Notes
165 Notes Introduction 1. Jonsson, “Battle over the Past.” 2. Killian, White Southerners, xii, 3, 10, 11. 3. Reed, Southerners, 11, 15, 41, 83–84. 4. Ibid., 90; Reed, One South, 118; Potter, South in the Sectional Conflict, 15–16; Smiley, “Quest for the Central Theme,” 325. 5. Cash, Mind of the South, xlviii; Weaver, Southern Tradition, 394–95. 6. Woodward, “Search for Southern Identity,” 12. 7. Jonsson, “Battle over the Past.” 8. Cash, Mind of the South, xlvii; Potter, South in the Sectional Conflict, 4; Smiley, “Quest for the Central Theme,” 307; Cobb, Away Down South, 336–37. 9. Phillips, “Central Theme,” 43 (“Until an issue shall arise predominant over the lingering one of race, political solidarity at the price of provincial status is maintained to keep assurance doubly, trebly sure that the South shall remain ‘a white man’s country’”); Twelve Southerners, I’ll Take My Stand, xix. 10. Potter, South in the Sectional Conflict, 15–16 (“An explanation of the South in terms of a folk culture would not have the ideological implications which have made the explanation in terms of agrarianism so tempting and at the same time so treacherous. But on the other hand, it would not be inconsistent with some of the realities of Southern society, such as biracialism and hierarchy, whereas agrarianism is inconsistent with these realities”). 11. Weaver, Southern Tradition, 391; Weaver, Southern Essays, 208 (“Belief in tragedy is essentially un-American. . . . If we are in for a time of darkness and trouble, the Southern philosophy , because it is not based upon optimism, will have better power to console than the national dogmas”). 12. Woodward, “Search for Southern Identity,” 17–25. 13. Degler, Place over Time, 127, 104–5, 125. 14. Rubin, “The Boll Weevil, the Iron Horse, and the End of the Line: Thoughts on the South,” in American South, 366–67. 15. Weaver, Southern Tradition, 36. 16. Peterson, Great Triumvirate, 449–76. 17. Cooper and Terrill, American South, 294, 523, 527. 18. Foster, “Lost Cause,” 1134. 19. Burke, On Symbols and Society, 70, 69 (“King and peasant are ‘mysteries’ to one another . Those ‘Up’ are guilty of not being ‘Down,’ those ‘Down’ are certainly guilty of not being ‘Up.’”); Burke, Language as Symbolic Action, 18. 20. Burke, On Symbols and Society, 190, 181–82, 180. 21. Burke, Permanence and Change, 74, 94, 112–13, 163; Burke, On Symbols and Society , 70. 22. Burke, On Symbols and Society, 180. 166 Notes 23. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 141; Burke, On Symbols and Society, 248, 247; Burke, Rhetoric of Motives, 53. 24. Gregory Clark, Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation, 19–20, 21. Clark provides a helpful distinction between dialogue and dialectic: “the term dialogue can be used to describe any exchange of assertions and responses, whereas the term dialectic is used to describe a particular kind of dialogue, one sustained exclusively for the purpose of constructing and revising knowledge that its participants can share. Whether the discourse that contributes to dialogue is dialectical or eristic depends upon the purposes that propel it” (19–20; italics added). Clark also clarifies the difference between eristic rhetoric, which “trains us in the art of authoritative statement,” and dialectical rhetoric, which “guides us in the process of coming to agreement ” (21; emphasis added). 25. Ibid., 71 (emphasis added). Chapter 1 1. Weaver, Southern Tradition, 394. 2. Hamel, Smith, and Sullivan, “Partisan Conversation,” 42; Norman, “Crashing VMI’s Line,” 39, 38, 40. 3. Hetter, “End of an All-Male Era,” 50–51; Karen Johnson, “Statement of NOW National Secretary”; Gandy, “NOW Leaders.” 4. Burke, Rhetoric of Motives, 122. Class as used here and in similar references in this chapter does not refer to class in the economic sense but rather to “a set, collection, group, or configuration containing members having or thought to have at least one attribute in common . . . [s]ocial rank or caste” (“Class,” in Morris, American Heritage Dictionary, 278). 5. Carlyle asks, “Is it not to Clothes that most men do reverence?” (Burke, Rhetoric of Motives, 118). Burke later quotes Carlyle as stating, “Clothes gave us individuality, distinctions, social polity” and as noting “the moral, political, and even Religious influences of Clothes” as well as that people are “clothed with Authority” (119). 6. Ibid., 121; United States v. Virginia et al. 7. As Burke explains, “mystery is equated with class distinctions” because there is a “mystifying condition in social inequality,” “a relation between mystification and class relationships ” (Rhetoric of Motives, 122...
OR
