The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan

The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan.

The Republican Party was explained to be the party of Jefferson Davis explicitly by former Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott and also less directly by former Republican Texas U.S. Senator Phil Gramm in interviews in Southern Partisan.  Southern Partisan declared the Republican Party to be a Confederate party with its T-shirt.

However, when it comes to fighting against Confederate monuments and flags the Democrats have proven to be the party of James Buchanan. They hope to shake loose a few electoral votes in the next election by avoiding the topic.

In Louisiana the Republicans were fairly active in supporting the Confederacy. Former Republican Louisiana Gov. and one-time presidential candidate Jindal spoke out against removing the Confederate monuments. The Louisiana Republican House Reps voted for a bill to block removing Confederate monuments.  In other states Republicans are active in finding ways of blocking the removal of Confederate monuments.

One reason they are succeeding is that there really isn't much of an opposition by the Democratic Party. There are some Democratic elected officials fighting, but it is largely elected African American Democrats.

The policy of the Democratic Party seems to be that African Americans if they don't like the lack of action of the Democrats have no place to go.

This policy of not engaging on the issue of Confederate monuments is not confined to just centrist Democrats. It ranges across the liberal/left as well as centrist Democrats. Some of it is that among liberals and leftists there are many who  have the delusional thinking having an attachment to the Confederacy is not incompatible with being progressive. They are banal white nationalists. Other Democrats don't want to get in a fight with them.

A lot of it is calculation by the Democrats to get those extra white nationalist votes.

They will avoid engaging the issue by arguing that it is a matter of priorities or some other rationalization. The fact of the matter is that they don't want to face the issue.

Yes, there have been occasions, such as in 2015, where the Democrats did engage the issue, but we will not go forward getting rid of the monuments if the only time the Democrats act is right after a massacre.

I think a start is that unless a candidate has a position against Confederate monuments and symbols you don't support that candidate. Certainly you don't campaign for that candidate or donate money. It might result in a bad candidate being elected, but if we give in to this tactic of Democrats where they point out how scary the opponent is so that you vote for their flawed candidate the tactic will continue and there will be no progress in getting rid of Confederate monuments.

Also, to find out if a candidate has a position, you need to ask, and if they don't, ask that they take a position. If the issue starts coming up in candidate forums, I think that others hearing your question will start thinking about it as well and perhaps start asking the question themselves.

Another thing is that tables or lists need to be maintained on local candidates where they  stand. We need to divide the candidates into Pro-Confederate, anti-Confederate, and dough faces. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doughface

Refusal to respond to a questionnaire should be understood as supporting the statue quo and if the status quo has Confederate monuments you know how that candidate stands.

In some localities monuments aren't coming down without a sustained effort and an effort where Democrats will realize that they will be held accountable. It will mean writing letters, asking candidates to take a stand, appearing at public events. It won't take a lot of effort. A team of five with a few hours a week devoted to the effort could affect a real change in the political climate.

Effort to remove Confederate monument in Shreveport, Louisiana. It is starting.

It has already begun. I thought the process whereby other cities would take down Confederate monument would really start moving along after the 4th monument in New Orleans went down, but it is happening already.

I discussed how a movement against Confederate monuments everywhere would start with the success of monument removal in New Orleans, but I thought it wouldn't really take off until the 4th monument was removed. This is my blog posting stating this.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-revolution-against-confederate.html#.WRcScWgrKiM

The following is about the debate to remove a Confederate monument in Shreveport.

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/05/shreveport_monument_debate.html

Not only is the process underway, but the columnist writing this essay is showing how all the excuses and rationalizations for the Confederate monuments are rubbish and that the Confederate monuments are about white supremacy.

This is a column in the major daily newspaper for New Orleans. Not a paper with a limited readership. Members of the establishment will take note.

Other cities are also thinking about removing monuments.

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/should-west-palm-beach-take-down-its-confederate-statue-too/EYbiHyF6na5uSxPdRgWdsI/

However, there is one road block that is coming up. State lawmakers are trying to remove control of Confederate monuments form the cities and other municipalities.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/us/confederate-monument-state-bills/

The success of this effort I think is largely due to the fact that the Democratic Party isn't speaking up. Trent Lott explained in a Southern Partisan interview that the Republican Party was for those who have the values of Jefferson Davis. The discussion was about him expressing the same idea in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has been the party of James Buchanan in resisting the Republican Party's support of the Confederacy.

However, I plan to compile a table of every vote for Confederate monuments by state legislators.

Also, I don't think the Republican Party is going to want to be identified with the Confederacy in the future. I think that some of these bills were passed with the understanding that Confederate monument removal would not go so far. The issue wouldn't be pressed so strongly. The bills were passed in the situation as it was, which was very different from how it will be. I think Republicans are going to reconsider this legislation.

There can be marches to state capitols demanding bills be repealed. Local legislators can submit bills asking for their monument to be exempted. Cities can send petitions to state legislatures year after year asking for the bill to be repealed or the monument to be exempted.

Year after year the Republicans can be hammered as being the party of the Confederacy. I think with the defeat of Sheri Few and she only getting 5% of the vote in the Republican primary the GOP in many states will see large liabilities and little advantage, few benefits in the defense of the Confederacy. It could be a long struggle which would not just embarrass the Republican Party nationally, but destroy their credibility.

One big obstacle are residual yellow dog Democrats and a white members of the liberal/left in the former Confederate states which like to think they are all this and that but in reality are banal white nationalists.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html

One thing about the removal of the Confederate monuments it is revealing who is who in New Orleans.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monuments_bizarre.html

In the above link the article reports that the Mayor of New Orleans specifically criticized Frank Stewart, a local rich guy who supported the monuments.

I said that fighting neo-Confederacy would surface who was really who in a society. Frank Stewart's reputation has been taken down along with the two monuments that have been taken down.