Why was the Civil War South called "the Chivalry"

Southern chivalry explained  

"Confederate apologia additionally flourished during the Golden Age of Fraternalism that manifested in large part in the universities of the South" . . .

"Southern chivalry, or the Cavalier myth, was a popular concept describing the aristocratic honor culture of the Southern United States during the Antebellum, Civil War, and early Postbellum eras. The archetype of a Southern gentleman became popular as a chivalric ideal of the slave owning planter class, emphasizing both familial and personal honor in addition to the ability to defend either by force if necessary. Southern chivalry is today seen as an attempt to justify the racist and patriarchal stratification of Southern society, with the goal of maintaining or legitimizing the human rights abuses of American slavery.^[1] [2]

Prior to the Civil War this concept of a gentleman's honor was frequently used as a basis for duels and other forms of extrajudicial violence, most notably the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks, and contributed to the militarization of the South by encouraging young men to be taught at military schools.

By the later Antebellum era, the term had taken on an ironic meaning for Northerners and abolitionists, among whom it was used as a pejorative to describe what was perceived as the barbarism of Southern slave owners and their hostility and duplicity in dealing with the North, as was particularly seen in various political caricatures before and during the war.

In the modern era the romanticization of Southern chivalry became a core aspect of the Lost Cause myth, which portrays the as a morally and culturally superior civilization defending its honor against a materialistic and immoral North." . . . More...

The Plantation & Chivalry [ushistory.org]   . . . "A proper gentleman, it was believed, should be a lawyer, politician, planter, or military man, rather than be a businessman or other occupation. Because plantation owners had their money tied up in property and slaves, many of the generation could not afford to send their children to prestigious colleges, but were able to send them to the esteemed military schools. This created a generation of very able and talented military officers. Many were trained at West Point and Virginia Military Institute. They held to old-fashioned ideals of what honorable warfare meant. When the Civil War arrived, most of the military leadership talent was southern."

Ergo, history tells us how the Confederacy had better leaders who I have to guess were only overcome by the larger and better equipped Northern armies. TD

Meet America’s New Un-Americans… the DSA

 The American Spectator   

Barack Obama was devious enough not to give details when he called for a “fundamental transformation” of the United States of America. But these people? They’re not hiding anything. They’re sharing their vision in media interviews with stunned reporters (including CNN reporters) and with slick pamphlets posted online with full transparency.

"An all-time favorite whipping boy of the American Left is the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Most readers wouldn’t recognize the group by its proper acronym — HCUAA — but they certainly know the Left’s reordered, twisted acronym: the dread “HUAC.” That translates to the “House Un-American Committee.” Improperly rendered, yes, but the label has stuck. You can succeed at such propaganda when your ideology pervades the media, Hollywood, academia, the culture — what we at The American Spectator have long called the Kultursmog.

"Note the cynical repackaging of the committee and its mission: The Left, and especially far-left communist organs such as the Daily Worker, attempted to recast this important committee of the U.S. House of Representatives as un-American itself. That was a rather audacious move by the comrades, given who they were, and what the committee was not. The fact is that HCUAA had been run by Democrats and Republicans alike throughout its existence — by solid, bipartisan congressmen. The Democrat chairs of the House Committee on Un-American Activities ran from Rep. Martin Dies (D-TX) in the 1930s, to Rep. Francis Walter (D-PA), to Rep. Richard Ichord (D-MO) in the 1970s.

"No, dear progressive snowflake, “HUAC” wasn’t run by villainous Republican Joe McCarthy. Senator McCarthy was, uh, in the Senate — where, incidentally, he was often joined by stalwart anti-communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Pat McCarran of Nevada, James Eastland of Mississippi, and Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, the latter two being anti-communist pillars on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and chair and vice chair of the outstanding Subcommittee on Internal Security. Those guys exposed countless self-proclaimed “progressives” as in fact closet communists. For this, they have never been forgiven by the Left and forever vilified by liberal historians.

"Nonetheless, the task of “HUAC” was a noble one. It was charged with investigating extremist elements within the United States, whether they be fascists, communists, American sympathizers of Nazis (the German-American Bund), or American Bolsheviks. The committee members were tasked with defending America, and they thus wanted to know whether certain fifth-column elements were working to subvert the system from within. The American Left, of course, had no problem when the reviled “HUAC” was investigating closet Nazis, but as soon as the committee set its sights on Soviet supporters, well — hell’s bells — that was downright un-American!" . . .

If You Hate America, Why Don't You Leave?

 "Although there are some Americans who make dramatic statements about expelling them, is that the kind of image we want to portray to the rest of the world about how we respect human rights?"

"For years, I’ve tried to understand the growing rancor between the Muslim community and the American population. It seems there is never a time when the two groups have lived comfortably with each other. And in these times of Muslims also becoming part of our political community, of the strife in the Middle East, and the ongoing conflicts in Muslim-majority countries, there is no sign of relationships improving.

"Although some Muslims have migrated here and have made satisfying lives for themselves, a large number of Muslims are dissatisfied or uncomfortable with their new home. It has been helpful to try to understand the mindset of these Muslims and then explore the implications of their beliefs and commitments.

"Muslims and native-born Americans have fascinating and different explanations for the Muslim dislike of the U.S. If you ask Muslims, many of them will say that their reactions are due to the recent steps that the Trump administration has taken against Muslims in this country and around the world: . . .

"Son of a Hamas founder, Mosab Hassan Yousef, warns what is to come for America if we do not fight for our values."

El-Sayed: KISS And Tell

"Having suffered the lash of Islam in Iran, Amirizadeh undoubtedly harbors deep concerns over a candidate who openly admits everything he does in life is to honor Islam."

James Zumwalt - American Thinker     "Last week was interesting for anyone concerned about Islam’s growing influence in America.

"Recently revealed were the 2009 remarks made by Michigan US Senate nominee, Democrat and avowed Muslim, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.  He reportedly shared that, while in medical school, he chose to obtain a loan that was compliant with Islamic law—Sharia. In fact, he proclaimed that, as a Muslim, he would always follow Sharia in “everything” he ever sought to do.

"Some may dismiss these remarks, made 17 years ago, as those of a man simply dedicated deeply to his religion—one he embraces totally separate from his political views and life in general. However, such a dismissal would be a big mistake for Michigan voters in the upcoming election.

"While U.S. legislators embracing Christianity and most other religions do leave their religion at the door to represent their constituency on matters concerning their well-being, Muslims dedicated to their “religion” do not—and cannot. There is no issue amongst non-Muslim legislators complying with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment mandate prohibiting the establishment of a national religion and protecting the free exercise of religion; but for Muslim legislators, there is.

"The above mandate gives rise to the philosophical and jurisprudential concept that there can be no state-mandated religion—i.e., “separation of church and state.” But, what if such separation is impossible because one has declared his total commitment to a religion that disallows such a separation?" . . .    

. . . "For the record, El-Sayed could well give false testimony in response. Such is permissible under Islam. While honesty is supposedly honored, three situations allow Muslims to lie. These include lying to resolve a situation between two individuals, to a spouse in order to please her, and to be deceptive about an ongoing war. Clearly, as Islam’s ultimate goal is the submission of all religions to it, such a war between Islam and all other religions is in progress" . . .

Abdul El-Sayed’s mom worked for 'global terrorist' group accused of funding bin Laden, Hamas and Taliban: report