>Average Northern Founding Father:>"Hmmm I'm quite skeptical of popular government and revolutions and think a moderate elite controlled government staffed by educated elites is best for us, perhaps even a constitutional monarchy. Also we don't like Anglicans or Catholics.">Emancipates slaves, gives voting rights to most men in the state, states provide pretty much closest thing to racial equality you can get in the 1800s New World, evolve into most secular and religiously mute societies>Average Southerner Founding Father:>"FUCK KINGS, FUCK ESTABLISHED STATE RELIGION, AND FUCK BIG BUSINESS BANKS. We're for the little guy and armed rebellion against unjust tyrannies!">Proceeds to go back to his plantation aptly named "Mount I Rape Chocolate Pussy" in rural Virginia/Carolinas, supports legislation to enslave any negro who looks at him sideways, keeps 90% of the free white male population disenfranchised and illiterate, states evolve into hotbed of religious zealotry and intoleranceGenuinely what the fuck explains this phenomen
>>18692602They did get one thing right, dark hell-spawned demons aren't children of God and deserve no rights.
>>18692602>evolve into most secular and religiously mute societiesThe 1800's North is not the evolution of an existing demographic group. It has been thoroughly replaced on both religious and ethnic ground. An 1800's Northerner's identity had a closer proximity with an 1800's Southerner than with a 20th-century Northerner. And the funny thing this probably still extends to material grounds as well. When it comes to industrial vs. agrarian dynamics, the 1800's Northerner was closer to the Southerner than to a current-day Northerner, and the same pattern applies when it comes to urbanism vs. ruralism. Abraham Lincoln detested full-time employment and idealized homesteading as the ideal lifestyle. Anecdotal perhaps, but it encapsulates the big-picture dynamics. The financial/industrial penetration into the general economy was nowhere near what we are used to in the modern United States, and given what we know time and time about slippery slopes, I'd say it's highly unlikely that an 1800's Northerners would approve of the current state. All I intend to say with this is if you tried to incorporate sectionalism onto the current-day United States, you'll find the 1800's North and South would be on the same side.
>>18692630But by the standards of the era, the 1800s North already was a beacon of fairly "out there" religious ideas that would be called heresy even in Europe's most secular corners. Something like Unitarianism (which John Quincy Adams, the ultimate embodiment of Massachusetts Brahmins) would be sacrilege to most Christians
>>18692640>by the standard of the eraAlways the key phrase. Everyone is well aware that threads like this are meant to project current dynamics onto the past. They portray these past dynamics as a seed from which the current plant evolved. But in reality they were more of an egg from which the current dynamics hatched; without the egg there would be no animal, but the animal is now independent from the egg. There is no resemblance between the current division and the one of the 1800's. Quite literaly different demographics are involved, and just happen to occupy the same geography. The bottom line is still this: Place the 1800's North and South onto the current-day dynamics, and they're be on the same side.
>>18692630The mid 19th century north (from which all the stereotypes come from) was very much not ethnically replaced. If the immigrants hadn't come the Northwest U.S would probably have an even more acute reputation, not less.And desu the south is only a tad more rural than the Northeast is today. There isn't a close analogue to how they lived. The median farmer today is a wealthy business owner, for example.
>>18692683What I meant is that the North has since been replaced, not that it was already replaced in the 1800's - though the process had begun.>If the immigrants hadn't come the Northwest U.S would probably have an even more acute reputation, not less.Well duh. The reputation was relative, when compared to foreigners the Northerners and Southerners were not that different. >There isn't a close analogue to how they livedThe point is that the 1800's North and South were more proximate to each other than the North was to the current-day United States, which makes politically-charged threads like this, which obviously intend to project current conflicts onto the past, extremely retarded.
>>18692608Based dark hell-spawned demons poster
Southerners had the right idea about black chicks.
The Civil War happened in the end because the two sections of the country had diverged enough by 1860 that they were becoming two completely different societies. The North was becoming industrialized and overrun with immigrants while the South remained agrarian and mostly of founding Anglo stock.
>>18692708If Sally Hemmings looked like that then yeah I'd be going ZAYUMN HUMAHUMANA too. I feel ya, Tom!
