Posted on 08/13/2007 10:27:22 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
Commentary: The Red State-Slave State Connection is all too Real Commentary: The Red State-Slave State Connection is all too Real Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 By:
Last week while I was up at Harvard University meeting with black columnists from around the country, including several of my BlackAmericaWeb.com colleagues, Michael Dawson took me to school with his map that shows the overlap between Republican red states and the old Confederacy and slave-friendly territories. Dawson is a professor of government and Afro-American studies who specializes in the ways that race and politics intersect.
I was sold. His map spoke to the things you can’t help but notice when you live in a red state like Alabama – especially if you’re black.
Things like pickup trucks with gun racks and Confederate flag bumper stickers. White teens wearing the Confederate flag on their T-shirts. Statues memorializing old Confederate leaders like Nathan Bedford Forrest. Commemorations of the Confederate dead by state officials, especially speeches in which they maintain that the Civil War – or, as some of them might say, the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression – was fought over state’s rights, not slavery. And predominantly, the people who espouse these things in the red states are white Republicans.
Because Dawson’s map rings so true to me, I expected to hear Alabama’s lone black congressman, Artur Davis of Birmingham, echo his sentiments. “I’m not persuaded by that analysis,” said Davis, a Democrat, during our phone interview last week.
My jaw dropped. Davis is a sharp brother, himself a Harvard grad, who has been dedicated to addressing issues affecting poor blacks in our state. I just knew he’d agree with the map analysis.
Sure, race still influences our politics, Davis explained. However, he believes that cultural conservatism, not race, is the pivotal issue in red states.
“We’ve got to find a way to talk to fiscally and culturally conservative values,” he said. “We have to find a way to move to the center.”
And for Davis, that means that his fellow Democrats and their progressive supporters should move away from advocating for gay marriage, for example. “Americans are opposed to discrimination against homosexuals,” he said. “Where people part company is on the very specific institution of marriage.”
Davis would rather see his party advocate for tolerance of gays. Thurgood Marshall didn’t go to court to argue for lifting the ban on interracial marriage but against separate and unequal schools.
With states erecting gay marriage bans like Christmas trees and a U.S. Supreme Court that is bound to get more conservative in the next four years, Davis wants Democrats and progressives to be pragmatic.
“The black community had to pick and choose its battles,” Davis said. “The gay community will have to do the same.”
Davis’ point of view has merit, though it sounds like the “slow down” argument Dr. King and other civil rights leaders used to hear from black and white leaders advocating caution on civil rights. Still, his analysis of the red state mentality is very accurate and deserves consideration, even though it’s incomplete.
Alabamans just elected a candidate to our state Supreme Court who openly cavorts with rebel flag-waving neo-Confederates. And in 2000, the final vote to remove a ban on interracial marriage from our state constitution – a ban which had been rendered null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court 33 years before – broke down to a shamefully close 60 percent to 40 percent. That’s barely passing in my book, especially since removing it was supposed to be our opportunity to showcase a new Alabama. Maybe we could, if we could ever get rid of the old Alabama.
One of my neighbors, who had barely spoken to me, one day knocked on my door and asked me to help him unload a new couch and love seat from his truck. He’s a young white guy with an ex-military look: close-cut hair, muscular and all tattooed up.
We got the couch off first and struggled to get it through his narrow front door. I could see a giant U.S. flag and an Alabama state flag tacked up on his wall.
That’s nice, I thought. Then I looked to my left and saw his Confederate flag, also on the wall.
What the hell?
Due respect to Congressman Davis, but my neighbor and I are separated by more than cultural conservatism. After seeing that flag on his wall, I didn’t have to ask him about his politics or for whom he was voting. It told me all I needed to know.
He must be a young Black man...because an older Black man here in Alabama would know that there were *lots* more Confederate flags being flown here in 1967 than in 2007...and Alabama was 100% Democratic Party in 1967.
For that matter, a breakdown of Confederate flag-waivers in Red States would be close to 50-50 Democrat/GOP (or perhaps even trend more to Democrats).
George Wallace was a Democrat, after all. So was Bull Conner.
...And that's what so many young Black men don't know, that Bull Conner was a Democrat and that they have joined the Slavery Party.
One more question: Where did this alleged massacre of your family take place?
Gov. Haley Barbour has declared April Confederate Heritage month in Mississippi
To: Petronskiin the short run, you may be correct about #4. i don't believe that i will live to actually see dixie freedom, but my 13YO neice will bask in dixie LIBERTY. (if you think i'm a radical, you oughta talk to her. her name is TARA & she is scarlett o'hara through & through!)...
everything beside that has failed more than not and been very destructive even to those it purported to help
What a complete waste of a social security number, let alone a Harvard education....
SORRY, but NOBODY believes you any more, LIAR. you are RUINED.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
Go on, tell us about that Thanksgiving, or the synagogue, or any of the other ridiculously stupid lies you’ve told us. Maybe you’ve got one about how Sherman’s men rode unicorns. So where was that alleged massacre of your family again? Think carefully, because you’ve placed it in two different states in various posts. And you’ve said that it lasted two, three, and four days at different times. Must be tough to keep your stories straight. And when was “Yachts Against Subs” published again? You’ve given several dates for that one.
face it, "lying-Bubba", you are NOT believed by anyone that i know of on FR.
btw, should we address you as "bubba, the liar" OR "heyworthLESS the BANNED hater/bigot/fool"??? are you either one or neither????
you've lied so often and about so many things on this forum that i wonder if you know who/what you are.
laughing AT you.free dixie,sw
I can’t answer for all conservatives on this website.
In "the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" (2007) author Kevin Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. wrote:
"In Texas v. White the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution "looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states," and ruled that in fact Texas had never seceded, and that Texans had been wrong to think otherwise. The ruling was five to three, with the majority decision issued by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, a former Lincoln cabinet member (who arguably should have recused himself) whose logic was less than convincing. Its constitutional basis was in Article IV's statement that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Allegedly this proved that the Constitution supposed "an indestructible Union." The Latin phrase for such decisions is ipse dixit: asserted but not proved."
--------------------------------------------------------
My Comments: How else could the Supreme Court rule? If they ruled otherwise the people would realize that the Lincoln regime fought an illegal war. Ergo their husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and others were killed and maimed because of the illegal acts of aggression by their elected leaders. Hence the Republican party would not hold any elected office for the foreseeable future and could have easily spelled the demise of the party. It's even possible that civil unrest could even have taken down the government!
How else could the Supreme Court rule?
i hear that....i can't even answer for all conservatives in my family....but I try ;>)
The black guy was offended by the white neighbors Confederate Flag, but never though about the neighbor’s ease and willingness to engage in everyday normal activity with someone different than himself.
I think the author identified himself as a racist by his offense.
further, i do NOT believe that there IS any "Ms Bankhead." admit it, "bubba, the LIAR", you made that up too, didn't you??? i believe that person is just as IMAGINARY as all the other FOOLISH lies you've so often told about so many subjects.
frankly, i think you are really "modermnman", who was banned for being a LIAR/ HATER/BIGOT & for "cyberstalking" members of FR. your NONSENSE , fraudulent postings & PARANOID fantasies about someone/anyone/everyone "making up things" about you "gives you away", as it sounds just like his PARANOIA.
btw, when are you LEAVING the FR forum, never to return??? ("clown posse", DU & the IDIOTS at the A.N.S.W.E.R websites await your arrival.)
the frank TRUTH is that nobody here (except me) will post to you, as your reputation is that of a LIAR/FOOL/NITWIT/BIGOT, so you might as well leave. (all you will get from me from this point on is RIDICULE & constant reminders of your DISHONESTY.)
laughing AT you!
free dixie,sw
it's the HATERS & the ARROGANT leftists that "speak for " EVERYBODY! (the hilleryBEAST & chuckie schumer come to mind.
free dixie,sw
she said the other night, on a cable news channel (i think it was MSNBC), "speaking for the people of this nation i know that-------".
that sort of ARROGANCE is plenty of reason for her to LEAVE "public service".
free dixie,sw
TYRANTS do that sort of thing.
free dixie,sw
So where did that alleged massacre of your family take place? Because I can put up old posts of yours claiming it to have happened in two different states.
Perhaps it is lost on this black Democrat that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery?!
That's just the resolution and not the actual terms of agreement.
Finally, here's a link to the Ordinance of Annexation Approved by the Texas Convention on July 4, 1845. No sign of your "free to secede any time" claim there, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.