A long time ago, in a land far, far away, Americans engaged in a Civil War. It was perhaps, despite what detractors of President Obama’s current term on office say, the most tumultuous 4 years (1861-1865) in American History. Students of great civilizations know that when such civilizations fall, it is often due to internal failures, stresses, and pressures, rather than to external forces.
During the American Civil War, the fight, for all intents and purposes was over the secession of the Confederacy; an effort by, what was at first, seven Southern slave states, to effectively opt out of the
After the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina , President Lincoln called for troops from each state to recapture Sumter
1. Virginia
2. Tennessee
3. Arkansas
4. North Carolina
Since this is not a post about the Civil War, I’ll fast forward to 1865. Jefferson Davis served as (the only) President of the Confederate States of America. The Union won; General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant, and the era known as Reconstruction began. That’s a story deserving a post of its own. Maybe I’ll double back and pick that up some day.
At this point I will segue by discussing briefly the significance and implications of political party affiliation…then and now. Then, Republicans had the distinction of advocating against the expansion of slavery. The country was still growing; continuing to add states. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to cap slavery by limiting it to those states in which it was already legal.
That, in and of itself, is a particularly important point. Aside from the fact that that it was a Republican who held the position, the more important take away from this stand is President Lincoln was not voicing opposition to slavery; a point in keeping with the mantra he would eventually state…that his interest was in saving the Union, and if he could do so without fighting the War, and leaving slavery in tact in its current dimensions, that is what he would have done.
Alas, the slave states were not so amenable. Slave holders viewed the matter as one of economics. Limiting their ability to expand slavery into more states as the country grew was, in their estimation, an unfair limitation on the ability to expand their wealth. Though few think of it this way, in a very real, though Abraham Lincoln is considered a great President, rightfully, his signature accomplishment, preserving the Union, unfolded the way it did, largely because of slave holders’ refusal to accept having their economic opportunities limited by fiat. Indeed it was their intransigence that led to the War, and their losing it that led to not only the reclamation and preservation of the
I realize this may be an uncomfortable subject for some, so I’ll get on with it. The anger, disappointment, and sense of loss that accrued from the Civil War experience led to a state of being that, not surprisingly resulted in the South aligning itself against the Republican Party. Consequently, it was understood, the South was solidly Democratic in its voting patterns, well into the 20th Century.
That tide began to turn in 1948 when the Democrats, at the behest of Hubert Humphrey, added a civil rightsfor blacks platform at the Democratic National Convention in
The measure eventually passed, but not without vigorous opposition from Southern Delegates. Led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurman, three dozen Southern Delegates walked out of the Convention. In the short-term, the response to this “affront” was the creation of the States’ Rights Democratic Party, familiarly known as Dixiecrats.
The formal actions of this new party were short-lived, but there were long-term consequences of adding the civil rights platform. The American Civil Rights Movement and the CivilRights Acts of 1964, and 1965 effectively sealed the deal, in terms of reframing the calculus of American political parties. Southern whites defected from the Democratic Party en masse, and their absence was largely and quickly offset by the arrival for blacks, particularly as voting rights measures guaranteed them the right to vote.
This synopsis is surely a CliffNotes version of the relevant events. Nevertheless, the events as noted provide an environment in which Southern whites exploited racism and fear to win elections. Depending upon ones perspective, the strategy was successful. Without question, it led to the realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party. But that success did come with a cost.
A fact forgotten by some, and not known to others is, for many years, blacks, to the extent they were permitted to be politically engaged, supported the Republican Party. Obviously,
Fast-forward to the present time. Two days ago, in Monday’s edition of the Washington Post, editorial writer Charles Lane penned a piece the paper titled Return of the ‘white man’s party’?
He begins by referencing the Reconstruction era, when the Democratic Party was known as the “white man’s party.” The racial designation has been previously explained. The single-sex reference was applicable because, of course, at the time, women could not vote. Just as obvious, that is not the case today. In fact, chances are, more women than men will be voting in the next election.
Lane even acknowledges a variety of causes, including:
- The white backlash against civil rights
- The resulting long march of Southern whites from the Democratic Party to the GOP
- The defection of white ethnic “Reagan Democrats” in the North
- The GOP embrace of conservative positions on abortion & other social issues, which alienated women
- A Democratic policy agenda that favors not only affirmative action but also more spending on health care and education (areas in which large numbers of women & minorities are employed)
- The residential “big sort” into like- minded neighborhoods
- Race-conscious re-districting
- The rise of a Latino population & the battle over illegal immigration
This post does not portend the outcome of the November election. Rather it purports to highlight a simple line of demarcation. Between now and November 6th, there will be myriad twists and turns, many designed to recalibrate the demarcation that projects white men on one side of the line, and women, blacks and Latinos on the other. How those efforts will turn out is anybody’s guess.
For now, what is certain is, the more things change, the more they say the same. Oh for sure, the name of the individual “Party of preference,” has changed (been reversed), and the geographic area is different (expanded from just the South), but once again, white men are separating themselves from the pack. They have fashioned the GOP into a “Party Like Its 1865: A New and Improved Southern Strategy!”
I’m done; holla back.
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment