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.
N-S, UNLIKE the vast majority of your cohorts of the "DAMNyankee coven of idiots, REVISIONISTS, creeps, LUNATICS, haters, BIGOTS & at least one racist", you are NOT stupid and/or ignorant. instead, you constantly try to defend the indefensible.
thus that you KNOW that your thesis is weak & INDEFENSIBLE.
PITY that you aren't on "the side of the angels".
free dixie,sw
PITY that you're so blinded by PREJUDICE that you don't know that you are constantly laughed AT.
free dixie,sw
I have been unable to find any language supporting your claim in the Constitution, and I have been looking for years.
Kevin Gutzman wrote in "the Politically Incorrect guide to the Constitution" (2007) the following regarding secession:
"Initially, many northerners conceded the validity of secession. In fact, some abolitionists had been calling for northern secession for years. In Congress, several Congressmen from northern states proposed amendments to limit the right of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed.
Yet, in his inaugural address, Lincoln called secession an impossibility. Representative Otis S Ferry of Connecticut must hate been surprised at this, as he had only weeks before proposed an amendment to the Constitution forbidding secession without the consent of Congress, the president, and the other states. Still Lincoln said that states could not secede."
Dr. Gutzman also quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas as saying "At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections".
Wow, quite a statement from a S.C. Justice! Well, at least he's honest.
In Texas v. White I suspect the quote from Justice Douglas was in full force for those in the majority. Gosh their very jobs could have depended on the decision. Interestingly, 3 Justices held the minority opinion in the Texas v. White case!
And the problem with that is ?
The writer shows more of his own bias than that of his neighbor.
Look a little harder. States are admitted to the Union only with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed in, states cannot combine or split without consent of Congress. They cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Why is it so hard to expect that leaving shouldn't require consent of Congress as well.
States cannot take any actions that might impact the interests of the other states without consent of Congress. They are forbidden from acting in such a manner unilaterally. Why should that restriction be dropped merely because they wanted to leave?
"Initially, many northerners conceded the validity of secession. In fact, some abolitionists had been calling for northern secession for years. In Congress, several Congressmen from northern states proposed amendments to limit the right of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed.
James Madison, who wrote the Constitution and knew a thing or two about it, said unilateral secession was not allowed. Why is he wrong?
Dr. Gutzman also quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas as saying "At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections".
And your point is?
In Texas v. White I suspect the quote from Justice Douglas was in full force for those in the majority. Gosh their very jobs could have depended on the decision. Interestingly, 3 Justices held the minority opinion in the Texas v. White case!
So? Five held for the majority.
See the 3rd quote on my FR home page, the two paragraph one by Hayek. I think it more than somewhat applies here.
Maryland was full of Copperheads, and would have rebelled/seceded if the Union Army hadn’t been sitting on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)#Maryland
may i suggest that you look for a LEGITIMATE source document???
had lincoln, the TYRANT chosen PEACE with the new southern republic, rather than CHOSEN war, a MILLION Americans would not have died for NOTHING.
free dixie,sw
Western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee would have remained in the Union had local authorities not been sitting on them. And then there was western Virginia.
Whatever, bud.
Why don’t you start your secession tomorrow? Let us know how that goes.
it is FILLED with common gossip, conspiracy theories, utter nonsense, KNOWING lies & is frequently just plain WRONG on the FACTS.
free dixie,sw
"enemies of the union" frequently were jailed,assaulted or just "mysteriously disappeared".
war criminals like stanton & the RADICAL Republicans would NOT have "sat still for" any other decision, especially a decision that stated that secession was lawful & that the war against the new dixie republic was UNlawful.
free dixie,sw
None. Lincoln had been dead for 4 years. It was the Johnson administration.
free dixie,sw
Why don't these people ever seem to post publicly? Are they cowards, or figments of your imagination, just like the El Paso thanksgiving on or before 1520, the Alexandria synagogue burning, and "Yachts Against Subs"?
The author failed to note (as did his Harvard-educated ‘sharp brother’, apparently) that those red states of the Old South were (D) from the Civil War up until ~20 years ago...
Yep, the only thing this article confirms is an education at Harvard is apparently way overrated.
Not to mention the shift of population from the North to the South for its overall climate.
And finally, its telling he doesn’t mention the party affiliation of those that erected the statue of say, Bedford Forrest.
Let alone note which party filibustered the Civil Rights Act (Democrats) and which party finally got it passed (Republicans).
Whereas anyone who quotes a book that doesn't appear to exist (like "Yachts Against Subs," "Sudden Death on the Bay" and "The Annals of Old Missouri") is beyond criticism, right?
Now, do you have any factual complaint with the statement that Maryland was full of Copperheads in 1861 and would have seceded if the Union army hadn't been sitting on them? Is wikipedia wrong in this case?
So, in what state did that massacre of 92 of your family members take place? Think carefully, now.
there's an old saying about "lying down with dogs & getting up with fleas" that may also apply.
frankly, NOTHING you post is worth reading, but i enjoy RIDICULING a KNOWN LIAR & a south-HATER.
btw, when are you DEPARTING the forum forever, so that you can be with "your buddies" on DU, who USED to be FReepers, before they got BANNED for the same sort of thing that YOU got yourself BANNED for???
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
So, I’ll take that as an admission that you’re unable to answer any of the questions, that wikipedia is wrong and that Maryland wouldn’t have seceded if the United States army hadn’t been there, and that you made up your story about 92 of your relatives (or was it 82—you’ve used that number, too) being massacred by Union cavalry from Illinois and Wisconsin. Or was it Illinois and Ohio? That seems to shift in the telling as well.
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.