I Have a Few Questions

[My Name Is Kate]

(11-24-2012 12:36 PM)Mark MacKenzie Wrote:  I like Lincoln...

...You can't say all Northerners encouraged racism. Its simply not true. You can't say all Southerners are racists. Simply not true...

...I believe in a difference between morality, (immutable concepts of good and evil that may or may not even be perceived,) and popular morality, (what is popularly acceptable at a certain time.)

I like Lincoln too. I wasn't including him in my questions about the North. And of course people are individuals and some were not as racist or pro-slavery as others. I agree with your thoughts about morality too, though popular morality often lags a long long way behind absolute morality.

I use generalizations (and I'm well aware that they are only generalizations) because my interest is more in finding out why we are in such a mess today because of things that happened in the past. I'm trying to get a broad (but accurate) understanding of history that will help explain today's problems.

[Mark MacKenzie]

Maddie M asked about the Indians and the mass hanging. I just heard a tremendous broadcast on NPR on This American Life" called Little War on the Prairie.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-ar...he-prairie

The relevance shows Lincoln's great humanity in opposition to hoards of people seeking vengeance.

Kate, I am frustrated with my lack of understanding humanity and today's condition just like you. I am sorry to have corrected your generalization. Please, no offense meant.

I'm trying to get an understanding of history and primarily Lincoln, in order for me to be a better person. I don't think everyone studies history for the same reasons and I don't think they should. There are many people here with great knowledge of history and diverse reasons for the study. I think a great thread, if it doesn't exist, would be about why we study history and how we study history.

But now I'm blathering. I enjoy discussion. I despise contention. Its just me. Imagine not being curious, though.

[Mark MacKenzie]

I am curious to know when the actual differentiation between north and south came into being. Before the war, Yankees were New Englanders which may or may not have included Bostonites who were different from Massachusetts people, different from Philadelphians, not to mention New Yorkers. There were more millionaires in Thomaston, Maine, sea captains, than anywhere else in the country. They probably held some preconceived ideas about those frontier people way out west in Ohio and beyond. Washington, D.C. and Richmond were probably more alike in brick and mortar and in mindset than other cities, do you think?

I like the description in Evangeline of floating down the Mississippi River in what must have felt like a jungle, uninhabited.

Of course Vicksburg was an incredible world, New Orleans, Atlanta, all so different and I think prejudicial against each other too. Tennessee is actually three "Great States," west, middle, and east and so very different people. Most southerners don't include Florida as part of the south.

Now, Nashville is past the carpetbagger stage. Its rare to find someone native here and thats a question often asked, "when did you move to Nashville?"

But somehow this definitive categorization of Southerners and Northernors came about. They are all this. They are all that. Yankees were despised. Kentucky Yankees. Illinois Yankees. Michigan Yankees. Southerners were reviled. Virginians, Texans, Georgians, all, dare I say, scum.

Well, we've all grown up now and don't carry such awful generalizations, I do believe. Maybe the lesson to take away is to beware this, even though it seems to be human nature.

[Laurie Verge]

Mark,

Without researching it, I tend to think that the differentiations between North and South began during the colonial era and were based on social, religious, and economic values/differences. I would also suspect that those designations would have occurred even if there had never been one slave introduced into what is now the United States. Just my opinion...

[Mark MacKenzie]

Yes, Laurie, I totally agree.

[My Name Is Kate]

The South depending on slavery for their economic well-being, it's no wonder they were reluctant to give it up without a fight. Anyone else probably would have been the same way. Of course it could be argued that no one should have depended on slavery in the first place, but that's hindsight.

Now I'm wondering why the drafters of the Constitution didn't just ignore the slavery issue altogether (since I suppose it would be unrealistic to have expected them to denounce slavery from the start). Why didn't they leave out Article 4, Section 2, and let each state decide what to do with runaway slaves?

Why were the social, religious, and economic values different in the North and the South ever since colonial times? It must have been more than that one section was more industrial and one was more agrarian. Did most of the people in the North come from a particular part of Europe, and vice versa?

[Laurie Verge]

The Puritan influence in the North had a lot to do with the shaping of their culture and values also.

[Laurie Verge]

Sorry, Herb. Catholic, Episcopal, and one generation of Methodist in my Southern upbringing! The social values of the various regions were heavily influenced by the predominant religious tenents of those regions also. One good example is the history and celebration of Christmas in the various regions.

[My Name Is Kate]

(11-26-2012 09:49 PM)HerbS Wrote:  ...the people in the South were the Gentry!The drafters of the Constitution were mostly-rich-White Males...

By "gentry" do you mean landed aristocrats? Was that the heritage they brought over from Europe? Did the drafters of the Constitution get rich in this country, or were they already rich when they came here? If they were rich and aristocratic in Europe, why did they want to leave and come here? I thought most people who came to this country were looking for a better life here.

Were most of the drafters of the Constitution Southerners? Were most of the people in the South wealthier than the people in the North in colonial times, and then had that begun to turn around by Civil War times?

[Laurie Verge]

I think that most of the colonists started out somewhat equal in terms of economic levels upon migrating to America. However, by the time that the Constitution was being framed, nearly two hundred years had passed; therefore, there were definitely established classes of people along economic and educational lines at least. There were at least three class distinctions within every area by the Revolution.

Each of the new states sent representatives to the Constitutional Convention, and it is probably safe to assume that higher economic and education levels were among the qualifications of those who framed the final document. They also came from a variety of areas with differing wants and demands that had developed over two hundred years - based on climate, religion, culture, etc. as mentioned before. It was bound to create squabbles.

That said, because I know this is leading again to the slavery issue, why didn't they solve the question of slavery while framing the Constitution??? I can't answer for them, but I believe it is because they HAD to get the document RATIFIED by a MAJORITY of the states in order to get the guidelines established for a functioning government. The original Articles of Confederation hadn't been working.

They had to know that trying to eliminate slavery at that point would not get a majority of the states to ratify the Constitution. So, tip-toe past the bone of contention, pretty much maintain the status quo, get the document into effect, and let future representatives, elected by the people, figure out how to solve the problem. As we know, that strategy didn't work - but at least we got a written system of government out of their project. You can't play the game until you know the established rules.

[Laurie Verge]

Thanks, Herb. Now, if I could just get Jerry Madonna to agree with me on SOME of the topics....

[Bill Richter]

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the new Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states to be put into effect. If Forrest McDonald is correct, in the end, the Founding Fathers used everything from cash to lies to deals to get it done. The Articles of Confederation had to be ratified by 13 of 13 to go into effect.

[Laurie Verge]

Which tells us that the country at the end of the Revolution was much more interested in states governing themselves than in a big, central government system?

[Thomas Thorne]

I believe it was once fashionable among certain Southerners to believe they were the descendants of the adherents of Charles I-the Cavaliers- and the Yankees were the descendants of the adherents of Parliament-the Roundheads- who were the the principal contestants of the English Civil War . I am unaware of any serious historian who ever took this seriously.

The political ideas of Charles I-among which were the divine right of kings and royal supremacy over parliament and the courts-never gained traction among Americans.
Tom

[My Name Is Kate]

So the Founding Fathers did the best they could under the circumstances, in drafting the Constitution. OK, I think I've gone about as far as I can go with this thread. Thanks to everyone who replied.

I could say alot more, but it would probably be wiser not to. I will only say that, in the political arena, at least, it seems to be human nature to crave power and to lord it over those without power. Doesn't matter what races are involved, the one with more power, knowledge, wealth usually gets what they want. A politics of revenge for past wrongs only adds to the problem and proves that those seeking revenge are no better than the people they seek revenge on. Easy for me to say, some might argue, but actually I can empathize with the oppressed more than they might think.