How the Bitter White Minority in the South Ended Up With Huge Power in Washington

[happyslug]

8. I found those books in my College Library 40 years ago, same author...

The two books were written by the same author at the same time, but the tone of each were different. The reason for the change in tone did not appear to be a prejudice against one region or the other, but the difference when it come to settlement was that fundamental. In many ways it went back to the days of Colonial Settlement, the North were settled by Puritans who valued the Community. This was reinforced by the constant French Threat from the 1600s till Canada fell to the British in 1763 (and the British replacement of the French frm that point onward till Tecumseh was killed in 1814, ending hope of a Native American Confederation to stop the westward movement.

The South was never really threatened by France in Colonial Days. By the time of the settlement of the Colonies, Spanish power was in decline, so much less of a threat then France. Worse, the Caribbean attitude to slavery became the norm, if an enemy ship appeared, you surrendered hoping no damage to the equipment needed to process sugar would be harmed. In a book written from the BRITISH point of view as to the US War for Independence, after the French intervened, the British concerns shifted to the Sugar Islands in the Caribbean and away from the US. Worse the British fully accepted the idea that the rich plantation owners on those islands would surrender to anyone who showed up, so to make sure nothing happened ot their plantations. This was typical throughout those islands, if enemy ships would appear, the rich would surrender, the real fear was the poor may fight while the slaves would defect to who ever was taking over the island. While the American South, outside of Louisiana and Florida, never went into Sugar Cane production (The South still has something called "Winter" which Sugar cane can not handle) the South had a similar attitude, the original upper class settlers had move to the South not to be a member of a community, but to make money, and they did not care how. This attitude spread to the lower classes, including people who had been the victim of that attitude (ex-Indentured servants, ex slaves, etc). Making money was the dogma of the South and spread to areas of the North that dealt with the south (New York City being the largest and most important of those Northern Cities).

One comment on the Religious Fundamentalism of the South. This emphasis on money left the South be the first area of the US to truly separate Church and State. After the Revolution the US entered into a major depression and the South decided to cut its welfare costs to save money. In that time period the State provided Welfare through the Church, by disestablishing churches, the South freed itself from those welfare costs. Widows and Orphans were told to go west and steal land from the Native Americans NOT to look to the State to support them. Yes, the Westward Movement, separation of Church and state are connected, in a way no one wants to admit for no one likes welfare and the South has always paid the least welfare. Thus the South embraced Separation of Church And State, while claiming it was to keep government out of religion, but the real reason was to cut welfare out. A side affect of this was a religious vacuum that Fundamentalists were able to jump into and fill. Given no religious background, when people decided they needed religion, these fundamentalists were the only game in town, given the lack of support from the State Governments AND that acting as a member of a community had NEVER been a big thing in the South. In the North, the Puritans wanted community, even if that meant accepting other religions (and even accepting Catholics).

When Separation of Church and State occurred in the North (Much slower then the South) it was also driven by a desire to cut welfare (Massachusetts only disestablish it church in 1837, during the next great depression in the US), but the State was more willing to resume welfare payments by the state when that depression was over then the South had been 40 years before. Another factor in this difference in treatment is the North won the Civil War, so widows and orphans of Northern Veterans could get survivors benefits, which was a form of welfare, while in the South, no such benefits were legal till long after the Civil War (After 1900 the South came up with all types of ways to work around the CONSTITUTIONAL ban on paying debts incurred during the Civil War, must survived for the Federal Government decided NOT to challenged those payments and only the Federal Government had Standing to challenge those payments. Please note most such pensions were so small that the few surviving in the 1970s were all less then the Federal SSI payment that the states dropped most of them and told the widows to rely on SSI only. THis came up with the last Southern Widow died a few years ago, it was reported her home state had reinstated her pension in the 1990s after cutting it in the 1970s).

My point is in the North, even after the full Separation of Church and State, you still had interaction, for the churches were all around the town square and thus you can say they were separated, long habits were hard to break. The need to take care of the Orphans of the Civil War kept the churches and state interacting. Public Schools had in many ways, replaced Churches as the center of the Community when universal education was adopted in the North starting in the 1830s, but not completely (The South only adopted the Concept of Public Education during Reconstruction, it was forced down they throat but once introduced has survived in the South).

Thus in the North the Church and State stayed in contact with each other, almost as equal partners in their communities AFTER the adoption of the concept of Separation of Church and State. Note the difference between the North and the South. In the South Churches started out as back street operations that the State ignored. Those churches ended up filling in a need but did so with low cost in money, dogma and commitment of Fundamentalism, while in the North, the established Mainline Protestant Churches (and later the Catholics, Orthodox and Jewish religions) worked hand in hand with the State while staying separate. The above churches wanted people to work for a better overall community and thus willing to work with the state to achieve that goal.

Unions tended to be stronger in the North then in the South for the same reason, with a union the goal is the benefit of everyone in the union not just the union leadership (the South has a tendency to say unions exists to enrich union leadership not the union membership, for that goes back to the dogma of the upper class that settled the South, what is it the Union for me? These same people fully believe the Union Leadership is in the leadership to enrich themselves, for that is what they would do if they were leading a union, i.e. those Souther Elite think: "if I was a Union Leader, what would I steal?" They can not accept that they are people who want to help).

Now since the Civil War, the North and South have become closer. The New Deal and the Great Society Program both brought to the South the Idea that people can help each other if they act as a group. The South has exported to the North, its concept of Individualism, both good and bad. At time these two concepts have come into conflict (And the GOP were quick to embrace Individualism as the GOP embraced the South). Hopefully the South will come to understand that rugged individualism is to extreme in today's world, but a good bit of that rugged individualism is good. It will take time, but I see hope in the South for it has been under Northern Influence for over 150 years and has to deal with the norms of the north over the last 400 years.