The Yankee Myths of History

[Ga.windbreak]

Dee and SBG, thank you both so much for your input. It does my heart good to see that my experences have been no different than those of others in the South. I, too, was brought up to respect my elders no matter their skin color. In point of fact one of my worse whippings was because of the use of the word "nigger" I thought my Mother was going to beat me half to death. Her words to me after I was told to pull my pants up were "you must always remember that they have feelings too and deserve the same respect that they give you." I was 9 at that time (58 years ago) and remember it as if it were yesterday.

As to the unlocked doors, the only door in my Uncle's house (I was raised there)that had a lock was the front door. Funny how those things stick in your mind.

[Cheesehead]

What is your definition of a "Yankee"?

Cheese

[littlecanoe]

A little anecdotal evidence can be seen in "The Tales of Uncle Remus".  While a fun and whimsical collection of folk tales there is a constant view of a relationship between the Masters son and old Remus.  I don't believe that Joel Chandler Harris pulled that out of his had.  The stories that you guys relate have stark similarity to the relationship that he develops in that book.

Cheesehead,  I'd assume that a simple definition would be anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line.  A more general but less simple definition would be someone with no understanding of Southern culture.  A bit more complex and harsh definition would be someone who ascribes to the ideas of Centralized government with the willingness to sacrifice individual freedom.  Yankee is really a broad term that could mean any number of things depending on the context of the setting or conversation.

[Ga.windbreak]

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

While several points are made in this article (the South paying 80% of this tax load while reaping less than 20% of it usage) the last paragraph is the most telling as to the lie that has been handed down that we wanted to break up the union.

And I quote:

One last point needs to be made.  The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war.  To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language. It is the propaganda of the victors having attained popular usage. No one in the South was attempting to overthrow the U. S. government.  Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments.  The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic wellbeing.  Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons.  The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies.  A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence.”

 

 But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war.  The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences.  No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Uncivil War.

[SouthernByGrace]

Amen, Gw. Now try to get WL to understand it that way. LOL
He still does not believe the South was paying 80% of the country's taxes and not seeing any benefit from it. Saaaadddd...

[littlecanoe]

GaWB,

I'm about half way through a 3 volume Biography of Patrick Henry "Patrick Henry:  Life Correspondence and Speeches".
It's quite amazing to understand what he and the Colonials went through and compare that to the first paragraph of your last quote. 

It should be noted by all, and this is irrefutable and of utmost importance in seeing the legality of what the south did, that the southern states did peacefully and lawfully withdraw from the Union.  They followed the same avenue that our Founding Fathers followed.  They, through peaceful and lawful appeal to their magistrates, withdrew their countries from the greater union.

The very avenue and mechanism of their withdrawal removes all accusation that they acted in hast or anger.  Too much time passed for their decisions to have been based on testosterone responses.  Like their Grandfathers these men knew that the price of freedom and self rule was at stake.  It matters not the reasons for their leaving, it matters not their purpose in leaving, it only matters that they left legally and peacefully.  They felt it their duty to posterity.

A sovereign nation was then invaded and it's will bent to meet that of the invader.  Reconstruction and it's evil is all that is needed to support that idea.

[Ga.windbreak]

Amen, Gw. Now try to get WL to understand it that way. LOL
He still does not believe the South was paying 80% of the country's taxes and not seeing any benefit from it. Saaaadddd...

Well SBG, as you well know, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it, and WL that is meant with all due respect. But yes it is sad.

lc - "Like their Grandfathers these men knew that the price of freedom and self rule was at stake.  It matters not the reasons for their leaving, it matters not their purpose in leaving, it only matters that they left legally and peacefully.  They felt it their duty to posterity." - truer words were never spoken. As I said in the Jeff Davis thread his overriding thought and duty was to hand over our way of government to his children and grandchildren as it was handed over to him. "God WILL Vindicate"