The Red State-Slave State Connection is all too Real

[lonewolf0507]

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/slavestate1115


The Red State-Slave State Connection is all too Real

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.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. pictorially speaking

[Yupster]

22. If the Confederacy would have

had that map in 1861, they would have easily won the war.

[Syncronaut Seven]

2. Told my psychologist 3 years ago about the pending civil war.

When He asked me who the players would be I said "the new southern confederacy" VS urban America, straight up.

He laughed & told me that was a most unlikely scenario. I don't see him anymore, I wonder if his opinion has changed.

I've seen it coming for a long time, even traveled in the south on business. My opinion of the south, based on personal observations is that there are a lot of folks down there still fighting the last civil war.

Racism and denial is built in to nearly every social aspect of there lives.

It took me awhile to realize that southern blacks were a friendly and congenial group. I couldn't see it at first because, as a very big white male, I found that black folk would hardly even make eye contact.

After I worked extremely hard to chat up a waitress she clued me in. It seems that direct eye contact between black & white is considered disrespectful & she could have lost her job over it.

This was in Birmingham but I found it to be the case in other southern locales as well.

Quite a shock to this Caucasian, Born and raised in the west, I truly wanted to believe we had gotten past all this. Not so.

The shame I feel is that much more acute than just a month ago.

I agree with your analysis, and that of your colleagues. I'm sorry, THIS JUST SUCKS!

[amber dog democrat]

3. Color me blue

even though I live in Texas. I refuse to be a part of a new Southern Confederacy it if could ever come to this. I think your analogy is very interesting.
If due to oil scarcity this country is no longer viable. all bets are off as to what might happen,

[Syncronaut Seven]

5. Blue it is!

:7 I never thought the country could simply become un-viable.

Entropy? Or at least a lower order of energy supply possibly might cut the ties more surely than bullets could.

Something's gotta give soon, I think rural southerners just love their boy king too much.

[amber dog democrat]

8. Well anyone wanna be the Duke of Travis County

or the Lord of Kansas City Mo? The way I see it we could head pretty quickly into a new dark age. the run down would not take all that long to happen since everything depends on fossil fuel.

[RPM]

9. yep - the current mess is a distraction

they don't want us thinking about Peak Oil at all...

[amber dog democrat]

11. This is serious stuff.

I just hope you have some smart and resourceful friends you can join up with.
I am thinking you are going to need them. I wonder how much time we have?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Yes taht map is amazing

and when I first saw it I did a double take

The old confederacy has risen from the ashes and it is time for all of us to realize this

We are indeed dealing with neo confededares once again, and sorry if this sound insulting but rice is the equivalent of the house negro... at so many levels it is NOT EVEN FUNNY.

[Lone Pawn]

20. Rice and Powell

eom

[Ernesto]

6. Ever hear of Nixon's "Southern Strategy"

We're livin' it now. Remember folks, 'merican "heritage" is "code" for segregation....... st. ronnie used it, chimp uses it, & it's going to take generations for white southerners to get over what "we libruls did to them" in the name civil rights.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Okay, here goes ...

This is a shallow analysis because it focuses on one aspect of what defines the so-called "red" states, doing so using the worst method possible to distinguish between varieties of opinion and belief, a binary "all or nothing" visual representation. It is a dangerous analysis because it allows one to subconsciously justify withdrawal from trying to reach or help the people in the red states, particularly the millions of minorities and poor people that live in them and are effectively disfranchised. It is an ahistorical analysis because several of the territories that were "open" to slavery had few or no slaves in them, and the people who lived there were not predominantly supportive of the slave power itself. It is a flawed analysis for all these reasons and several more, including the basic fact that the issues that drove a wedge between North and South today are not fundamentally based on so-called States' rights" or individual property ownership, the latter being the blanket issue that Southerners in the 19th century used to try to shroud the amoral position they held from the rest of the world. Aside from the issues of race, today's Republicans would be very much at odds with the Democrats of the 1850's and 60's as well. Again excepting race, the philosophies espoused by these parties have diametrically opposed positions with regard to the nature and power of a central government.

The similarities lie in the basic issue of a cultural divide, but that issue in and of itself is extremely complicated with many layers to it. The comparison breaks down immediately upon close inspection. I appreciate what an analysis like this is trying to say, but I think the flawed manner in which it is said distracts from the larger point because it ignores or sublimates those issues. Modern conservatives are not conservative by any reasonable definition of the word. They, particularly the corporatist and the religious fundamentalists, are radicals. Conservatives of the 1800's were true conservatives; they wanted to maintain the status quo with regard to their social and economic systems and not progress at all. Despite what some have said, these people today do not want to "roll back" the state of society. That image is merely packaging used to tug at the common person's heartstrings and lead one to support a position he or she doesn't understand. The people in power today want to move the nation forward into something new, a merging of the corporate state with a zealously religious undertone, sort of a combination of a fascist state fueled by a theocratic mentality. This was nothing like the divide that led to the Civil War.

Another major difference is that this mentality today is spreading. Even Massachusetts, New York, etc. had people who voted for and ardently support Bush, or more precisely the philosophy espoused by the neo-Conservative movement. By contrast, the slave system was rapidly falling out of favor outside those places where it had existed, and the rest of the country, the "blue" states of the day, had become firmly opposed to its spread. True that Democrats had supporters North and South, but the Democrats of the day were effectively split on the slavery issue, Northern Democrats wanting to leave it alone and Southern Democrats wanting it to spread. The Slave Power was becoming isolated. Today, the neo-Conservative power is gaining allies in the unlikeliest of places.

In short, we can't blame The South or the former Confederate states or even the former territories in which slaves were not legally prohibited. That kind of thinking attacks a small branch of a weed with a massive root system.

[Qanisqineq]

17. .

well thought out post. It is a much more complex issue than it appears and you pointed that out.

"It is an ahistorical analysis because several of the territories that were "open" to slavery had few or no slaves in them, and the people who lived there were not predominantly supportive of the slave power itself."

Thanks for pointing that out. I grew up in the northern great plains and I didn't see racism there like I saw in the south. I won't say there isn't any there because that would be a lie. There is racism EVERYWHERE. I've traveled all over the USA and in my job met people from all over, and there is racism everywhere.

[chicagiana]

23. Very little red and blue ...

There's just a WHOLE LOT of purple!!!!!

Seriously, we need to stop pigeon-holing the urban voter. Yes the fuaxndies are living in another century and are beyond persuasion. But large portions of those rural southern voters are perfectly amiable to reason.

Move to the center socially and to the left economically. Move back towards the politics that made Democrats so incredibly successfull for SOOO long.

Remember a swing voter is TWO votes ... NOT ONE. You gain a voter, the other guy looses one. Your "base" is just ONE VOTE because those folks are unlikely to vote for the other guy.

The Democratic party is adopting strategies that appeal to the WRONG folks. They are trying to hold sway in corporate America with a pro-WTO stance. Corporations give money, but they don't vote. And I'm 100% positive that Dr Gov Deans financing approach WILL WORK!!!!

Work to end NAFTA and WTO. Move to the center socially while retaining the core values of EQUAL TREATMENT by changing language to protect ALL WORKERS (including white males) AND SOCIAL GROUPS!!!! Take the air out of the conservative sails and plot a course that preserves your core values while bringing in the swing voters and the country will turn Democratic!!!!

[zmdem]

10. The Civil War was fought

because Lincoln did not want the CSA to go their own, independent way. Slavery was only brought into the issue several years after the north invaded the south, because Lincoln needed an issue to rally the north to his cause.

[Moloch]

13. The South Suceeded

Because it wanted to own slaves. Their whole economy depended on it.

The Confederacy=Racism

The two are interchangeable. This has always been so.

[zmdem]

14. I Don't disagree

But the orignal poster said the issue was states rights, not slavery.

As to the economy, the north also benefited from slavery in the south.

[cattleman22]

25. Unfortunately, at the time CSA = racism and the USA = racism

[Must_B_Free]

15. What about Uncle Toms Cabin?

the so called "book that started the Civil War?"

[southlandshari]

12. One note about Artur Davis from an Alabamian

And I admit it is a bit of a digression, but I think it is worth noting. Davis may be our state's only black congressional rep in DC (and there are other states with none), but those who helped him defeat his opponent (who is also black) were not all working in the best interests of his constituents at home (black or otherwise):

http://www.jsonline.com/election2000/ap/jun02/ap-alabama-congres062602.asp


With that off my chest, I want to go back and read in greater detail the linked article (I am a regular reader at blackamericaweb and a daily listener to Tom Joyner and Tavis Smiley). Please forgive me for going off topic for a moment there.

On edit:

Another link if you don't want to register at the journal sentinel link above:

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040905/davis.shtml

exerpt:

As of March 31, 2002, according to the FEC, Davis had reported $92,100 in political contributions. At that point, Davis' receipts were about one-fourth of Hilliard's receipts.

In mid-April of 2002, Davis attended a series of fundraisers, coordinated by AIPAC members, in New York City and Washington D.C. Davis' receipts skyrocketed. By May 15, 2002, Davis was up to $446,821. Of the 517 individual contributions to Davis in the weeks surrounding the fundraisers, only four came from Alabamians.

After beating Hilliard in the primary, Davis' only opposition in the general election was a little-known Libertarian. Davis, nonetheless, had collected receipts totaling $1.6 million by the end of the 2002 election cycle.

Hilliard, from Birmingham, knocked heads with the pro-Israel lobby in 2001 when he and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus took pro-Arab positions on several issues.

[KnowerOfLogic]

16. Safe to say it's not a coincidence that the Confederacy is Solid Repug.

And any time i'm on the side *other* than the Confederacy, i feel pretty safe that i'm on the right side.

[6th Borough]

21. No coincidence that the Southern Strategy involved absorbing the Dixiecrat

Further west, it becomes a bit more complicated. As far as the deep south goes, however, yes. It certainly isn't a coincidence.

I do believe, however, that racism isn't the pervading issue it once was. NOT that it doesn't play a factor, just that the southern states are deep red now much for the same reasons most of the plains and badland states are.

[2Design]

18. yes it does appear to be true - and rethug to dem it is probably

even more so

[southlandshari]

19. kick

n/t

[cattleman22]

24. Poor analysis

This is a poor analysis. Right now there is more of an urban-rural divide than a slavery or racism based North South divide. If you use a map that shows every county, you would see that even in old free states, that there is a lot of rural areas that went for Bush and that in old slave states, there are urban areas that went for Kerry.

This race baiting plays right into the right wing's hands.