history.
>
just a comment: maybe this is one reason so many don't want themselves
associated with the South. I don't buy the 'heritage' bit, unless it's
about a redneck, racist one. And not all areas of the South supported
the confederacy, either, so don't claim it for all of us.. east Tennessee
(what
i consider my 'home') for instance, was a hotbed of Union support. As was
north Georgia...
i was born in saint louis, missouri. I consider myself a Tennessean, & if
you
ask me where i'm 'originally from,' i will say Tennessee.
Doug Smith W9WI
> By the way, are you referring to Cold Mountain? What a fantastic
> first novel for an author.
Yes, I am. No idea it was a first effort!
Doug Smith W9WI
> Apologists have continually asserted, however, that the Civil War had
> nothing to do with slavery--that the issue was only taken up after the
> conflict started. The quote seems to imply that Tennesseans, at least, had
> it in mind from the outset.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=332
among other sources.
There was certainly violence over the slavery question well before the
Civil War - it would certainly appear likely plenty of people on both
sides felt the issue was worth fighting over. Certainly it was a
contributing factor to support for war in the North.
Chances are that, like most wars, there was more than one reason..
Doug Smith W9WI
>>>>is that for all the elegance of our Constitution, we never bothered to
>>>>establish a legal, peaceful method for states to secede.
>>>
>>>This may be possible at the state level.
>>
>>Well, South Carolina tried, and triggered a war...
>
> For historical accuracy, the southern states succeeded in secession
> and were recognized by other countries, notably France and England.
I guess one could argue that secession did not, in the long run,
succeed, as the Confederacy is no more, and did not disband of its own
volition.
Olin Murrell
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3F96861B...@invalid.invalid...
Absolutely. I'm not entirely sure that saying it wasn't about slavery is
entirely an "appologist's" point of view. I'm certainly no appologist for
the Confederacy, but I certainly do recognize that slavery was but one of
the issues that led to the war. I think it's fair to say that what led
Lincoln into total war, as much as anything else, was the desire to
"preserve the union." His own writings and public statements would seem to
indicate that he had no real desire to "free the slaves." Of course, he was
ultimately drawn to that goal, and it became his legacy.
You can make a pretty good argument that slavery, in and of itself, would
have ended naturally and probably fairly soon, because historically it's
always been an extremely expensive way to do business, never mind the human
carnage it brings. Save for pure caste societies, I think we might be
hard-pressed to name one country where slavery survived very long.
Agricultural production, taxation and dreams of destiny probably played
important roles in leading up to that war as well.
Joseph Crowe
> You can make a pretty good argument that slavery, in and of itself, would
> have ended naturally and probably fairly soon, because historically it's
> always been an extremely expensive way to do business, never mind the human
> carnage it brings. Save for pure caste societies, I think we might be
> hard-pressed to name one country where slavery survived very long.
> Agricultural production, taxation and dreams of destiny probably played
> important roles in leading up to that war as well.
Excellent points Olin. One might well note that of the countries
that gave up chattel slavery in the 19th century, only the U.S. used it
as an excuse to fight a war that killed over 620,000 human beings ( out
of a much smaller population ).
Respectfully,
J
Olin Murrell
"Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@touchmonkey.edu> wrote in message
news:TuWdnXvu2PR...@io.com...
Yep, and what followed slavery, at least for many years, might even be
considered worse, what with Jim Crow laws and such.
I do think, at least in relatively recent history, the South has a pretty
good overall track record on race issues, maybe even better than some of the
more "enlightened" areas elsewhere in the country. Seems at least a few of
the old lessons were learned and some of the same old mistakes were avoided,
so we could come up with brand new mistakes to make.
Doug Smith W9WI
> Absolutely. I'm not entirely sure that saying it wasn't about slavery is
> entirely an "appologist's" point of view. I'm certainly no appologist for
> the Confederacy, but I certainly do recognize that slavery was but one of
> the issues that led to the war. I think it's fair to say that what led
> Lincoln into total war, as much as anything else, was the desire to
> "preserve the union." His own writings and public statements would seem to
> indicate that he had no real desire to "free the slaves." Of course, he was
> ultimately drawn to that goal, and it became his legacy.
Absolutely. It was probably done as much as anything else to punish
those Southerners who'd been sufficiently unhappy with Lincoln's
policies to go to war, and to harm them economically in the hopes it
would make it more difficult for the Confederacy to continue fighting.
> You can make a pretty good argument that slavery, in and of itself, would
> have ended naturally and probably fairly soon, because historically it's
> always been an extremely expensive way to do business, never mind the human
> carnage it brings. Save for pure caste societies, I think we might be
> hard-pressed to name one country where slavery survived very long.
I'd be just about certain slavery would have ended by WW2. Most likely
well sooner, 1920s/1930s as automation took over. Sooner, for some
other reason? It is indeed a rather expensive way of doing things when
machines are around.
One does wonder what the fate of the ex-slaves would have been in a
post-slavery Confederacy? Would the massive northward migration of the
industrial era have happened, or would those jobs have been filled by
more European immigrants? (or possibly even Asians?) Would Northern
prejudice have trapped ex-slaves in subsistence farming in the South?
> Agricultural production, taxation and dreams of destiny probably played
> important roles in leading up to that war as well.
Looking at the battles over the tax structure here in Tennessee, it's
not that hard to see anger over tax schemes boiling over into war...
Olin Murrell
"Doug Smith W9WI" <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
I'd think far earlier than WW2, maybe even by the turn of the century, but
that's just a gut feeling. Even without that many machines around, it's
still not a cheap way to get things done, unless you just keep building and
growing crops in ever larger amounts.
> One does wonder what the fate of the ex-slaves would have been in a
> post-slavery Confederacy? Would the massive northward migration of the
> industrial era have happened, or would those jobs have been filled by
> more European immigrants? (or possibly even Asians?) Would Northern
> prejudice have trapped ex-slaves in subsistence farming in the South?
>
Who knows? But, I'd guess that the answer might be both... still significant
northward migration and very likely more widespread use of immigrant labor.
> > Agricultural production, taxation and dreams of destiny probably played
> > important roles in leading up to that war as well.
>
> Looking at the battles over the tax structure here in Tennessee, it's
> not that hard to see anger over tax schemes boiling over into war...
>
No, it's not difficult at all to see that.
Knoke
Agreed.
It is a pity the gasoline tractor and other mechanized farm equipment
appeared 50 years after the war. Think of the carnage that might have
been averted if they had arrived on the scene sooner. :/
Knoke
Faye
news:WLOdnYHt7p3...@comcast.com...
> I'd think far earlier than WW2, maybe even by the turn of the century, but
> that's just a gut feeling. Even without that many machines around, it's
> still not a cheap way to get things done, unless you just keep building
and
> growing crops in ever larger amounts.
Do doubt way before that. It was a dying institution at best by 1860. Most
who had owned slaves had given up the practice. I think with proper
government incentives, that would have cost far less monetarily, not to
mention the lives, slavery would have been gone in well less than a decade
from the onset of the war. Our country would not have the scars it bears to
this day. There would have been no Confederacy, no division.
Just my two cents.
Faye
Joseph Crowe
> Do doubt way before that. It was a dying institution at best by 1860. Most
> who had owned slaves had given up the practice. I think with proper
> government incentives, that would have cost far less monetarily, not to
> mention the lives, slavery would have been gone in well less than a decade
> from the onset of the war. Our country would not have the scars it bears to
> this day. There would have been no Confederacy, no division.
However, this totally assumes that the secession rested totally on
the issue of slavery. Mere speculation, as without slavery the south
may not have been able to produce the wealth it did through agriculture,
but the WBtS was an economic disagreement....more of a tax revolt than
anything. Further, it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of
white southerners never owned slaves.....for more information, consult
Hummel's Freeing Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. South Carolina had the
largest slave population and it was the first to secede. John Calhoun
was the biggest firebrand objecting to the high tariffs being levied on
the south. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the funds that
supported the feral government came from the south. Union industry was
pretty lame and produced very poor goods compared with those from
England and the rest of Europe. This is all history, easy enough for
anybody to read. Sorry for the ramble. It remains my contention that
we ignore the lessons of history at the peril of the present and future.
The WBtS offers a lot in the way of lessons for us today, as it marks
the very first massive growth of federal power grabbing.
> Just my two cents.
> Faye
--
Joseph Crowe
Faye
> However, this totally assumes that the secession rested totally on
> the issue of slavery.
Mere speculation, as without slavery the south
> may not have been able to produce the wealth it did through agriculture,
> but the WBtS was an economic disagreement....more of a tax revolt than
> anything.
I bow. You are correct. For the momentary discussion, I was looking at it
from that issue alone. There were much broader issues, slavery a symptom of
one issue.
But I do think the institution was on its way out and to deal with it would
have required dealing with broader economic issues to which you can speak
quite eloquently.
Faye
Olin Murrell
I tend to agree. Would that cooler heads could have prevailed in both camps
back then. Alas, it's such a division from which history is made.
jakdedert
do with the farming methods used at that time. Farmers tended to literally
wear out their acreage. Methods may have improved somewhat by the middle of
the century, but it's doubtful that the South could have continued as a
strictly agricultural economy indefinitely. Slave labor is adaptable to
other uses (witness present-day textiles industry overseas, and Hitler's
Germany), but farming--particularly cotton farming--was the major impetus
and rationalization for using them in the first place.
So, as you both have said; it was a dying institution and would have died a
natural death. OTOH, without a dramatic event like the war to end it,
conditions for ex-slaves might have been even worse than what they turned
out to be.
jak
Olin Murrell
Quite true, though it could also be argued that life did not materially
change for the former slave until at least between WWI and II, possibly
later. Still a meager existence at best... though certainly sweetened by the
freedom the war brought.
And, really, no place can sustain "forever" as simply an agricultural
society. Even the Amish exist in an island and have bowed to "modern" ways
more than one would have ever thought possible.
While slavery was certainly ONE of the major reasons for that war, I really
don't think you can dismiss that it was but one of several... including
taxation, conscription, state's rights ad infinitum. Industrialization began
to make inroads into farming methodology really not long after the end of
the Civil War, and if cooler heads could have prevailed just a few more
years, one of the reasons for the war might well have gone away on its own.
After all, Northern slaveowners had already pretty much abandoned slavery
before the shooting started, and there's little to indicate that Southerners
would not have as well.
Maybe it was inevitable though, as we're all looking at it through 20-20
hindsight.
Olin Murrell
"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:0ongpvov9j8ti62dp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:04:28 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
> <w9...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > You can make a pretty good argument that slavery, in and of itself,
would
> > > have ended naturally and probably fairly soon, because historically
it's
> > > always been an extremely expensive way to do business, never mind the
human
> > > carnage it brings. Save for pure caste societies, I think we might be
> > > hard-pressed to name one country where slavery survived very long.
> >
> > I'd be just about certain slavery would have ended by WW2. Most likely
> > well sooner, 1920s/1930s as automation took over. Sooner, for some
> > other reason? It is indeed a rather expensive way of doing things when
> > machines are around.
>
> kind of speculation. Doing away with slavery because it's old, used
> up, and we don't need it anymore is kind of like donating your trash
> to the Salvation Army.
>
I don't think that's the way Doug intended his remarks, and it damned sure
is not the way I intended mine. The speculation isn't even my own, as it's
been the result of rather considerable scholarly research, both in terms of
the Civil War and other slave situations.
Obviously, it's not a lifestyle conducive to anyone's moral standing, or
well-being, but it is an historical fact of life. Human beings will enslave
one another, given reason and opportunity. When that occurs, it almost
always runs a rather predictable cycle and collapses of its own weight,
primarily because it is not a long-term workable solution to anything.
To recognize the economic inviability of a slave economy is NOT to turn a
blind eye toward the human suffering it causes, but merely the shining of
the light of public discussion on one more reason why it should always be
considered repugnant to hold the notion that one human being can ever hold
the right to "own" another human being.
Willielmus de Noers
favored us with:
> he was not the son of a rich yankee who enlisted in the national guard
> then went awol.
First, is there something dishonorable about serving in the National
Guard?
Second, the "AWOL" story has been thoroughly debunked, including an
interview with his former commanding officer. You really should check
your facts lest you be branded a liar.
--
Bill
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
-- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), "On Liberty," 1859
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
jakdedert
"Willielmus de Noers" <libe...@gmx.ch> wrote in message
news:2a6ipv8ajfbt5e6sv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:32:30 -0500, Anonymouse <any...@anywhere.org>
> favored us with:
>
> > he was not the son of a rich yankee who enlisted in the national guard
> > then went awol.
>
> First, is there something dishonorable about serving in the National
> Guard?
Not if one serves honorably....
>
> Second, the "AWOL" story has been thoroughly debunked, including an
> interview with his former commanding officer. You really should check
> your facts lest you be branded a liar.
>
Cites, William...lest you be branded a liar.
jak
Joseph Crowe
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
> > By the way, are you referring to Cold Mountain? What a fantastic
> > first novel for an author.
>
> Yes, I am. No idea it was a first effort!
Yes, the protagonist was based on the author's great grandfather who
really was from Cold Mountain, NC and really did walk home from a
hospital after the battle of Petersburg, VA. Most of it amounts to
historical fiction, but what an amazing rendering. It's a book that I
heartily recommend just for the sheer craft of the writing. > >
--
Joseph Crowe
Mary B
Willielmus de Noers <libe...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:32:30 -0500, Anonymouse <any...@anywhere.org>
> favored us with:
>
> > he was not the son of a rich yankee who enlisted in the national guard
> > then went awol.
>
> First, is there something dishonorable about serving in the National
> Guard?
>
> Second, the "AWOL" story has been thoroughly debunked, including an
> interview with his former commanding officer. You really should check
> your facts lest you be branded a liar.
Really?
By whom, and when, and where can we find it?
Mary
--
watch out for spam filter. take my name out of the domain.
Doug Smith W9WI
Absolutely.
Reading a well-written book is in a way like watching a movie. You
leave it with a mental picture of what the characters did and in what
kind of setting they did it.
Y'know, the thing that bothered me about Cold Mountain was the very
ending. It just seemed a bit too formula. Not every story needs a
"twist".
But that's a minor complaint involving only a very small part of the story.
Joseph Crowe
> > Yes, the protagonist was based on the author's great grandfather who
> > really was from Cold Mountain, NC and really did walk home from a
> > hospital after the battle of Petersburg, VA. Most of it amounts to
> > historical fiction, but what an amazing rendering. It's a book that I
> > heartily recommend just for the sheer craft of the writing. > >
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Reading a well-written book is in a way like watching a movie. You
> leave it with a mental picture of what the characters did and in what
> kind of setting they did it.
When I referred to the craft of writing in Cold Mountain, I meant
that his words evoked not only a rich visual image but also an extremely
rich verbal sense. Frasier seems to have captured accurately the local
and temporal dialect very well, IMO. CM is one of my favorite books of
the last decade. Frazier's style reminds me a little of Leon Uris.
> Y'know, the thing that bothered me about Cold Mountain was the very
> ending. It just seemed a bit too formula. Not every story needs a
> "twist".
Maybe, but perhaps you just did not want for the progagonist to meet
his fate after making like Sisyphus (sp?)...I was disappointed as
well...
> But that's a minor complaint involving only a very small part of the story.
>
--
Joseph Crowe