Archive for the ‘Civil War’ Category

>Davis for Governor? No thanks.

January 12, 2009

>Bob Martin, publisher of The Montgomery Independent, published a column recently about Artur Davis and his chances of becoming governor. Well, not exactly, because anybody with any sense can see that the chance of that happening is zero. The column was more about how Davis running for governor could assure Republican success in the governor’s race and other
races across the state.

Davis wants to follow Obama’s lead. Martin points out that while Obama polled 43% of the white vote nationally, he only received 10% in Alabama.

This says nothing about Davis. His charismatic personality and republican-like talk plays well in our state…to a point.

No, it says more about the people of Alabama. More on this later.

Davis has a good gig in Washington. He needs to stay there. Even though I don’t agree with him on a few many issues, if he drops out of congress, Sheila Smoot has threatened to run. Yikes!

Ok, back to the people of Alabama. Over the last few weeks there have been several letters in the Birmingham News about the Civil War and why it happened and such. People from our state still argue that it was not about slavery. They argue tax issues, trade issues, economic issues…but those things all lead back to the slavery issue.

Here are some quotes from the Declarations of Secession from several states.

South Carolina: “…A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery…”

Mississippi: “…Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world…”

Alabama: “…Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions* and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…” (*sugar coated term for slavery)

Georgia: “…A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia…”

Texas: “…We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable…”

Ok, that’s just picking and choosing quotes from a few of the declarations, but there is a common theme. Some of the states, with the benefits of previous declarations, were not as detailed, but like I said, just read them and you will see a common theme…the south did not want to give up slavery.

Look back at the quote from Alabama. That is the mentality that today’s white vote in Alabama evolved from. The “domestic institutions” of 1861 that allowed “peace and security” are comparable to the “domestic institution” of segregation that was overcome in the 1960’s. In 2010, the “peace and security” that might be important to the whites in the state might be disrupted by elevating a black to the position of governor, so it just won’t happen.

Alabama is slow to change. Davis running in 2010 will do nothing to bring change, especially as to which party holds the Governor’s seat.