Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

You know, since LBJ our Presidents have been southerners or Californians

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:06 AM
Original message
You know, since LBJ our Presidents have been southerners or Californians
(if we grant GHWB status as a dishonorary Texan, and ignore Ford)

Maybe the electoral "power blocks" are shifting from CA and the deep south to the southwest, midwest, and northeast?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you ignore enough, anything could almost be true
I think you are missing a lot more interesting things.

First, while a Southerner might be considered for or even elected VP (LBJ who was re-elected on his own), Jimmy Carter was the first Southerner elected President on his own since well before the Civil War; Clinton was the second. Both Carter and Clinton were hated by most of the DC establishment and media and were attacked mercilessly as country bumpkins. Being a white male from the South is a significant disadvantage, particularly for a Dem.

More interesting that geography would be education/class. Since Nixon, only two presidents have not been a graduate of either Harvard or Yale (Carter: Naval Academy; Reagan: Eureka). Only two of the losers were outsiders: Mondale and Dole. (Some were undergrads, some JD or MBA.)

At this point, we have three insiders (Clinton, Obama, Romney) and two outsiders (McCain, Huckabee).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I ignored Ford because his accession was extraordinary
I granted Bush Texan status because he claimed it and, except for Ms. Ivans and Ms. Richards, the state didn't seem to mind.

Your points about Yale/Harvard and outsider/insider are good. This seems to be the insider year, though, unless Mitt or Huck manage to pull something off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ford was Yale Law.
Michigan All-American. Began law school at UNC, then Yale. Came back to UNC for Naval Preflight (along with GHW Bush).

Check out where the media/pundits went. Huge percentage of them also either Harvard or Yale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I can't think kindly of Harvard while the Beanpot is still going on
My poor Terriers... losing in overtime :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Post-Civil War, weren't most of the presidents Southerners---???
We won and we lost ---

The wealth made in the South during the Civil War also gave them power unheard of before ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. As someone who grew up in the south...
I can honestly say I've never remotely heard anything like that; we tend to think of the South has having been wealthy before the civil war and being very very poor after it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. A very true statement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. No.
Since the end of the term of Andrew Johnson (TN) until the election of Woodrow Wilson (VA), all Presidents of the United States were Northerners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SparkyMac Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. The Ante Bellum South was very wealthy
Below are the states as they were in 1860 as ranked by wealth per capita. The states with a asterisk are slave states. The states with two asterisks are the Seven Cotton States that seceded after Lincoln's election. As can be seen they all ranked in the top 13 states for wealth of the citizens. Much is said about the poverty of the South in Antebellum days. It is not true. The seven cotton states -- had it been a nation -- would have been the wealthiest in the world.

Twenty years after the war these same states were among the poorest, having had it's wealth and natural resources stolen by the Corporate interests of the North. A military invasion, followed by several years of occupation, arson, plunder, murder and rape has a depressing effect on any economy. Ask the Iraqis.

Rank of states according to per capita wealth


........................... 1860 .       ........... 1880

Connecticut...................1.....................5
**Louisiana ....................2....................37
**South Carolina ...............3....................45
Rhode Island.................4.....................3
**Mississippi...................5....................46
New Jersey....................6.....................6
Massachusettes................7.....................2
**Georgia........................8....................40
**Texas..........................9....................36
*Kentucky......................10....................31
*Maryland......................11....................15
**Florida........................12....................41
**Alabama.......................13....................44
Ohio...........................17....................10
Illinois.......................18....................11
*Arkansas.......................19....................43
*Virginia........................20....................35
Pennsylvania...................21.....................7
New Hampshire..................22....................13
New York.......................23.....................4
*Tennessee......................24....................38
*Missouri........................25....................26
*Delaware.......................26....................14
Indiana.........................27....................22
Vermont........................28....................17
Iowa............................29....................16
*North Carolina..................31....................42
Wisconsin......................32....................24
Michigan........................33....................18
Nebraska.......................34....................27
Minnesota......................35....................19
Maine...........................36....................20
Kansas..........................37....................29


My source for these statistics is:


"The South During Reconstruction", the 8th in a 10 volume work
called "History of the South", (1947). Pages 192-93.
by Comer Vann Woodward. He sites as his source:

"Scribner's Statistical Atlas of the United States" Plate 71. (1883
New York)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thank you . . . and an obvious answer . . . however,
what I had heard was more like the FEW having accumulated great wealth --
wealth enough to influence and impact politics ---
that's really more along the lines I'm thinking about.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Almost no Southerners accumulated great wealth ..
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 08:29 PM by unc70
How much wealth does it take to influence politics? Not very much when all were relatively poor. If you are allowed to vote or hold office. Sometimes the disenfranchised were white, more often black, and always native American.

Do you have any first-hand experience living in the South? Yes, a very few people achieved great wealth in the South in the 50 years following the Civil War. The overwhelming majority of the "better off" in the South were still land-poor where one bad harvest, criminal manipulation of commodity prices by Northern markets, or the latest bank "panic" or depression might suddenly leave landowners unable to pay even their taxes, with land in the family for 200 years suddenly sold on the courthouse steps.

My state of NC was never as wealthy as some of its neighbors, was the last to leave the Union, and suffered the greatest losses. NC only left the Union after it was ordered by Lincoln to provide two regiments as part of a force of 75,000 to put down the rebellion in States further South. NC refused and viewed the levying of troops as a violation of the US Constitution.

Before the tragic war ended, nearly every non-slave male under 60 served in the military (white, freed black, Indian) in some way. Slightly over 125,000 men total, almost exactly the census of non-slave males in 1860 would fight to protect their State. Over 40,000 of them would perish: killed in action, succumbing to their wounds, or more-likely from the epidemics that ravaged the armies, North and South. One third of all the NC troops, one third of all non-slave men, dead in four years. At least another third were wounded, so many had limbs amputated that the cost of artificial limbs accounted for nearly 20% of state budgets over the next 8-10 years!

Things were little better for the women and children left behind or for the slaves either before or after emancipation. The Union armies, particularly under Sherman, destroyed nearly everything they encountered, seizing livestock and any foodstocks they found, burning homes and buildings and crops in the fields, looting valuables of any type including farm implements and tools, often committing attrocities against all they encountered: white, black, and particularly Indian. Diseases ran rampant through the entire population. The destruction was so great that freed slaves who had first followed the Union armies in celebration were too soon following in desparation and starvation.

In 1860, North Carolina had about 85,000 farmers and only 121 planters (holders of 1000+ acres). Over 70% of NC farms were less than 100 acres. In 1860, the slave population was just over 300,000 which was roughly one-third the total population. Few of the former slaves possessed much more than the clothes they were wearing. Many of their former owners and the overwhelming majority who had never owned slaves were not in much better shape, except they probably still owned the land -- if they could hold on to it. Because the rights of the returning CSA veterans were initially stripped from them for several years (not just their right to vote or hold office, but also things like serve on juries or be appointed by the courts to administer the estate of a deceased relative or to serve as the guardian of surviving minor children. Remember women at this time were restricted in how they could own or convey properties separate from their spouses (state law nearly everywhere).

So you return home after the war to find your brother's widow and/or children, the family farm, and all their finances under the control of a court-appointed guardian, possibly even a complete stranger. If this were an undivided family farm, this "guardian" could petition the court for "equitable distribution" of the property for the benefit of his wards and other heirs. While the court might force the property to be subdivided among the heirs, most often the property would be auctioned on the courthouse steps to the highest bidder for cash within 30 days. Rarely were the original owners able to purchase their own property because what little wealth they might have had was now worthless Confederate money or was under the control of those forcing the sale. The properties would sell for almost nothing and that portion for the minor heirs might be quickly consumed to pay their guardian for their "upkeep and expenses". The extended family would be left destitute, without the house, the farm, the livelihood of generations, and their place in the community.

One way to avoid this predation was for the single and widowed men to marry the widows of their brothers and other family. This was fairly common practice before the war, but widespread immediately afterward. Other forces encouraged this behavior including early death of either spouse from disease or childbirth, the small mostly-rural population, the limited population mobility due to poor transportation, and the highly inter-married extended families. Only about 3,000 men and 3,000 women came of age each year across the entire state (over 600 miles). Roughly 30 couples in each of the current 100 counties. Avoid close relatives.

Other responses seizures of land and other perceived injustices were more violent. Vigilantes, the KKK, violence of all types. For about 10 years, the South fell into near-tribal chaos, much like what we now see in Iraq. Occupying army, carpetbaggers, mercenaries, senseless violence, de-Baathification, clueless outsiders, nearly everyone suffering. After 25 more years, we began seeing Jim Crow. So the Civil War, Reconstruction, and reaction thereto is slowly coming to an end after only 100 years.

Slowly, through many individual actions, efforts, kindness, compassion, and cruelty the peoples of the South found ways to survive, slowly rebuild their families and their communities. Former slaves and indentures sometimes were forced to become sharecroppers for the land-owners who were labor starved, others acquired small farms on land where they and their ancestors had been slaves, possibly in return for helping farm the larger remaining property.

For over 100 years, the South had little remaining except the land; the families; the churches; the close communities that usually crossed racial divides; the poverty; the shared suffering, loss, deprivation; the well tended cemetaries; and the rich oral tradition so that no one should ever forget all those and all that was squandered.

The North also lost. In 1860, the South provided over 80% of all the revenue of the US Government, mostly on import/export levies. One of the South's grievances leading up to the War had been the North continuing to raise taxes to provide services to the North's rapidly growing population and fledgling industries. Every party, North and South, public and private, was now broke.

So did a few acquire great wealth. A couple in NC did: Duke and Reynolds with tobacco; a few from the North in textiles; one or two through marriage to Norther industrialists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. I've only brief experience with the South -- at the time of Chain gangs of black males
and blacks still being put to the back of the bus --

that was Florida.

The influence I'm looking at would be corruptive and that takes a mentality which seeks to enslave --- some Southerners held on to that mentality.

Blacks, poor whites, native Americans --- and women --

When Reconstruction was ended in the South, who were abandoned? Rich or poor?
And who profited?

Your rendition is certainly another look at rule by the elite ---
their right to hold slaves ---
their right to exploit the many ---

And the South somehow thru all this reestablishing a form of slavery with Segregation going on for the next 100 years ---



Sometimes the most important history to know is that of the elites . . .

So did a few acquire great wealth. A couple in NC did: Duke and Reynolds with tobacco; a few from the North in textiles; one or two through marriage to Norther industrialists.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. We might note in passing
That a significant portion of that antebellum wealth in the South was in the form of slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Certainly true, up to a point.
Land was probably the greatest factor in "wealth" and was the thing of most value to the most people. In NC, most slaveowners had just a couple of slaves. This varied greatly by state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. ...and I believe that had something to do with the assignment of
Electoral College votes because "blacks/slaves" weren't considered citizens --- ?

Hopefully, someone will come by who knows about this ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SparkyMac Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. Since 1963 -- 100% of Democratic Presidents were Southern
Johnson, Carter and Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Yes ... but ...
Carter, of course, would have been a GA Southern liberal ---
Bill Clinton from ARK, the same --- the "first black president" --- ???

On the other hand, two of our most conservative presidents ---
Bush I and Bush II were technically "northerners" as far as their place of birth ---




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. And 2/3 of the three worst presidents ever were from California
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Bushes are Connecticut Yankees who carpetbagged in Texas
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 01:55 PM by Cleita
and wasn't Reagan from the Middle West? Either Indiana or Illinois. I can't remember. He moved to California as an adult to make movies. That's like saying Arnold is a Californian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Right -- what I was trying to get to was conservative/elitist impact on
"government of the people" ---

George Washington from VA --- and a slave owner --
quite a start!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Reagan was born in Illinois but became associated with California
And while Nixon was from California, he was elected as a resident of New York.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Didn't know that
Thanks; I thought Nixon ran as a CA resident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. ... or maybe they "carpetbagged" in Saudi Arabia . .. ?? ?? ?? !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. Dupe
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 01:53 PM by Cleita
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
22. GWB is from Connecticutt
not Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC