South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry Audiobook

This post has 14 comments with rating of 3/514

• 
  Hogweed
  April 27th, 2023
  

  

  “build a more humane future for the United States”? Considering that 99.9% of all the slave owners were democrats, and several hundred slave owners were blacks, lets start there!

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  Adol
  April 27th, 2023
  

  @Hogweed And those Democrats then would be called Republicans today. That was when Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were the progressives.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  caesar963
  April 27th, 2023
  

  I don’t think that kind of historical flip can operate in such a way. The parties (& their older iterations - Whigs, for inst) actually have some policy continuity & some alteration, in broad terms.

  From an outside perspective, & with an intense interest in history, I cannot understand how the Democrat brand has survived. It’s utterly toxic in every single respect: slavery, racism, bigotry, segregation, lynching, Jim Crowism, the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. etc.
  It’s like what we had in Europe a century or so ago - one of the many appalling, extremist parties of left & right which existed here. Imagine if they were still going strong, in the same way? No chance, not with anything like that record.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  Malachie520
  April 27th, 2023
  

  It’d be a hard case to make that today’s current Republican Party is the same ‘Party of Lincoln’. You wouldn’t be able to convincingly argue it’s the same ‘Party of TR’. Glimpses of the ‘Party of Eisenhower’ can still be seen (though his warning about the Military Industrial Complex was chalked up to an old man blathering on by his own Party) but since then the GOP brought about Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their crowning achievement in ridiculousness in the Former Guy, a man-child yelling nonsense to anyone that will listen and yearning for the attention they give him.

  The easiest way to boil it down (especially for those with the outside perspective) is that the [members of the] Old Democrat Party died. Just as Prohibition didn’t suddenly take the country by storm and surprise everyone (it was an ingrained ideology thirty years in the making–and a generation of young people coming of age with their mothers telling them about the evils of drink and with their fathers being that example), it wasn’t until the stranglehold the Republican Party held during the 1920s (and the old Reconstruction Democrats began dying) that the Party changed. They had to appeal to the People since Business was in full-support of the laissez-faire Harding and Coolidge fostered; Hoover saw the writing on the wall and tried to change the nature of government support (having been a very successful “builder” in Europe after the Great War) but his changes came too late and the era of FDR came about and his progressive ideas (some good, some not) out-progressived the progressive Republicans who desperately longed for a return to the Roaring Twenties. It’s been the credo of the Republican Party ever since: let’s “go back” to when it was “better”. They forget that it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for most of the population during that time, whether a minority or White. Poverty was poverty and it didn’t care about any of those superficial trivialities that humans find soooo very important. And it’s not like one party can agree with another party; if the Democrats are in power and the Republicans agree, why not just keep Democrats in power? And vice versa. They have to be diametrically opposed in ideology or why change?

  If Biden were suddenly to come out as anti-trans and anti-women and anti-education, what would Republicans attack? If Biden came out and closed the border and ordered to shoot anyone trying to cross, would Republicans suddenly advocate for asylum for all those poor people trying to achieve a better life? What if the current British Prime Minister promoted the same tax policy the Lettuce Prime Minister did? Would those that supported it under the former PM suddenly change their minds? And if it looked like both Parties were agreeing on policies, what would be the point in changing PMs? What would they campaign against? “I agree with everything this guy is doing but I can do it better” isn’t that great of a campaign speech. “This guy will be the ruin of the country and only through me will it be saved” is the speech every politician strives to write.

  Always remember that *something* has to be wrong with the status quo for there be a reason change things. Despite Republican (and Democrat) unhappiness with FDR, he was still elected FOUR times because the status quo he “created” looked like an upward trajectory for all Americans (at least the ones that mattered). Now that all Americans means ALL Americans, it’s strange how so many can actually get on their soapboxes and promise a worse future and not just believe they can be elected but often are. When everyone is benefiting (like under Biden), the opposing party can’t do anything but promise to go back to not-benefiting under the Former Guy. DeSantis, for instance, is too entrenched in his Trumpian politics that for him to actually have prospects as a national candidate, he’d have to backslide a lot of his stupid rhetoric and that would betray the small population that supports him. To be President DeSantis, he’d have to all but destroy Governor DeSantis. He’s just too dumb to realize that yet. The Republican Party will need to out-progressive the Democrats if they hope to win the future. They are alienating way too many young people for their short-term victories to actually be a lasting power.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  caesar963
  April 27th, 2023
  

  Oh, I know the history quite well, but I cannot for the life of me understand how that toxic Democrat brand has survived. The litany: slavery, racism, bigotry, segregation, lynching, Jim Crowism, the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan - just one of those would require the strongest political flush. For a party to have those indelible bloodstains is inconceivable from this remove. Has it not occurred to anyone to bin it?

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  therevvolta
  April 28th, 2023
  

  

  Imagine thing it’s just Dems and not all politicians lol sad

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  hbf1184
  April 28th, 2023
  

  @caesar93 “oh, I know history quite well…” lol then you would know that in the antebellum era Democrats were the political party of Northern Conservatives AND the Southern Planter class until the Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats spilt in 1860, over the issue of slavery. Southern Democrats later attempted a 3rd party presidential bid (Strom Thurmond) with the ‘Dixiecrat’ segregationist party of 1948, which only garnered 2% of the vote. Then the majority of those ‘Dixiecrat Southern Democrats fled to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights era (1948-63), in response to the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation ruling of 1954. They formed the core of the ‘Christian Conservative’ coalition in the Republican Party which later became the ‘Conservative Right.’ The Republican Party of America’s Antebellum era was formed for the 1860 Presidential election with the “Anti-Slavery” platform by Northern abolitionists stating “That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party… That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic…” Prior to 1860,there was no Republican Party and political parties in the United States were formed as a national political consortium for Presidential elections. They had the ‘Democratic Republican Party’ that became the political entity you know as the modern Republican party. In a nutshell… but you knowing American history so well you already know this, as well as the Post-Reconstruction political terrorism, intimidation, lynching and racial violence of those Southern Democrats who later became Conservative Republicans in the Post-WW2 to Post-Korean War eras!!!

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  caesar963
  April 28th, 2023
  

  No, it still does not answer. All of my points a fortiori stand. (So is it actually unanswerable why such a party would remain extant?) Your response is fatally irrelevant to the actual question.
  Your analysis is also deeply flawed & oddly partial. The Antebellum Democratic Party was characterised by the core general principles of, inter alia, Anti-elitism; Liberalism; Majority rule; Populism; & Radicalism.
  “antebellum era Democrats were the political party of Northern Conservatives” - No, at the time, they were actually opponents of the conservatives, by the then pervasive political orientations & standards (see below).
  The Repub party was an anti-slavery party, which was essentially conservative in its policy orientation. Like their Whig predecessors, they wanted limited government, to the greatest extent possible. This was absolutely core.

  “majority of those ‘Dixiecrat Southern Democrats fled to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights era (1948-63)” - No. During this era, the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights legislation, which the Republicans supported.

  “in response to Brown v. Board of Ed desegregation ruling 1954. They formed core of ‘Christian Conservative’ coalition in the Repub Party” - No. This Evangelical group actually entered politics by voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976.

  “The Repub Party of America’s Antebellum era was formed for the 1860 Presidential election” - No. The Repub Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories. It emerged as the main political rival of the Democratic Party in the mid-1850s.

  “Prior to 1860,there was no Republican Party” - Again, wrong (see above).

  “They had the ‘Democratic Republican Party’ that became the political entity you know as the modern Republican party” -

  “In a nutshell… but u knowing Amer history so well u already know this” - Yeah. No doubt…

  “Post-Reconstruction polit terrorism, intimidation, lynching & racial violence of those South Democrats who later became Conservative Repubs in the Post-WW2 to Post-Kor War eras!!!” - A period stretching from 1877 to post-1945? This is an absurd contraction. The same individuals, in an undifferentiated group, switched parties? Combined with the fact that the purportedly “altered” Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights legislation, which the Republicans supported, from 1948-63? Do look again.

  Historian Robert V. Remini observed that Jacksonian Democracy (1829-60) involved the belief that the people are sovereign, that their will is absolute and that the majority rules.
  William S. Belko summarised “the core concepts underlying Jacksonian Democracy” as: “equal protection of the laws; an aversion to a moneyed aristocracy, exclusive privileges, and monopolies, and a predilection for the common man; majority rule; & the welfare of the community over the individual.”

  The Repub Party’s ideological & historical predecessor was the Whig Party (which I mentioned earlier). Upon its founding, the Repub Party supported classical liberalism & economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery. The Repub Party initially consisted of Northern professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, & from 1866, former black slaves. Both the Whigs & Repubs were the parties which advocated pro-business policies in the 19th c.

  The Whig Party was a conservative political party. Alongside the slightly larger Democratic Party, it was one of the two major parties in the US betw the late 1830s & the early 1850s. The Whig base of support was centered among entrepreneurs, professionals, planters, social reformers, devout Protestants, particularly evangelicals, & the emerging urban middle class. It had much less backing from poor farmers and unskilled workers.

  The party disliked strong presidential power as exhibited by Jackson & Polk, and preferred Congressional dominance in lawmaking. Members advocated meritocracy, the rule of law, protections against majority tyranny, & vigilance against executive tyranny. It saw the Democrats’ extension of the franchise (to increased categories of white men) as a form of “Jacobinism” (radicalism) & tending towards “mob rule.”

  The Whigs emerged in the 1830s in opposition to Pres. Andrew Jackson, coming from members of the National Republican Party - the Whigs had some weak links to the defunct Federalist Party, but the Whig Party was not a direct successor to that party.
  Whig ideas remained influential for decades. During the Lincoln Admin, ex-Whigs dominated the Repub Party. It is considered the primary predecessor party of the modern-day Repubs.

  While all this clears up some of the historical confusion which was unnecessarily occasioned, the entire thing is leading away from my question. Consider: “I know Bill is in the nat socialist party, but, you see, it’s a completely different nat socialist party than heretofore!” - As to the germane question of why such a repugnant remnant persists at all, as a viable political edifice - “Look, over there, a squirrel!!!”
  See? The (seemingly unanswerable) question once more: why would any person vote for such a party, with such an appalling historical record?

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  hbf1184
  April 29th, 2023
  

  @caesar963 Your pontification of extraneous events is amazingly redundant… ‘but you say so’ is not historical fact, take the test and argue with the professor mentality! The revisionist southern perspective that you parrot is only self-serving to an antiquated world view full of archaic ideas you constantly display… Trying to intellectualize post-Reconstruction ‘revisionist’ political history in pursuit of a white supremacist agenda?… Epictetus would be severely disappointed. *Note: again as above, not an answer, a statement.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  hbf1184
  April 29th, 2023
  

  @caesar963 A wonderful exposition of southern revisionist history & pontifical equivocation that have less than an ounce of actual historical reference (except you said so) or you really DIDN’T understand the STATEMENT!

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  caesar963
  April 29th, 2023
  

  “Your pontification of, etc. etc.” - Come on, no more of your transparent diversion & distraction (Epictetus!) - I already went through each assertion sequentially, & they were all erroneous & false.
  Try to sincerely explain this to a European: why does such a manifestly repugnant political party still exist? Why would any person vote for such a party, with its appalling & undeniable historical record? Including the present incumbent’s opposition to desegregation, and his later vile description of African American males?

  Or is it just as I suspected, and as you seem to confirm, unanswerable?

  As to: “antiquated world view full of archaic ideas” - when you become more conversant with historiography, you’ll be better able to square this seeming circle. As with parties & trends, there will be discernible continuities & discontinuities.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  hbf1184
  May 2nd, 2023
  

  @caesar963 The title of ‘Democrat’ has its beginnings in the South, going back to the founding of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1793 by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison. Northern abolitionists had more in common with the Whigs than the pro-slavery Jacksonian Democrats of the South. The Whig Party emerged in the 1830’s in opposition to President Andrew Jackson (Jacksonian Democracy), joining former members of the National Republican Party, the Anti-Masonic Party & Northern Democrats. With 1860 Presidential election, the Whig party dissolved & their members were joined the Democrats & newly formed Republican Party whose platform was the dissolution of SLAVERY. Their nominee, Abraham Lincoln was a former Whig Party member. Southern Democrats, fearing the end of SLAVERY as a legal institution, began the Succession Movement of southern states (read the 11 Bills of Succession). Post Civil War, Southern Democrats began southern wide political violence (rape/lynching/voter intimidation) primarily targeting Black ex-slaves & Northern Republican Reconstruction officials (scalawags/carpetbaggers). The KKK was formed by ex-Confederate officers in Tennessee led by former Confederate General Nathan Buford. The KKK was just one of many para-military terrorist groups in the South (Red-Shirts/Redeemers/Knights of the White Camelia/The White League)… Jim Crow was a product of the ‘The Compromise of 1877 aka Wormley Agreement by Rutherford B. Hayes for Southern Democrat support for his election as President… My initial response was in reference to your supposition & inference that the modern iterations of the Democrat & Republican Parties are just mirrors of those political entities during the antebellum/Civil War era, which is ludicrous. With the Post-Civil War racial violence & political terrorism is reflective to the modern Democrat Party. The majority of Blacks were Republicans until the political & literal assaults of Southern Democrats voters (Dixiecrats) who later became Republicans with their perceived assault of ‘Southern Heritage’ with the federal dismantling of Jim Crows legalities, racial desegregation & civil rights gains of Black Americans. Not for political conservatism. So you actually believe that the Antebellum Democrats are the same ideologs as the FDR era Democrats or the Civil Rights era Liberal Democrats to the modern combine of political progressives/social moderate/conservative Democrats of today. As well as the Pre-Civil War Republicans are the same as the Burkean conservatives to the William F. Buckley Jr. fiscal conservatives to the Goldwater social conservatives to the Libertarian constitutional conservatives to the neoconservatives ideologs to the Radical Right/Moderate Republican/Liberal Republicans of today’s modern iteration? That’s not what American Political historiography of our political party ideologies reveal very clearly that our ideologies imbedded into our political parties reflect more our societal narrative & socio-political reactions to both our progressive & regressive societal trends, ethnic relations, racial issues & gender equality issues more than any other singular governmental issue, especially in this modern national environment… The raping, lynching, political violence, Jim Crowism etc. was the mechanism of white RACISTS in the Post-Civil War Confederate South.

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  hbf1184
  May 2nd, 2023
  

  @notsure900 Thank you for the upload!

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry
• 
  caesar963
  May 2nd, 2023
  

  A valiant effort, never let it be said that Caesar does not acknowledge a valiant effort. However, the question as formulated yet remains (unanswerable?). And you’ll notice that you’re retreading much of my historical elucidation & outline of the history of various parties.
  The Jacksonian Democrat era was indeed formative for that party.
  However, your frame of the “Whig Party…joining former members of the National Republican Party, the Anti-Masonic Party & Northern Democrats” is of course misleading here, as it suggests a block. Rather it was some scattered disaffected Democrats who joined their efforts. I add just to more properly align with the historiography.
  Equally so here - “the Whig party dissolved & their members were joined the Democrats & newly formed Republican Party” - again, this is undifferentated in character, and erroneously suggests a block.

  Also, again for clarity, the later movement was actually for “secession” (and “Ordinance of Secession”). As with my previous posts, I must again insist upon historical accuracy here.

  And again, I certainly do not suggest that “modern iterations of Dem & Repub Parties are just mirrors of those political entities during the antebellum/Civil War era” - that is indeed another ludicrous assertion.
  Again, what I actually said (& as you have really seen): “The parties (& their older iterations - Whigs, for inst) actually have some policy continuity & some alteration, in broad terms.” - That was my first post. Then, my last: “As with parties & trends, there will be discernible continuities & discontinuities.” This utterly refutes the false & expedient imputation. As with all history, it’s necessary to pay full, proper & due attention to the complexities.
  So - “you actually believe that the Antebellum Democrats are the same ideologs as…” - As explained, no. I hesitate to identify this gambit as a straw man…

  The only constant is change, but some continuities are observed. The Republicans were & remain a conservative party, as was their predecessor party the Whigs (as explained).
  See if you can discern continuities between the present & the past = Jacksonian Democracy (1829-60) involved the core beliefs that the people are sovereign, that their will is absolute and that the majority rules, liberalism, radicalism, an aversion to a moneyed aristocracy, exclusive privileges, & monopolies, and a predilection for the common man & the welfare of the community over the individual.

  Whereas, upon its founding, the Repub Party supported classical liberalism/individualism & consisted of professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers. Both the Whigs & Repubs were the parties which advocated pro-business policies in the 19th c.
  The Repub party was conservative in its policy orientation. Like their Whig predecessors, they wanted limited government, to the greatest extent possible. This was absolutely core.
  Similarly, Whig base of support was centered among entrepreneurs, professionals, devout Protestants, particularly evangelicals, & the emerging urban middle class. It had much less backing from poor farmers and unskilled workers. Members advocated meritocracy.

  Merely observe: continuities, in addition to discontinuities.

  And again, a majority of Democrats during the Civil Rights era opposed the Civil Rights legislation, and voted against the Republican party on these fundamental, existential issues. These established historical facts are also entirely & fully within living memory.

  As compared to Democrats, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically.
  More generally, throughout the ’50s & ’60s, Republicans were more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Democrats voted in opposition.

  As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named the Civil Rights Act.

  Of the four acts passed between 1957 & 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favour at a higher rate than Democrats.

  During this period, the Democrats consistently resisted the civil rights movement. In 1956, many southern members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto,” voicing their opposition to the ruling in the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. (The current Democrat incumbent also resisted desegregation, as well as describing African American males in the most vile and racist terms.)

  The Republicans were attempting to end segregation in public places & make employment discrimination illegal, while the Democrats continued to filibuster & obstruct.

  In the Senate, the ‘64 bill faced strong & organised opposition from Democrats. Influential Democrat senators like Richard Russell Russell’s protégé was President Lyndon B. Johnson, btw), Robert Byrd (Byrd remains the longest-serving US Senator in history, he was also a former organiser & member of the KKK. Byrd recruited 150 people in West Virginia to form a chapter of the KKK. Joel L. Baskin, the grand dragon of the mid-Atlantic region, arrived to organise the chapter. Baskin was so impressed with Byrd’s skills he encouraged him to get involved in politics. Byrd was unanimously named “exalted cyclops”, which meant that Byrd was the top officer in the local klan. The responsibilities for this role included leading meetings & initiating incoming members. Byrd was eulogised by Joe Biden at his funeral in 2010, & other prominent Democrats such as President Barack Obama & President Bill Clinton also spoke at the funeral.)
  - together with other Democrat senators, William Fulbright & Sam Ervin, joined to launch a filibuster that lasted for 57 days. Russell at one point argued that the bill would lead to the destruction of the South’s “two different social orders” & result in the “amalgamation and mongrelization of our people.”
  All of these prominent senators remained Democrats, and were celebrated, at the highest levels, by their party.

  Prior to this, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first major civil rights legislation to be enacted in decades, that sought to protect the voting rights of black Americans. The bill passed the House with an overwhelming 84% Republican support. After the Democrat obstruction & filibuster ended, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was finally able to sign the bill into law on Sept. 9, 1957.
  Congress also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which further addressed the voting rights of black Americans and established penalties for those who tried to prevent people from voting. The bill passed the House with an overwhelming 87% of Republicans voting in favour.
  Congress later passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act. It initially passed the House with an enormous 87% support from Republicans.

  However, AGAIN, this does not answer my question. (Do you actually appreciate the gravamen of the question?)
  The history is known. I explored it point by point. The question remains, why, given such a history, does such a manifestly repugnant political party - with that history - still exist? Why would any person vote for such a party, with its appalling & undeniable historical record? Including the present incumbent’s opposition to desegregation, and his later vile description of African American males? That’s the question. Anything else is merely obstruction & “filibuster,” fooling no one.

  My own political perspective, for what it’s worth, is that of a classical European liberal - they’re the kind of politicians I vote for here. And no, they’re not perfect.
  I’m interested in the history, but I certainly could not bring myself to vote for either of your political parties.

  (Indeed, thx for the uploads.)

  South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation - Imani Perry

Add a comment