Neo-Confederate Origins of Today's Tea Party Movement

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's hard to say for certain that slavery would have phased itself out. We will never know whether that would have happened. The very changes that occured after the Civil War, like the growth of iron and steel in TN and Alabama, the building of textiles in the south rather then in New England, etc etc wouldn't have been possible with the economy dominated by slave plantations. And slave power controlled most of the state governments, and crafted laws that sought to preserve it. Including the forced conscription of people to join posse's to chase runaways down.

What is certain is that the votes to eliminate it would have been present by 1900 in both houses. The problem with voting it out of existance is that it would be a vote to bring immediate economic depression since in the south, slaves were assets on a balance sheet. If those assets vanished, well you can imagine what would happen. This potential would likely cause just enough Senators to vote no on abolition to keep slavery in place. Simply because the political effects of the resulting economic dislocations would be too much to handle.


Anything is possible, but I think just like there is the possibility of it being destroyed on it's own, there is just as much chance of it having continued to 1900 and beyond.

Over supply of slaves wouldn't destroy slavery. It would lead to it's extention because of the drop in price. A severe shortage that would make it cheaper to employ freeman then hold slaves in bondage would have been necessary for slavery to have collapsed by market forces.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I disagree. I think the roots of both the tea party and modern liberalism can be found in New England, just as much as it can be found in the south or anywheres else. Modern election results mean nothing, especially when you consider the demographic changes in New England.

But the desire for local control and independence, fiscal frugality, religious fervor, social authoritarianism, and suspiciouns towards other groups that don't look the same, talk the same or think the same.

Sounds like Puritanical New England to me.

Of course there is not a single voting precinct left in New England that is dominated by such group politically speaking, so of course you don't see a presence in modern day New England by the TP. 

[LBJ Revivalist]

I'm openly a Neo Confederate, and I think the Tea Party thinks were "too Liberul" cause we "hate Israel and want the terrorist to win". HK Edgarton was a former leader of the NC NAACP, AND A OPENLY BLACK NEOCONFEDERATE!!! Of course, to Northern, closeted racist Democrats, he is a "Uncle Tom". Alot of Ron Paul supporters are secessionist, some are White Nationalist, you cant hide that, but most (including myself), are just supporters of States Rights. The Federal government goes too far, too often. Hence secession comes up.

Secession comes up, and the secessionists are shot down, with cannonballs. Win for America.

[Хahar 🤔]

That article made me want to throw-up.  Can anyone say "brash ignorance"?

I mean, since the Senate's only self-described socalist is from Vermont I guess that makes socialism a political movement rooted in the history of the Northeast, no?

#absurd

You seem to have attempted to use a hashtag. Hashtags do not work there. You may be looking for Twitter.

[King]

I'm openly a Neo Confederate, and I think the Tea Party thinks were "too Liberul" cause we "hate Israel and want the terrorist to win". HK Edgarton was a former leader of the NC NAACP, AND A OPENLY BLACK NEOCONFEDERATE!!! Of course, to Northern, closeted racist Democrats, he is a "Uncle Tom". Alot of Ron Paul supporters are secessionist, some are White Nationalist, you cant hide that, but most (including myself), are just supporters of States Rights. The Federal government goes too far, too often. Hence secession comes up.

Good lord, you're such an overaggressive simpleton.  And so young!

Sad.

It seems radical pseudopolitical hocus pocus takes our best and our brightest every day now.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm openly a Neo Confederate, and I think the Tea Party thinks were "too Liberul" cause we "hate Israel and want the terrorist to win". HK Edgarton was a former leader of the NC NAACP, AND A OPENLY BLACK NEOCONFEDERATE!!! Of course, to Northern, closeted racist Democrats, he is a "Uncle Tom". Alot of Ron Paul supporters are secessionist, some are White Nationalist, you cant hide that, but most (including myself), are just supporters of States Rights. The Federal government goes too far, too often. Hence secession comes up.

Good lord, you're such an overaggressive simpleton.  And so young!

Sad.

It seems radical pseudopolitical hocus pocus takes our best and our brightest every day now.

Didnt mean to be agressive, but I had to cap that so it would be noticed, instead of skipped over..maybe italics would of been better

[courts]

I'm not exactly sure why "liberals" are so upset about the thought of the most hostile voting area (short of the intermountain west) leaving. Or so hysterical about the sort of states rights that could result in legalized gay marriage, euthanasia, pot, etc.. Seems pretty irrational.

[Sbane]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

[courts]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

[Sbane]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

I think their fear (at least for social liberals) is that giving more rights to the states would lead to rollback of civil rights legislation and other such achievements in enforcing equality. The last big push for state's rights was during the civil rights movement.

[The Mikado]

The argument that slavery would've died due to being unprofitable always struck me as kind of weird.  I mean, at a certain level, slaves were a status symbol more than an economic one.  Even if you get to the situation where the cotton plantation system is totally untenable and plantation slavery shrinks, why would the old Southern planting class ever advocate abolishing their own household slaves?  Having 5-10 in the household is the ultimate way of showing off (that your wealth is so extensive that you can keep 5-10 men in food and lodging).  It just doesn't seem logical that even if plantation slavery died off, that that'd lead to the abolition of slavery.

[Zarn]

I'm a but surprised no one posted this yet:

The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism:
The goal, methods and passions of the Tea Party in the House are all characteristic of the radical Southern right

BY MICHAEL LIND

The Tea Party movement takes its name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when American patriots dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest British imperial power. But while New England was the center of resistance to the British empire, there are few New Englanders to be found in today's Tea Party movement. It should be called the Fort Sumter movement, after the Southern attack on the federal garrison in Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 12-13, 1861, that began the Civil War. Today's Tea Party movement is merely the latest of a series of attacks on American democracy by the white Southern minority, which for more than two centuries has not hesitated to paralyze, sabotage or, in the case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy in order to get their way.

The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House are Midwesterners -- Minnesota's Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh of Illinois. But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more, click here.

The Tea Party started with the Ron Paul grassroots, not Bachmann types. It's liberation in origin but more conservative now. It's not hard to find that out for yourself.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm a but surprised no one posted this yet:

The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism:
The goal, methods and passions of the Tea Party in the House are all characteristic of the radical Southern right

BY MICHAEL LIND

The Tea Party movement takes its name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when American patriots dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest British imperial power. But while New England was the center of resistance to the British empire, there are few New Englanders to be found in today's Tea Party movement. It should be called the Fort Sumter movement, after the Southern attack on the federal garrison in Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 12-13, 1861, that began the Civil War. Today's Tea Party movement is merely the latest of a series of attacks on American democracy by the white Southern minority, which for more than two centuries has not hesitated to paralyze, sabotage or, in the case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy in order to get their way.

The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House are Midwesterners -- Minnesota's Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh of Illinois. But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more, click here.

The Tea Party started with the Ron Paul grassroots, not Bachmann types. It's liberation in origin but more conservative now. It's not hard to find that out for yourself.

I think its true that Ron Paul supporters latched on to the Tea Party concept, and some people attracted to the Tea Party concept have latched on to him, I don't think its true that it "started" with Ron Paul "grassroots".  The structure, such that it exists, of the Tea Party movement comes from traditionally conservative groups like FreedomWorks rather than C4L.  Most of the Tea Party organizers I know around here are neutral on Paul, and some are downright hostile to him.

[Badger]

The argument that slavery would've died due to being unprofitable always struck me as kind of weird.  I mean, at a certain level, slaves were a status symbol more than an economic one.  Even if you get to the situation where the cotton plantation system is totally untenable and plantation slavery shrinks, why would the old Southern planting class ever advocate abolishing their own household slaves?  Having 5-10 in the household is the ultimate way of showing off (that your wealth is so extensive that you can keep 5-10 men in food and lodging).  It just doesn't seem logical that even if plantation slavery died off, that that'd lead to the abolition of slavery.

Seriously. Sharecropping replaced slavery to dominate the South's agrarian economy (i.e. the South's economy), and that survived well into the 50's and early 60's. Why on earth would southern large landowners that dominated the political system through that period want to accept a system of even feudal-like wage paying or sharing crops with the blacks who worked the field when an "improved" system like slavery would only increase profits?

For that matter, one of the greatest weakening forces to sharecropping was the mass migration of blacks to northern factories during WWI and II. In the former case at least such migration was often combatted by force and roadblocks (literally) by southern law enforcement. Gee, if the powers that be then would've taken such measures of overt force and constraint to protect their economic interest (i.e. keeping blacks there so labor remained cheap and plentiful), do you think they'd oppose an even stronger system of keeping blacks litterally tied to the land? I think not.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.

[Gustaf]

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't the reason that the Tea Party does well in the South likely to be that the South has the safest and most conservative Republican districts in the country?

I mean, how would a Tea Partier be elected in the Northeast? Their candidates lost in places like Delaware, Nevada and Colorado because they can't win general elections there.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The Tea Party is not neo-confederate. There are deeper issues at work many on both sides of the political spectrum fail to understand. A new party is certainly coming. Will some in the Tea Party be part of this. Yes. Marco Rubio, Mike Pence,  and Jim DeMint are amongst those at the forefront. Will some Democrats and Republicans be in this third party movement? Yes.

[fezzyfestoon]

Oh come one, the Tea Party has done everything but outright say it's a southern white movement. I don't know what the big backlash is against that title either, they've obviously served their chosen movements well in the past. The angry southern white is a powerful bloc to have in your corner, for better or worse...usually worse for the country and better for their focused cause (themselves and their extreme beliefs).

[Keystone Phil]

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't the reason that the Tea Party does well in the South likely to be that the South has the safest and most conservative Republican districts in the country?

Shhhh...we can't let common sense conflict with the dangerous rhetoric.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, they can certainly be elected in pockets of the Northeast unless you're strictly talking about statewide office. Even then, it's debatable. Toomey is certainly friendly to the Tea Party but he's an interesting case. I think he and I are pretty similar when it comes to identifying with the Tea Party.

[Zarn]

I'm a but surprised no one posted this yet:

The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism:
The goal, methods and passions of the Tea Party in the House are all characteristic of the radical Southern right

BY MICHAEL LIND

The Tea Party movement takes its name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when American patriots dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest British imperial power. But while New England was the center of resistance to the British empire, there are few New Englanders to be found in today's Tea Party movement. It should be called the Fort Sumter movement, after the Southern attack on the federal garrison in Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 12-13, 1861, that began the Civil War. Today's Tea Party movement is merely the latest of a series of attacks on American democracy by the white Southern minority, which for more than two centuries has not hesitated to paralyze, sabotage or, in the case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy in order to get their way.

The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House are Midwesterners -- Minnesota's Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh of Illinois. But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more, click here.

The Tea Party started with the Ron Paul grassroots, not Bachmann types. It's liberation in origin but more conservative now. It's not hard to find that out for yourself.

I think its true that Ron Paul supporters latched on to the Tea Party concept, and some people attracted to the Tea Party concept have latched on to him, I don't think its true that it "started" with Ron Paul "grassroots".  The structure, such that it exists, of the Tea Party movement comes from traditionally conservative groups like FreedomWorks rather than C4L.  Most of the Tea Party organizers I know around here are neutral on Paul, and some are downright hostile to him.

No, I'm right. There is actual video evidence out there.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I remember reading a WaPo or NYT article mentioning a study conducted that shows that Tea Partiers were actually far more likely to hold extremely regressive views on social issues than the average mainstream Republican. The study also found that most average Tea Partiers were the staunch members of the religious right that followed around Alan Keyes and the like. I don't see how that makes the Tea Party "neo-confederate" but considering the roots of all of that nonsense, there's a big racist background there. Look at any email chains spread around and you'll see that there are big racist/xenophobic undercurrents to these people.

By "these people", I mean the underinformed masses not Atlas forumers so please conservatives, get the sand out of your collective vagina before responding to my post.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm a but surprised no one posted this yet:

The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism:
The goal, methods and passions of the Tea Party in the House are all characteristic of the radical Southern right

BY MICHAEL LIND

The Tea Party movement takes its name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, when American patriots dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest British imperial power. But while New England was the center of resistance to the British empire, there are few New Englanders to be found in today's Tea Party movement. It should be called the Fort Sumter movement, after the Southern attack on the federal garrison in Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 12-13, 1861, that began the Civil War. Today's Tea Party movement is merely the latest of a series of attacks on American democracy by the white Southern minority, which for more than two centuries has not hesitated to paralyze, sabotage or, in the case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy in order to get their way.

The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House are Midwesterners -- Minnesota's Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh of Illinois. But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read more, click here.

The Tea Party started with the Ron Paul grassroots, not Bachmann types. It's liberation in origin but more conservative now. It's not hard to find that out for yourself.

I think its true that Ron Paul supporters latched on to the Tea Party concept, and some people attracted to the Tea Party concept have latched on to him, I don't think its true that it "started" with Ron Paul "grassroots".  The structure, such that it exists, of the Tea Party movement comes from traditionally conservative groups like FreedomWorks rather than C4L.  Most of the Tea Party organizers I know around here are neutral on Paul, and some are downright hostile to him.

The Tea Party came from Ron Paul, and the C4L. Groups like Freedom Works, and the likes of Michelle Bachmann existed before 2009, as members of the mainstream religious right. The Tea Party has three main roots. Ron Paul, Rick Santelli, and later on, Glen Beck. Then it morphed into this social conservative, religious right monster it is today. Here in South Florida, I see more Israeli flags then American ones at them. Its all about protecting Israel now.  I am even starting to lose my favorable opinion of Allen West, and I intend to tell him that tomorrow at his townhall (politely of course, I still think he is OK,,)

[Zarn]

Once again, the roots are libertarian. You cannot say the Republican party's roots is the Patriot Act and the roots of the Democratic Party is the New Deal and be correct.

[courts]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.

But many people seem literally, offended by mentioning the phrase "states rights" or the 10th amendment in any context. Note I didn't mention federal programs anywhere in that post, just a state based approach to policy making on various hot button "social issues." You know the ones people like GWB, Perry, Bachmann, etc. are constantly bringing up at the federal level regardless of how irrelevant, minor or unlikely to be resolved (all the better!) they are compared to other concerns. You would think liberals would be more inclined to say those are state matters but I rarely see them even concede that.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.

But many people seem literally, offended by mentioning the phrase "states rights" or the 10th amendment in any context. Note I didn't mention federal programs anywhere in that post, just a state based approach to policy making on various hot button "social issues." You know the ones people like GWB, Perry, Bachmann, etc. are constantly bringing up at the federal level regardless of how irrelevant, minor or unlikely to be resolved (all the better!) they are compared to other concerns. You would think liberals would be more inclined to say those are state matters but I rarely see them even concede that.

Consider how state's rights and the 10th amendment are usually used and you'll understand why liberals have knee jerk reactions against those words.

Well I don't believe that they are state matters because I don't really believe in federalism personally. That doesn't mean I want an entirely unitary state but I don't support federalism in the American sense where states get to determine civil rights, immigration policy and education policy on their own.

I certainly support getting rid of DOMA but I'd much rather there be a federal decision on gay marriage rather than wait decades for trashheaps like Utah and West Virginia to institute it on their own.