Second Great Awakening early 1800's to 1830's
Third Great Awakening late 1850's to early 1900's
Both drew great numbers of followers from the South.
The entire Southern experience, from the formation of the US to present, has been a fairytale. The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves, yet they fought, in large numbers, to keep slavery. Why? Because if you're a poor, white Southerner, you're still better off than the black slave. It was a hierarchy both antebellum and postbellum. This is what the majority of Confederates were fighting for, their way of life, which included the owning of blacks in Southern society. The two are so intertwined (slavery and Southern way of life) it's impossible to separate them.
A large part of why the South is still so fucked, is because Reconstruction only lasted until 1877 (in comparison to the system of slavery which was practiced from colonization up to 1865) and Jim Crow was allowed to run unchecked. Also Reconstruction focused largely on stigmatizing and punishing the South, rather than trying to lift it out of it's hierarchical mentality.
If you look at African-American history, the Nadir (the lowest point of the African-American experience) is commonly considered to be from the end of Reconstruction to the early 1920's. This period of time is considered by scholars as worse for blacks than it was under slavery. Black slaves at least had some monetary value, and thus protection, by their owners, whereas blacks during the Nadir had no value or effective protection under the law.
The "personal hell on Earth" was created by the Southerners themselves. Religion plays it's part, as it always does, but it's not the sole contributor to this "hell" you speak of.

I didn't say that Religion was a sole contributor. I didn't even say religion was any part of a contributor. The devastation of the war was the major contributor. Religion is the solace that the Southern people turned to in order to avoid the "hell on Earth" left over from the war.

---

The really odd thing was that slaves that belonged to rich white plantation owners considered themselves higher on the social hierarchy than "Po' White Trash". Poor substenence farmers pretty much. Those same Po' White Trash considered themselves higher on the social hierarchy than the slaves.

So none of them thought they were at the bottom of the barrel. Everyone, including the slaves for the most part, considered other parts of Southern society to be beneath their station in life.

---

And if we want to talk about religion about the Civil War I recommend anyone to research quaker religious zealots and the abolitionist movement in the Northern states that led to the war.

As an atheist it kind of burns us to have to admit religious people are the ones that really fired up society about Southern slavery that led to the Civil War.

But it's true.

Most Yanks didn't give a crap one way or the other. It was the radical Quakers that really fired everyone up.

---

(July 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm)festive1 Wrote: The "personal hell on Earth" was created by the Southerners themselves. Religion plays it's part, as it always does, but it's not the sole contributor to this "hell" you speak of.

And I disagree with this statement. The main thing, of course, was slavery. We can all agree that slavery in any form to any people is wrong. So that's not the discussion. Believe me, we are eternally ashamed for that.

The discussion is that the North was really concerned with what their neighbors where doing. Their neighbor's business, which wasn't really their business, was their big concern.

Were we wrong to have slaves? Fuck yeah, we were.

Did any Southern ships transport slaves from Africa to the US?

No.

They were all New England ships that did that.

And then those same New England families that became economic superpowers by transporting and selling slaves to the US start condemning the South for having those slaves that they sold to the South. The North also gradually outlawed slavery in their states. Most slave owners in those states sold them down South. So then they could act pious by saying the didn't own slaves. They sold those slaves into continued slavery in another state. They didn't do anything noble like free them. Bravo, good sir.

Did you know that even in the 1870's that if an African American visited Illinois and stayed more than two weeks they were breaking the law just for being there and would be arrested?

I mean you can understand how hypocritical that sounded to the South, right?

So the South just wanted to leave. The North and the South portions of the country were really two totally different places back then. Numerous historians have commented that the way the North treated the South back then was akin to how the UK treated it's colonies.

So the South just wanted walk away. No bloodshed, no war. Just let's go our own paths. Let's agree to disagree and walk away from each other.

The North started telling border states to raise militia to invade the Southern states and drag them back.

Four border states refused and immediately joined the secession.

Now this is all about slavery right? That's the big sin on us. We wanted to keep slaves and the North said we couldn't so we tried to leave to keep our slaves. Right?

Ever heard of the Corwin Amendment? It can be easily found all over the internet. It's historical fact, not some pseudoscience or conspiracy theory.

The Northern states proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would forever enshrine slavery as untouchable forever to prevent the South from seceding. Most of the Northern states ratified it in record time.

The South was aware of this. They didn't care.

So if the South only seceded to protect slavery, why did they keep seceding after the North gave them full protection to keep slavery intact forever?

Maybe shit is way more complicated that what it looks like on the surface and we need to really look into this in detail?

I've spent hundreds of hours researching this stuff, and I still don't think I know more than just the surface details of the events. It's going to take me a couple more decades to really start to feel like I realize what really happened.

The interesting thing is what the Civil War is not what the Civil War is COMMONLY KNOWN for, but rather, what it ISN'T known for. Yet, its results, not its causes, are what matter the most. The end result of the Civil War was slavery ended and the Union remained whole...and as for WHY it happened?

History is written by the victor.

History is filled with liars.

Still...the causes of the Civil War are largely academic. Even if you boil it down to just "south wanted to be its own nation, north didn't want the nation to split," the South decided it wanted to start a war for its independence, and it lost. The loser of a war tends to be treated very poorly, especially when the loser happens to be the aggressor. Nothing creates more lasting hostility than a schism in a society or culture, and even if the war results in the status quo being upheld, it doesn't mean the flames are ever really put out. Look at the current situation. Over a century has passed and people in the south STILL wail about the confederacy. Most of them don't even know what the fuck the confederacy stands for or what they would do if their state suddenly lost all political and economic connection to the rest of the union but they still wave the flag around like a bunch of dumbasses because they just wanna keep up the idea, no matter how little meaning the idea has anymore.

It's the 21st century. The south needs to get the fuck over it already. Everything that happened over a hundred years ago stopped being something that can be a justified grievance about two decades after the event and its immediate aftermath happened. After a while, you gotta realize when you're just saluting a flag soaked in the blood of someone you can't even remember for the sake of saluting a flag. And all these states that keep shrieking about secession; get the fuck over yourselves. No state in the union is economically strong enough to last on its own, we aren't self-sustaining micro-nations, we're parts of a sum that is greater than the overall individual parts themselves.

(July 7, 2013 at 9:09 am)Tonus Wrote:

(July 6, 2013 at 7:42 am)festive1 Wrote: I read most of Min's posts with a grain of salt. Yeah, he gets offensive sometimes, but that's why I love his posts

When Min doesn't say something offensive, I spend several minutes re-reading the post to try and figure out where the insult is!

I'll re-double my efforts.

I haven't read much civil war history, but my impression is that slavery was just the issue around which a number of differences coalesced. The North was initially fighting simply to get the South to rejoin the Union. Ending slavery became a goal only when it seemed as if European nations might recognize the South as a sovereign nation.

As for getting over it, the ability to hold grudges long past any reasonable date has passed seems to be a part of our nature. I can recall the violence in Northern Ireland during the 80s, which was based on enmities that were more than a thousand years old. Heck, how old are some of the grudges held in parts of the middle east? 2,000 years or more?

Quote: The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves, yet they fought, in large numbers, to keep slavery.

I have spent a great deal of time reading the journals/letters of civil war soldiers as well as the lyrics of their songs. "Slavery" is almost never mentioned as part of the cause on either side. The South was fighting for their "freedom" from what they considered an oppressive central government. The north was fighting against "treason."

The north was so committed to freeing the slaves that when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire regiments deserted. In 1864 during the NY Draft Riots the rioters lynched blacks.

Quote:4. You end sentences with a preposition: "Where's my coat at?"

I have never even been to anyplace in the midwest for longer than it takes to change flights and I do this regularly.

(July 8, 2013 at 11:29 am)Tonus Wrote: I haven't read much civil war history, but my impression is that slavery was just the issue around which a number of differences coalesced. The North was initially fighting simply to get the South to rejoin the Union. Ending slavery became a goal only when it seemed as if European nations might recognize the South as a sovereign nation.

As for getting over it, the ability to hold grudges long past any reasonable date has passed seems to be a part of our nature. I can recall the violence in Northern Ireland during the 80s, which was based on enmities that were more than a thousand years old. Heck, how old are some of the grudges held in parts of the middle east? 2,000 years or more?

Maybe even longer. That's what happens when the only ideas you are exposed to are the ideas of your parents, and their only ideas are from their parents and so on. That's no longer an excuse nowadays. Nowadays, people are exposed to a world of ideas. And oh look at that, the internet comes around and suddenly people start being more understanding. START, mind you. Not necessarily going away entirely. But funny how cosmopolitan nations/cultures tend to be much more forgiving than insular nations/cultures...

Everywhere was decidedly racist during this time period, England, US, Canada. Yes, Southerners fought for their freedom... Freedom from federal government overriding state's rights. But that included their freedom to own and trade slaves, or more accurately, the freedom of the richest of them to own and trade slaves. Slavery didn't need to be mentioned explicitly by soldiers as a reason for fighting, as Southern culture was intrinsically linked and based on the institution. It wouldn't make sense if an average white Confederate soldier mentioned fighting to preserve slavery, as most Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves, and the majority of slave owners owned relatively few numbers of slaves. Slaves were concentrated on the plantations, which were owned by the relatively small, elite Southern society. It was an economic issue, however, the entire Southern economy was based on an unlimited supply of free labor. Religion straddled both sides of the issue. Some used religion to justify slavery (blacks bore the "mark of Cain"), while others used religion to condemn it. Many people in the North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but most didn't carry the idea to blacks being equal to whites. That wouldn't become part of the agenda until quite some time later. There are a multitude of reasons leading to the Civil War, but a common thread to all of them is slavery in some shape or form.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but wanted to preserve the Union more. Hence why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves who were in areas of open rebellion, instead of simply abolishing slavery outright. The Civil War would have been very different if Lincoln had lost the border states. With slaves fleeing the South and seeking refuge in the North, many Northern areas experienced violence. In large part, this was because of job competition between freedmen who were willing to work for less than whites. Just because a majority of Northerners wanted to end slavery and thought it wrong to own another human being, that doesn't mean they wanted to compete against blacks for jobs.
The main point, going back to the OP, is the North grew up, developed, changed public perceptions and attitudes, the South did not. Due in large part because of it's heritage being so intrinsically linked to slavery and a system of deeply engrained, racial hierarchy.

(July 7, 2013 at 10:24 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...I'm just saying the search for an intelligent person from Mississippi is ongoing and, so far, fruitless. '_'

---

WAIT. WAIT. Hold up a second.

Morgan Freeman is from Mississippi.

WE HAVE FOUND OUR MISSISSIPPI-BORN INTELLECTUAL!! 8D *throws confetti*

---

(Granted I dunno if he was raised there...)

If you don't mind getting historical, George Washington Carver was from Alabama. More recently, I'm thinking a couple of astronauts, one of the Chief Scientists of the Air Force, a Surgeon General, a handful of other prominent scientists, and the author of one of the great American novels. They don't have a lot of quantity when it comes to intellectuals, but they do have some worth bragging on.

Morgan Freeman moved a lot as a kid, but he went to high school in Mississippi, your call on whether TN or MS should get more credit.

---

(July 7, 2013 at 10:35 am)Full Circle Wrote: You can retire to the Deep South where....

1. You can rent a movie and buy bait in the same store.
2. "Y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural.
3. "He needed killin" is a valid defense.
4. Everyone has 2 first names: Billy Bob, Jimmy Bob, Mary Ellen, Betty Jean, Mary Beth, etc etc.
5. Everything is either "in yonder," "over yonder" or "out yonder."
It's important to know the difference, too.

Hm. My mom's name was Mary Ellen. She was hill folk though, not Southern.