A Southern vs. a Confederate Point of View?

[matthew mckeon]

Garrison Keillor, of all people, wrote a critical review of Menand's book of his travels in the US, because of the French writer's observations about the Mid West.

Without reading Menand's essay, I think he's dealing in the realm of myth and image, rather than history.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by jkeith21

Are the ideas of "Scotsman" or "being Scotsman"" possible to express or explain? Is being "Scotsman" or the varying interests and ideologies of "Scotsman", something beyond definition?

Ponder the concept of explaining to my satisfaction and full understanding who you are and what it feels like to be you. Possible?

It is very possible to study, understand and explain varying aspects of people, societies and cultures. What do you think historians do? What about sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and other people who engage in social studies? Historians must explain or characterize people, or groups of people, in order to interpret the past.

Now, you may disagree with certain characterizations of groups you may identify with. But that does not mean that any and all attempts to explain or characterize them are fruitless or wrong.

Further, I hope you would not argue that only a "Southerner" (whatever that may be) can describe the South and what it means to be a Southerner. First, the defintions may very well differ, in subtle ways, among Southerners, demonstrating that there is no single comprehensive descriptor. Second, if a general description along some lines could be developed, why could not a person who is not Southern study and understand the commonalities?

Finally, such a limitation is self-defeating and exclusive, for it could go on to mean that no man could understand women's history or vice versa, no white person understand black history or vice versa, no American could understand European history, and no one today could understand people of the past --- since each of those individuals did not personally experience the topic in which they discuss or study.

So, could you understand and explain what it is like to be "Scotsman"? Sure. It is no elite club. If you took the time and interest into studying the ideologies, interests, and issues of "Scotsman," you could very well walk away with a good working knowledge of the topic -- well enough to discuss it in a book review.

One last thing...both with our previous discussion and this one, there is a hint of exasperation in your posts, as if the issue is so elaborate that it is not worth working on. You recognized that the term "Southerner" did not adequately or accurately characterize a single mindset today, but said that since the term had worked for you for fifty years, you saw no need to change it. Further, because there could be so many variations of Southerner--a point in which you labored to demonstrate--you again revert back to a simplistic approach. Now you suppose that understanding a person or groups identity, interests and ideologies are so complex to be unexplainable. Since they are so complex, you leave no option or ability for ANY person to explain anything about anybody.

If history and all this discussion of different peoples is so complicated that it cannot be done, then why are you here on a message board trying to converse about them?

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Rose,

There were a lot of Southern people. Not all of them held to any particular view. Some had to be forced to secede, and forced to serve a government they opposed. Some sought exactly the sort of expansion and conquest you seem to feel they never did. Some, merely caught in a nightmare others had created for them, went along with secession to do what they could when all choices left to them looked bad. Some honestly thought they were being forced into it by Northern aggression and oppression. And some deliberately manipulated the situation to bring about secession, sure their vision was correct and that those who opposed them were misguided and had to be dragged or coerced or stampeded into secession for their own good.

Regards,
Tim

I know it is popular today to pretend that the South wasn't united in secession, but that is incorrect. Of course not every man, woman and child wanted to secede, but then there are exceptions to prove every rule. The deep South was largely united and commited to secession and freedom from the United States.

Not many Southerners indicated a desire to go West, but practically the entire South was outraged that it was denied to them.

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by jkeith21

Invaribly when you seen this sort of postulation, it's a clueless preacher pandering to his clueless choir.

But it is amusing to watch that preacher suggest that he's got it all figured out, and those who already know see that he's not even close.

I suspect that the reason the preacher often times is not even close is because he wants to preach along the lines of his own agenda and portrays Southerners as he would have others view them, not necessarily as they really are.

Rose

[johan_steele]

Rose it is not that it is popular, it is fact. The South was in no way united... there was too much pro union feeling for that. Heck almost as many Southerners served in the US Army as the CS... then there were the staunchly anti-CS enclaves throughout consisting of draft evaders, deserters, runaways, pro union partisans etc.

That said there was considearable sympathy w/ the CS in the North as well... though little so enthusiastic as to become armed camps. While it may be convenient to say that the dividing line was the Mason Dixon... that just is not correct.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I know it is popular today to pretend that the South wasn't united in secession, but that is incorrect. Of course not every man, woman and child wanted to secede, but then there are exceptions to prove every rule. The deep South was largely united and commited to secession and freedom from the United States.

Not many Southerners indicated a desire to go West, but practically the entire South was outraged that it was denied to them.

Rose

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by ole

Sam:

Menand should look for another job.

It makes nice reading but questions the reasons for a subscription to the New Yorker. He makes far too sweeping a generalization of the Confederate bent with the "expanding slave empire" comment. There was no intent to expand the empire, only to keep it as it was, is, and always shall be.

Today's America loves the rebel. Jesse James, Robin Hood, Dillinger, William Tell, Johnny Yuma, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nathan Hale, the Joads, Timothy O'Leary... It doesn't seem necessary to complicate that basic understanding with psychobabble. Don't you just love those effete, nattering nabobs?
Ole

I do believe Ole is spot on.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Rose it is not that it is popular, it is fact. The South was in no way united... there was too much pro union feeling for that. Heck almost as many Southerners served in the US Army as the CS...

Please give a rundown of that number state-by-state...

[samgrant]

That article reminded me of the debates we had months ago on the Slavery; THE Cause? thread, I believe.

That was most contentious. The sub-issue was: if Southerners fought to preserve slavery or something else. Apparently no one's ancestors fought to preserve slavery - it was always something else family, home, etc., this was an adamant opinion.

I do believe that.

So, might it be that the distinction between a 'Confederate' point of view and a 'Southern' point of view, however expressed by Menand, has a valid point?

Consider:

Might we say that the Southern leaders, the Southern masters of war ("fire eaters"?), the Southerners who made up and controlled the government(s), and who engineered the secession, had a 'Confederate' point of view, as they in fact manufactured the Confederacy itself.

While the common Southerner, mostly not slave holding, were more of what has been portrayed as having the 'Southern' (preservation of local communities, traditional ways, the state as opposed to the nation, antipathy to Northern ways, resistant to Northern forces) point of view?

[unionblue]

Battalion,

It must be terrible to have such a short memory.

Every Southern State supplied troops to the Northern war effort, even that rabid secessionist SC.

Check out the book, The South vs. The South, How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped The Course Of The Civil War, by William W. Freehling. Freehling contends that there were 450,000 troops raised for the Union from the South. Though he states that these numbers include Border State whites and southern blacks, there were thousands raised from those states south of the Mason-Dixon line in that number.

Or read the book, Disloyalty In The Confederacy, by Georgia Lee Tatum. In every Southern State of the Confederacy, there were organizations dedicated to the Union and for bringing down or resisting the Confederacy.

Or better yet, just type Southerners in Union Army or some such in your search engine and check it out.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Please give a rundown of that number state-by-state...

Neil has done a far more polite answer than I might have... which is why he is a gentleman and I am not. Battalion, you are quite aware of the numbers as I believe you were quite vocal during the debate. The numbers are on this site. Y9ou might also look to the posters Cash & Mobileboy as they had a bit of a run around on the numbers. Feel free to search.

Must smile, must smile, must smile... oh yeah going to a gun show to hopefully pick up a P58 2 bander... ahhh that helps.

Have a nice day Battalion.