|
Roughly 1800-1860. Both books were written for the same time period but the first was based on the frontier from Pennsylvania and New York to the Upper Mississippi River Valley. The second book was on the settlement of the Southern Frontier in what we call the American South. The fighting with the Indians etc is re-stated in these books but a difference can be see how both frontiers were settled. North of the Ohio emphasis was on the Community, for the benefit of everyone. The author went into details regarding the Connecticut agreement where by a Statute passed by the State of Connecticut the Presbyterian and Methodist churches would merge on the frontier into one Church until such time as both churches had enough members to become separate churches. The Statute went into who was to be on the Church Council and who was to be the minister (The majority on the board had to be of the opposite religion as the Minister).
Now today the idea that a STATE (Connecticut) would set up a system regulating two religions would be a violation of Church and State but the people of the Frontier took this statute and used it throughout Ohio, Indians, Michigan Illinois Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and the rest of the Northern Mid-West. Why? Because the Church was NOT only a place of worship it was a place for people to meet, to act as a Community. This is the tradition that the first thing built in a new town was the town Church. The Church was the center of the town, it was where people went to hear the latest news, to hear what the local store had in stock, to see how their neighbor were doing (both good and bad). The town would built itself around the church, as the town grew the church-members increased. Finally you had enough Methodists and Presbyterians to have their own church and the Church split. Thus in many northern small Cities you see two Churches on the town square. But even after the split it was NOT uncommon for members of both Churches (and other town people) to attend meetings in these churches. The emphasis was on keeping alive in everyone in the Community of the sense of Community.
In the Southern Frontier you do not see this sense of Community. It is notice by its absence. You have nothing like the Connecticut agreement as to two groups working together for a time period. The emphasis was on grabbing land and raising Cotton. You had no sense of Community (Through the Militia lasted longer in the South, but it was mandated attendance and tied in with the Judaical System and to keep the Slaves in their place as opposed to people getting together to do something better for the community. The Militia was more "YOU MUST" as opposed to "WE HAVE TO").
The author of these two book had a difficult time showing how difference the two regions were AFTER THE INDIANS WERE NO LONGER A THREAT (about 1820). In the South the emphasis was on how to get rid of the Indians so we could take their land, while in the North is was on how each new community improved.
This split can be seen in the Western Movies. In Mel Brooks Blazing Saddles he had his hero state "You do this for Randolph Scott". I laughed at the line even through I had not seen a Randolph Scott Western in years. I recently had the opportunity to watch some of them. I compare them to John Wayne Westerns and you can see a this same difference in THEME. In John Wayne, John Wayne is the Hero, without him the good guys will lose. He is the typical Southern depiction of the lone hero, who fights for what HE BELIEVES IN.
Randolph Scott's western are fundamentally different. He is still the hero, often fighting for what he believes in, but he is not the lone hero. In Scott's westerns he is more the pivot point of the story. He may be what cause the bad guys to reveal themselves, he maybe the lead against the bad guy, but he is NOT the critical player, no one is for that is reserved to the community. The story is NOT about what he did but what he and the people of his community does. The community is emphasized again. You really see this once Randolph Scott starts making his own westerns in the late 1940s. Scott plays the ordinary man who is the pivot point for the rest of the characters to act for the best interest of their community. In effect Community over self unlike John Wayne Self over Community.
The few times I have watched Deadwood (and only in parts I must admit) I see that John Wayne as in "I am the hero", "I will win the day and for that reason I should get all of the Glory and the Cash (along with any women who might be around)". Doing something for the benefit of the Community (even if it is building a church, a Cemetery, even a hospital) is something a Southern Hero does not do (or if he does do it not part of his self-image).
You see this today in the North's greater willingness to pay taxes for local projects. Mollie Ivins a few months ago mentioned a trip she took with some fellow Texans to Minnesota and all they talked about was the nice the parks and other public amenities of Minnesota were, wonder why Texas had nothing like them, complained about the "high" taxes of Minnesota and then never connect the high taxes with the public amenities. This is the fundamental difference between the North and the South since the settlement of the Frontier. Along the Ohio you get a little bit of BOTH traditions but as you go north the demands that you be a part of your Community and help your community becomes more and more the norm. In the South the opposite sets in, you become less and less tied in with your community and more tied in with what is best for you.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
