“Up North, I was taught that the war was fought entirely to free the slaves instead of being over states rights (the right to succeed from the Union).”
I find this hard to believe. Northern history books go out of their way to give the impression of a war of southern states rights vs an undisolvable Union. Somewhat true (if states rights means the right to take your slaves into new territories), but not altogether true. They ignore the constant slavery agitation from the 1820’s on, and the dozens of anti-slavery speeches that Lincoln gave between the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and his election.
Almost every Northern high school textbook includes the Lincoln quote To Horace Greeley, “If I could win the war without freeing a single slave, I would do it.” What they don’t tell you is that he wrote that letter AFTER he had already written the Emancipation Proclamation, and he was preparing the border slave states for this unpleasant news.
The Northern people didn’t go to war to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was the most unpopular move Lincoln made as President. He was pushing his legal limits. He could have been impeached. It was so unpopular that he was shocked when he was reelected. Many Northerners detested slavery (some morally and some economically), most wanted slavery out of the territories, but most of them weren’t willing to go eat a bullet to free the slaves of the cotton states. Slavery was protected in the Constitution, and they thought it was somebody else’s business.
The South seceded because a “Black” Republican was elected President of the United States. This was a signal that the Slave Power would lose Congress, slavery wouldn’t be allowed to spread into the territories (which was the main reason for secession), and perhaps sometime down the road the Constitution would be amended and slavery would be abolished in the Cotton states as well.
To them, this meant financial ruin. Without the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of what they called “their property”, their entire economy, as archaic and backwards as it was, would crumble to dust.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:
Whoever made that video forgot that there’s a difference between a hillbilly (West Virginia/Ozarks/Oklahoma) and a redneck (The South and Texas - yes, they’re separate).
Exactly. Hillbillies tend to be the ugly-ass inbreads. Just visit Silver Dollar City in Branson, Missouri. Good lord. Women from the South are smokin’.
Texans might take offense to me lumping them in with Southerners, but many of you Texans are rednecks too, just admit it. BTW, nice video, lol.
I was honestly taught in school that we were Texan first, Southern second, and American third. Of course it takes a redneck to teach that in a public school.
[/quote]
In his book “Texas”, James A. Michener wrote about a sign that exists at the roadside somewhere between Fort Davis and Marfa, in far West Texas. On it the following is written: “UN out of the US, US out of Texas.”
Sometimes, that statement fits my sentiments exactly.
Ghost, you made my day. I think I’ll enjoy another cool Shiner Bock (made by the Spoetzl Brewery in the Redneck Republic of Texas, baby) and send the video to everybody I know.
[quote]Mattlaw27 wrote:
I haven’t traveled outside of North America at all. Do other countries around the world have the U.S. equivilant of Red Necks or Hillbilly’s?[/quote]
Yup, they do. Every country has a segment of people (usually some type of geographic locator) that is looked down upon or ridiculed. People in some South American countries call anyone with dark skin (more so than average) farmer or peasant. Discrimination is mild in the US compared to many parts of the world…
Ghost, you made my day. I think I’ll enjoy another cool Shiner Bock (made by the Spoetzl Brewery in the Redneck Republic of Texas, baby) and send the video to everybody I know.
‘Hillbillies’ require hills. The term hillbilly is used to refer to backwards mountain dwelling folks. It is usually limited to folks in the Appalachian mountain range and includes parts of NY, PA, OH, WV, VA, MA, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS. One of the characteristics of appalachian communities is they are very insular and don’t stray outside of their boundaries. Hence, there are no ‘hillbillies’ in the plains states like OK, KS, etc.
The term ‘War of Northern Agression’ is technically correct … if you accept that the Confederacy was a legitimate government. The Confederacy wanted to secede and go about their business. They had no intention of pursuing aggressive action versus the Union. The only agressive actions they took were seizing southern forts that were under Union control. Had the Union simply withdrawn their troops from southern forts, the secession could have proceeded without a shot fired.
The Union had other ideas and claimed (rightly so IMO) that the Confederate government was not legitimate and had no right to attack federal forts. Regardless of how ‘right’ I think the Union was in trying to prevent secession, I can certainly understand how southerners who believed in the legitimacy of the Confederate government felt that the war was an act of northern aggression.
‘Hillbillies’ require hills. The term hillbilly is used to refer to backwards mountain dwelling folks. It is usually limited to folks in the Appalachian mountain range and includes parts of NY, PA, OH, WV, VA, MA, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS.[/quote]
What do you call the hillbillies in the Ozarks of Missouri and Arkansas?
[quote]doogie wrote:
What do you call the hillbillies in the Ozarks of Missouri and Arkansas?[/quote]
I think they qualify as ‘backward mountain dwelling folk’ as described in my first sentence. The key word in my dissertation on the appalachian hillbillies is ‘usually’. The Ozarks are one of the exceptions.
The point is, there are no ‘hillbillies’ in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, etc. There are a bunch of rednecks and a slew of slack-jawed yokels, but no hillbillies per se.
[quote]Mattlaw27 wrote:
I haven’t traveled outside of North America at all. Do other countries around the world have the U.S. equivilant of Red Necks or Hillbilly’s?[/quote]
Villagers in India - dowry murders and child marriage. People in New Delhi have a name for them, I can’t remember it exactly, but it’s analogous to our “red neck”.
[quote]wesstangl wrote:
What is it with the mullet? Other hairstyles have come and gone , however the mullet has overstayed its welcome.
I havent seen a mullet in canada for over a decade , yet the states just cant seem to rid themselves from this trashee do.
Do women from those parts of the states ,prefer men sporting mullets?[/quote]
Some of those women actually prefer to sport the mullets themselves, lol
[quote]Mattlaw27 wrote:
I haven’t traveled outside of North America at all. Do other countries around the world have the U.S. equivilant of Red Necks or Hillbilly’s?[/quote]
Different countries have different names, but wherever you have people who take pride in their ignorance, you have a redneck equivalent. I think Chris Rock’s definition of the word “nigger” provides a pretty solid description of the mindset.
[quote]wesstangl wrote:
What is it with the mullet? Other hairstyles have come and gone , however the mullet has overstayed its welcome.
I havent seen a mullet in canada for over a decade , yet the states just cant seem to rid themselves from this trashee do.
Do women from those parts of the states ,prefer men sporting mullets?
Does anyone know who made it famouns?
Maybe that "ache breakee heart "guy…what was his name?[/quote]
Wait just a minute, you guys still play hockey up there right? No mullets huh? I call bullshit. When I’m at the bar I always know when the hockey game gets out because all you can see is bad suits and mullets as far as the eye can see.
I’m from Bayern (Bavaria) in southern Germany, which Americans lable the “Texas of Germany.” (probably due to the beer drinking culture, for example, ever heard of the Oktoberfest, the biggest party in the world?)
Unfortunately I never grew up with all the great cowboy/redneck stuff you guys have, because my family moved to California. But don’t be fooled: theres plenty of rednecks right here. Remember San Fransico and LA are anomolies: most of CA is farmland and I’ve seen mullets just as big as any in that video. You just gotta travel inland from the coast, and you’ll find yerself a hodown or a rodeo right quick!!!
yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwww!!!
[quote]gordonshumway wrote:
I moved to Atl about 10 years ago and made a few enemies when I kiddingly suggested to a group that I worked with that Hee Haw was probably their favorite TV show. I also learned that redneck is an offensive term to some, but white trash or just plain trash is even worse. [/quote]
I grew up in Atlanta. They did a survey once and less than 20% that live in Atlanta are even from the South. Now if you drive 30 miles out then you’re still knee deep in RED.
Almost every Northern high school textbook includes the Lincoln quote To Horace Greeley, “If I could win the war without freeing a single slave, I would do it.” What they don’t tell you is that he wrote that letter AFTER he had already written the Emancipation Proclamation, and he was preparing the border slave states for this unpleasant news.
[/quote]
I’d like to add that the Emancipation Proclamation was made largely because Lincoln knew that England was keeping a close eye on North America. They were actually strongly considering recognizing the CSA as a nation. However, England had long-since outlawed slavery, and was by this time morally opposed it - to the point that they sent out battle ships to stop the slave ships. If Lincoln hadn’t made this a war to “free slavery”, then England would have probably recognized the CSA.
I’d also like to add that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves. The border states were still part of the North. The EP said that all slaves in places opposed to the North were free. But…since he wasn’t president of the CSA, his word meant nothing to them. Border state slaves were still slaves because they weren’t resisting the North.
“The border states were still part of the North. The EP said that all slaves in places opposed to the North were free. But…since he wasn’t president of the CSA, his word meant nothing to them. Border state slaves were still slaves because they weren’t resisting the North.”
The border slave state of Kentucky recommended that the state legislation reject the EP. They knew that the EP, as limited as it was at first, meant the death of slavery, which is why it sparked an antiwar movement in the North and was looked on as the worst thing that ever happened in the South.
Lincoln was using his emergency war powers…and stretching them at that. He didn’t have Constitutional authority to ban slavery anywhere except the enemy-controlled areas of rebellion against the US government. Even if he did and tried it wouldn’t have gotten past Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who had issued the Dred Scott decision a few years before which stated that blacks had no rights that whites were bound to respect.
[quote]Mattlaw27 wrote:
I haven’t traveled outside of North America at all. Do other countries around the world have the U.S. equivilant of Red Necks or Hillbilly’s?[/quote]
what are they?
here in italy we call our southern folks “terroni”… it is not a nice word though… and they call northern folks “polentoni”… neither a nice word…
