Friday, March 14, 2025

Abraham Won By Pledging Salary to Veterans Group and St. Jude’s Hospital. He Now Owes Them Between $348K – $696K.



I. The Abra-Scam.

Quietly, in late October of 2018, Congressman Ralph Lee Abraham removed Terry Finley’s 2014 letter to the editor of The News Star from his campaign website. Finley of Calhoun, Louisiana had written the Monroe paper to praise Dr. Abraham’s character in advance of his runoff election for Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District. 

“His dedication to others is so strong that he has dedicated his salary as congressman to St. Jude’s Hospital (sic) and Independence Fund for wounded veterans,” Finley wrote. “He will serve all regardless of their party affiliation or anything else that may separate us as he has in his medical practice.”

It was the final piece of evidence that the congressman had scrubbed from his website about a bold promise he made. He was a wealthy man, a veterinarian and physician, so he was not running for Congress because he needed the money. 

He vowed to give every dime he earned to a hospital that treats children with cancer, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, and the Independence Fund, an organization that helps double-amputee combat veterans. In his first term, that amounts to $348,000. In total, Abraham should have contributed at least $696,000 to charity.  

The News Star headlined Finley’s letter, “Abraham: A Man of Quiet Integrity.”

It may no longer be on Abraham’s website, but the internet is written in ink.

Before he even was sworn in for a third term in January, Ralph Abraham officially announced he would be a candidate for governor this year. The people of the Fifth District had re-elected a man who campaigned, only two months prior, on an empty promise.

He has already missed multiple votes in Congress, including votes on key pieces of legislation uniquely affecting his district, because he decided instead to attend fundraisers back in Louisiana.

When a reporter surveyed Louisiana’s federal delegation about whether they intended on cashing in their paychecks during the ongoing government shutdown, most members quickly said no.

Abraham’s office, however, responded affirmatively. Only later, they reversed course. The congressman, they now said, would also refuse his paycheck.

For anyone who followed Abraham’s career and for supporters like Terry Finley, there should have been only one answer, offered without hesitation: Dr. Ralph Abraham has never taken a paycheck. Don’t you remember?

The “No Salary” pledge that appeared on Abraham’s website during his 2014 and 2016 campaigns.

It’s what got him elected; this was a man of quiet integrity.

“You should not pay a penny for representation,” he repeatedly told voters on the campaign trail in 2014, when he challenged incumbent Vance McAllister in a crowded field for a seat in Congress.  

No matter how his team tries to contort their way out of this, Dr. Ralph Abraham won and then held onto a seat in Congress by deceiving voters about contributing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to children suffering from cancer and veterans who have had multiple amputations. That is what began his career in politics. 

Of course, none of this would have ever been set in motion if it were not due to the meteoric rise of an instantly recognizable Louisiana family, the Robertsons of West Monroe. 

The Robertson brothers (Willie, Alan, Jase, and Jep, from left to right), whose definitive look made them instant celebrities, along with their mother Kay. 

   

II. It Started With A Kiss. 

On April 7th, 2014, an obscure, small-town newspaper, The Ouchita Citizen, published an iPhone video recording of a man and a woman kissing one another inside of a nondescript office building. The lights had been turned off, so the clip appears to be in black and white, like closed-circuit security camera footage.

A still frame from the infamous “Kissing Congressman” video

Within days, the clip had made national news and imperiled the political career of its lead actor, first-term U.S. Congressman Vance McAllister, a Republican from Louisiana’s sprawling Fifth District.

McAllister’s victory had taken the Republican establishment by surprise.

He had never run for office before, and the presumed frontrunner was Neil Riser, a state senator who had the connections, the name recognition, and an army of professional campaign consultants.

But Vance McAllister had a few things Riser lacked: He could self-finance; he may have been an unconventional candidate, but that also made immediately likable to anyone he met on the campaign trail. McAllister seemed to be having fun, and while he was an unabashed business conservative, he occasionally made it known that he was much more tolerant and open-minded about social issues than the hard-core, far-right Republican base.   

It also helped that he had no connections to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who, by 2014, was already the least popular governor in state history. Riser had always been an ally of the governor, and his campaign was staffed by Team Jindal.  

Neil Riser, prolific Louisiana Republican..

But McAllister’s real secret weapon was his friendship with the Robertson family of “Duck Dynasty,” who were then at the pinnacle of their celebrity. Willie Robertson, in his first foray into politics, even cut a commercial for him; it was a game-changer.

Vance McAllister crushed Neil Riser in a runoff, winning more than 59% of the vote. 

As a congressman, McAllister, in turn, invited Willie as his guest to the State of the Union; the national media loved it. But Team Jindal resented McAllister, who, unlike other Republicans in Louisiana, was unafraid to criticize the governor, which made him a particular liability as Jindal began to build the scaffolding around his presidential campaign.

The iPhone recording, which showed McAllister engaged in an extramarital affair and earned him the nickname “the Kissing Congressman,” was a deliberate act of political sabotage; the publisher of that small-town paper was a political ally of the governor. Prior to publication, he hadn’t even bothered to confirm McAllister’s identity; he didn’t have to. The whole thing was a set-up. 

Although McAllister had been advised to issue a statement of denial, he had already told his wife about the affair; he knew he had to fess up. Hopefully, voters would forgive him.

But its release had the intended effect.

Because of the recording, McAllister lost the coveted “Duck Dynasty” endorsement. After all, their brand was built on wholesome family values; each episode of their hit reality television show ended with a prayer.

III. A Quack In The Plan.

Bobby Jindal coveted the support of the Robertson clan. If his presidential campaign would have any chance of success, he needed Louisiana’s most-influential Christian celebrity family to lend him their brand and their goodwill. 

To that end, Bobby Jindal, as governor, literally created a fake award from the state of Louisiana to present to Willie Robertson in a scripted ceremony for their television series. 

The banner image once used by Bobby Jindal’s official Twitter account. 

The controversy surrounding McAllister would also likely ensure that Neil Riser would get a shot at redemption. The midterm elections were only seven months away.

But the best laid plans of mice and men… and ducks… often go awry. 

When qualifying approached, a new unknown candidate emerged, a young man with no experience in office, no name recognition, and an eccentric campaign platform that read more like a term paper written by a college sophomore majoring in philosophy than a coherent set of policy priorities. His name was Zach Dasher.

And Zach Dasher was Willie Robertson’s first cousin. He was literally a member of the Duck Dynasty.  

Dasher’s entrance in the race complicated Team Jindal’s plans.

They could no longer afford to openly support Neil Riser; that would risk upsetting the Robertson family and could potentially poison any chance Jindal had of receiving their support in his nascent presidential campaign. They loathed McAllister- not because of his affair but because of his independence, and  they also knew Dasher had no chance.

So, furtively, they sought out a credible candidate, and Dr. Ralph Abraham of Alto was hiding in plain sight. He was already a campaign bundler for Jindal; he had even appeared once in a commercial for Jindal’s gubernatorial reelection campaign (good luck trying to find it, though), and he was wealthy enough to not require their entire financial apparatus to move in and create a stir.

When Monroe Mayor Jamie Mayo, a Democrat, decided, once again, to run for the seat, he effectively ended any opportunity McAllister had at winning reelection. The district is expansive, and although McAllister is a white Republican and Mayo is an African American Democrat, there were potentially enough crossover votes to ensure a second term for the embattled incumbent. At that point, many voters were already well-aware of the roles Team Jindal and a former staffer with Riser’s first campaign had played in sabotaging McAllister by illicitly planting a camera to record him “in the act.”

No one could claim the moral high ground, though, to his credit, McAllister repaired his marriage, confessed his transgressions to his constituents, and ran a competent operation in D.C.

He may have embarrassed himself, his family, and his supporters, but after the shock wore off, there were more questions about the sleaziness and the character of his Republican opponent’s consultants.

So, Team Jindal boarded their escape pod, and they used their connections in the media to promote the unknown doctor from an obscure small town who could once again play a role in one of their campaign productions.

This time, instead of small-town doctor who ran a rural clinic, he would be a wealthy entrepreneur and philanthropist who was so pure of intention, he wouldn’t even take the money that came with the job.             

IV. I’m runnin’ out of credit and find a little Cash on the radio.

“(Abraham) said if elected he will donate his salary to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and the Veterans Independence Foundation,” The News Star reported shortly after he secured a spot in the 2014 runoff. 

“Representation and public service should be a privilege,” he told the paper in a profile piece that, we now know, to be a complete deception by the doctor on almost every issue. Read the article; it’s still online

Ralph Abraham won his first election by roughly the same margin McAllister had won two years prior. He kept a relatively low-profile until he was well-settled in his second term. His debut in front of the Baton Rouge Press Club last year was an embarrassing disaster. The Advocate pulled no punches. “Out of touch, lacking ideas, congressman shows he’s not ready for prime time” read the headline of Lanny Keller’s blistering column.

Keller, it turns out, was being generous. 

Abraham’s performance was a parade of ignorance on basic issues, a permanent documentation of his negligence as a member of Louisiana’s federal delegation and a vestigial reminder of the kind of government that Bobby Jindal empowered. But ultimately, it made no difference in his re-election campaign. He has been on autopilot for years now.

However, his phony pledge to donate his salary to worthy charities is irredeemable and permanently disqualifying.

He lied to voters; he lied to children with cancer; he lied to wounded warriors, and despicably, he thought his own privilege would somehow insulate him from accountability.    

In a tortured and absurd attempt at revising history, his campaign claims Abraham’s promise was only valid for his first term. 

Aside from the campaign statement, however, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ralph Abraham donated anything other than $300 to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, a contribution made in December of 2018.  

Source: St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. 

It is almost certain that Abraham has donated more than $300 to charity over the past four years; though it may not be a direct monetary contribution, we know, for example, that Abraham, a licensed pilot, sometimes flew patients to M.D. Anderson in Houston and St. Jude’s on his private plane.

Those were small acts of kindness (which he made sure were documented by Roll Call), but ones that also undermine his campaign’s explanation about why he could not afford to keep his promises to donate his salary: That the multi-millionaire physician, veterinarian, and congressman with a private plane has been struggling financially.

Abraham can no longer earn money by practicing medicine full-time due to his gig in government, which, apparently, he did not realize even after running for a second and then a third term in Congress.

“Because of the loss of income, it was not a pledge he could continue beyond the first term,” his campaign spokesperson Cole Avery told The Advocate. “There’s the belief that something should be one way, and then there’s the reality.” 

This is nonsense. The same exact issue came up during Abraham’s 2014 campaign.

There was another physician above him on the ballot, Bill Cassidy, who was challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu for the U.S. Senate. When it was revealed that Cassidy, who was then a member of the House, had not filed the majority of  his timesheets with LSU, for whom he worked in a part-time capacity, we all got a crash course in the rules governing congressmembers who receive compensation for outside work practicing medicine. LSU even opened an investigation into the matter.

(I vividly remember all of this because I worked with another writer in breaking the story).    

By his campaign’s own admission, Abraham did not donate his salary to charity during his second term, and unless they furnish documentation to prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe he donated his entire salary to charity during his first term either. 

His campaign had been well-aware of the media’s interest into questions about his charitable donations for several days, and they have not provided a scintilla of evidence to prove he ever kept his word, even after being given multiple opportunities.

The burden of proof now belongs to Dr. Ralph Lee Abraham, not to the media and certainly not to St. Jude’s or the Independence Fund. 

V. Wreck It Ralph: An Epilogue

Ralph Lee Abraham should have never launched a gubernatorial campaign before he even took the Oath of Office for a third term in Congress.

It was an insult to his constituents in the Fifth District; it disrespected the implicit promise he made to voters when he decided to qualify for a third term, and it demonstrated the kind of contemptuous narcissism that has festered and corrupted our politics for decades and particularly during the past three years.

His Democratic opponent, Jessee Carlton Fleenor, a working-class farmer, put thousands of miles and spent countless hours in his old Dodge pickup truck, visiting all 24 parishes, attending dozens and dozens of civic events and festivals and community meetings, befriending as many people from as many places as he possibly could, and doing all of it without relying on corporate donors or PAC money or a family fortune.

Ralph Lee Abraham never showed up, but he still won anyway.

It was an election he didn’t even care about, a broken promise. It is hard work to campaign in that district if you don’t own a private plane or have the power of incumbency; it’s enormous.

“I used to tell my colleagues that I was the only one of them who had to drive through another state to get across his district,” Vance McAllister told me.

Fleenor recalled that a roundtrip drive from one end of his district to the other took around 13 hours; you can drive across entire state of Texas in less time.

I could have refrained from inserting my own commentary and only provided readers with links to a series of news articles, videos, and archived screenshots to prove the damning case against Abraham, but I’ve also categorized this report as an opinion piece for a reason.

I was born and raised in the Fifth District. I worked for the government, the City of Alexandria, in the district, coordinating with staff from our federal delegation, in both chambers, on a number of projects. I am also disabled, and I spent much of my childhood in and out of hospitals. 

Abraham’s empty promise is personally, deeply offensive to me.

I’ve only encountered him once, at a memorial service honoring the life of a well-known elected leader in my hometown a couple of years ago. Abraham had never met the man, but there was no question he was obligated to be there in his capacity as a member of Congress. Instead of speaking about the man’s numerous accomplishments, instead of conducting even a modicum of research on the person for whom he was tasked with eulogizing, he spoke about the disease that took his life. I’m not sure what others in the room thought about Abraham’s eulogy, but whenever I have been asked about him, it’s the story I tell, a perfect illustration of a man who does not know his audience or his job.

Even if he were to produce proof that he donated $348,000 to charity during his first term in Congress, which now appears entirely unlikely, he still broke his word to voters in his second term. If you believe a person’s word is their bond, Ralph Abraham owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities.

There is no excuse for that; he exploited children with cancer and wounded warriors, and it’s unforgivable. It’s immediately disqualifying. It’s not naïveté, as Prof. Josh Stockley is quoted as saying about the actions of a multimillionaire with two terminal graduate degrees.

It’s deliberate and cynical, and Abraham should resign from office and spare his constituents any more indignity and embarrassment. 

There was at least one person who told Abraham and the public, directly and honestly, that he could never keep the promises he was making on the campaign trail: his opponent in the runoff, the Honorable Jamie Mayo, the mayor of Monroe, Louisiana.

“I’m very concerned that he has indicated that he will maintain his medical practice,” Mayo told The News Star in November of 2014. “What he is saying to me and also the citizens of the 5th Congressional District is that he will, in effect, be a part-time congressman if elected. We have 24 parishes within the 5th Congressional District. The parishes within the southern part of the district already say there are problems with not being properly represented because they have not had a congressman that has consistently represented them.

Mayo knew what he was talking about, because he knew the district. He knew what job he was signing up for. He understood that governing required a commitment to the public, and he told voters the truth.

Ultimately, though, he lost to a white Republican with a private plane, who is now responsible for representing the tenth poorest congressional district in the country.

“You cannot be a part-time congressman with other interests and be able to effectively and efficiently represent the 5th Congressional District,” Mayo warned. 

Ralph Abraham may have said he would go to Washington and give his salary to charity, but he would much rather be flying around raising money for himself.

 

     

      

        

The Saints dispatch the Eagles and move on to the NFC Championship

Admittedly, I was very worried at the end of the first quarter– as I’m sure we all were– as the Saints showed up looking like a team that had actually taken the last three weeks off from football, including the lead-up to this game. (Combined with the team’s consistent letdowns in week 1, it makes me wonder if they get too complacent with time off.)

But with the team down 14-0, I started to see the team I expected to see in the second quarter. It started with the Eagles’ third drive, after two touchdowns, being broken up by a Marshon Lattimore interception, as perfect a coverage play as you’ll ever see:

And on the Saints’ ensuing possession, what looked like a three-and-out turned into something else altogether. Sean Payton called for a fake punt on fourth-and-2, with Taysom Hill taking the snap directly and running up the middle for the first down.  The very next play, Drew Brees hit Michael Thomas downfield for 42 yards, more yardage than the Saints offense had gained in the entire game to that point.

From that point on, the Saints rolled for most of the game, taking control on both sides of the ball. They didn’t put up a juggernaut scoring run, but a series of steady drives– including a mammoth 18-play touchdown drive that took up nearly the entire third quarter– gave them the lead and control of the game.

Just as importantly, the Saints defense went on lockdown. The Lattimore interception was the catalyst, but for the rest of the game the Saints shut out the Eagles. The disparity was stark:

Eagles Offense Plays Yards YPP TDs INTs
1st Quarter 17 151 8.88 2 0
2nd-4th Quarters 30 99 3.3 0 2

The Saints did have some struggles finishing out, though. Having gotten to the Philadelphia 31 and facing 3rd-and-8 with 3:08 left and a 20-14 lead, Sean Payton called a running play, hoping to gain enough yards to allow Wil Lutz to kick an easier field goal and give the Saints an insurmountable two-score lead.

Instead, Michael Bennett blew up the middle of the line and dropped Alvin Kamara for a three-yard loss. The field goal was now 52 yards, and Lutz missed for only the third time all season, giving the Eagles the ball with enough time left to win the game.

The defense even gave up two first downs on the next drive; the Eagles hadn’t had more than one first down on a drive since the first quarter. (The second first down was a questionable roughing-the-passer penalty on Marcus Davenport.) But then, with the Eagles down to the Saints’ 27, luck became where preparation (and talent) met opportunity, as a ball that bounced off the usually sure-handed Alshon Jeffery was plucked out of the air by Lattimore, allowing the Saints to seal the game.

After that terrible first quarter, the Saints mostly played like the team that had been so dominant most of the season, although the offense still has not gotten back up to its highest peaks. Having all the offensive starters back seems to have helped a bit. Ted Ginn back seems to have given life back to the passing offense; besides catching 3 passes of his own for 44 yards, he seems to have spread out the offense again and kept teams from focusing on Michael Thomas, both with his speed drawing coverage and with his quickness in route-running giving Drew Brees a legitimate second option downfield. (He was the target of a deep ball on the very first play– perhaps Sean Payton reads our column here— although Brees underthrew it and it was intercepted.) Thomas made the most of Ginn’s return by having another monster game, to the tune of 12 catches for 171 yards and a score. The league leader in receptions has made a habit of having these monster games this season; this was his seventh such game with 10 or more catches.

The offensive line had all five members back in the lineup– and playing for the entire game– for the first time in a while, although the unit is playing through a lot of injuries right now. Left guard Andrus Peat’s is the worst, as he’s playing through a broken hand. It showed on Sunday, as he had one of his worst games of the season, with multiple penalties called on him, including a couple of holding calls (though one of those was specious at best). Hopefully with another week to heal he’ll be better off against the Rams, because with Aaron Donald on the opposing defensive line, the Saints can’t afford to have any interior weaknesses.

 And with that, let’s take a look at Sunday’s NFC Championship.

NFC Championship Game
2:05 PM CST
Mercedes-Benz Superdome
Line: New Orleans -3.5

When the Saints have the ball

DVOA Overall Pass Run
NO 4 3 8
LAR 19 9 28

The Rams’ defense hasn’t played at the same level it did last season, in part because defensive success is tougher to sustain than offensive success, but also because of some personnel changes. Marcus Peters plays a different style of cornerback than Trumaine Johnson; he’s more of a gambler, which also means he’s easier to beat on a big play. Michael Thomas did just that last time, to the tune of 12 catches for 211 yards, including the game-sealing 72-yard TD. However, the Rams will also have Aqib Talib back after he missed the first match, giving the Rams some more strength in the secondary. By the same token, the Saints have Ted Ginn back– it’s hard to say that will “open up” an offense that scored 45 points in the last meeting, but Ginn does provide a secondary option downfield and a counterattack if the Rams focus too heavily on Thomas.

The Rams’ run defense was its weak spot this season, but don’t tell that to Cowboys fans, who saw them bottle up Ezekiel Elliott last week for only 47 yards on 20 carries. That was in significant part due to Jason Garrett’s deficiencies as an offensive schemer and play-caller, though: Garrett frequently runs the ball in obvious and predictable situations, from obvious and predictable formations, and just too damn often when the team needs more yards than a running play will provide. Sean Payton does not make the same mistakes.

My worries with the offense are not with the playcalling so much as the health of the offensive line. Aaron Donald is almost certainly going to be your Defensive Player of the Year, and with Ndamukong Suh combines to form one of the most dangerous interior linemen combinations in the NFL. I worry that if the Saints’ line is banged up, they’re going to have a tough time winning that battle, and Andrus Peat’s struggles last week (see above) give me reason to worry. The line is strong, of course, but playing hurt can really take a lot out of a player’s effectiveness. Some good news is that Peat, Max Unger, and Ryan Ramczyk were all full participants in Thursday’s practice after being limited earlier in the week. That bodes well for their health and effectiveness.

More good news is that left tackle Terron Armstead has been a full participant in practice all week; with his athleticism and the Rams’ linebackers being a relatively weak spot on the team, don’t be surprised to see a substantial amount of screen passes fired Mark Ingram and Alvin Kamara’s way. 

The Saints have the horses to win a shootout with the Rams. They may have to.

When the Rams have the ball

DVOAOverallPassRun
LAR251
NO11223

The Saints’ defense has been vastly improved over the back half of the season, following up the last Rams game with an impressive six-week run of not allowing more than 17 points in a game, then returning to form by completely shutting down the Eagles after their first two drives. They’ll need to play up to that level, because the Rams offense has been one of the most potent forces in the league in both phases of the game.

The most favorable matchup for the Saints will be if the Rams try to lean on the run. Though the Rams were the team’s strongest rushing offense this season– which they demonstrated again last week, with Todd Gurley and C.J. Anderson each rushing for over 100 yards– New Orleans was one of the league’s strongest run defenses all season long. Of course, missing Sheldon Rankins will hurt here (as it will everywhere), but the Saints still have enough talent in their front seven, and are avoiding the missed-tackles issues of years past, that they should at least be able to slow down the Rams ground game enough for them not to lean on it to advance the ball and chew clock. Last time around, Gurley carried the ball 13 times for 68 yards and a touchdown as the sole featured back; those numbers would be a welcome limitation of the running game in a rematch. Outside of a couple of nice plays, the Saints were actually mostly effective at bottling up Gurley.

The pass game is another matter. New Orleans still struggles against deep passes, although not as much as early in the season. Brandin Cooks’ deep speed will have to be accounted for, likely by Marshon Lattimore or over-the-top help from Marcus Williams. Robert Woods has become a steadier target down the stretch run, he’s a capable if not amazing receiver, but he reliably gets open in the Rams offense. Cooper Kupp was Jared Goff’s go-to guy for a long time the last two seasons, and his ACL injury has coincided with a downturn in the Rams passing offense.

The Saints’ best chance of stopping the passing attack is by rattling Goff with the pass rush. Losing Rankins hurts on that front, but the Saints still have a strong collection of defensive linemen and packages that can get pressure. The team also signed defensive tackle Tyrunn Walker, a former undrafted player who spent three years in New Orleans. He played four games for the Rams last year, so perhaps some familiarity there will help his performance Sunday, or provide some insight for the Saints. Walker and David Onyemata will be leaned on more and more to provide the pass rush Rankins did. For that matter, Cameron Jordan has enough size and strength to conceivably kick inside on passing downs, with, most likely, Marcus Davenport and Alex Okafor manning the edges.

The Rams offense is a marvelous design, running passing concepts that almost always free up a receiver and make Jared Goff’s reads easy. He doesn’t handle pressure well, though, and forcing him out of the play’s structure can often lead to sacks and bad, inaccurate throws. Goff can deliver on the money when he has time, but he’s not a playmaker per se. The Rams have a strong offensive line, so it could be tough, but I think that’s what the game comes down to for the Saints defense. Can they pressure Jared Goff while the coverage holds up long enough to get to him, whether that’s by rushing four and dropping seven, or by sending a blitz?

I’m not making a prediction this time around. As an eight-point favorite, I felt pretty comfortable calling a Saints win, and even with an abysmal start, they proved to be the better team. The Saints beat the Rams last time in part because they were on fire in the first half and roared out to a 35-14 lead. That’s much less likely to happen this time around, and the Saints will be in real trouble if they get off to the kind of start they did against the Eagles. The Saints are 3.5-favorites: They can win, and I believe they will win, but the Rams earned their spot in the NFL’s final four on merit, and the Saints will have to bring their A-game to punch their ticket to the Super Bowl.

Erector Set: The Power Behind the (Hoped-For) Throne

Louisiana has a long history of wealthy white men banding together to influence state and local politics, donating individually and collectively to trade groups and candidates for elected offices. Once they were called “citizens’ councils,” and were aligned with the Dixiecrats. Now, they form non-profit “grassroots” organizations, set up political action committees (PACs), and are active within the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), and the Republican Party.

The latest gang seeking to dominate and control state government and policies are those we have dubbed the “Erector Set.”

How They’re Built

All of them have built their own multi-million-dollar companies, through building industrial facilities for other multi-million-dollar companies. They’re used to running things, and getting their own way. And they have friends who think like they do.

The mastermind of the current Baton Rouge-based triumvirate is Lane Grigsby, Chairman of the Board of Cajun Contractors, and Chairman Emeritus for the LABI Board of Directors.

Grigsby’s longtime friend and ally is Eddie Rispone, the founder and chairman of ISC Constructors, and now an announced candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Grigsby and Rispone have been working together to influence local and statewide political races and issues for nearly a decade.

Art Favre

The most recent addition to this cabal is Art Favre, the founder and president of Performance Contractors, a company with 2017 annual revenue in excess of $1.5-billion. Favre “joined” the Erector Set early in 2018.

These three men are involved in many of the same interest groups: LABI, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), supporting LSU’s College of Engineering (of which they are all alumni), and, in the case of Rispone and Favre particularly, involvement in Catholic charities and fundraising for Our Lady of the Lake.

Art Favre, who started Performance Contractors in 1979, had generally been considered a “philanthropic” corporate citizen until recently. Certainly, he invested his wealth in a variety of projects, including purchasing the majority interest in The Wharf at Orange Beach, Alabama, in late 2011. The development was in foreclosure, and — after buying up the amphitheate and the marina previously, acquiring the condos and shops cost him a reported $14-million.

He has served on the Federal Reserve Board, and as director for Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital. He also donated $1-million toward construction of the new Children’s Hospital at OLOL. Additionally, he endowed the chairman professorship for LSU’s construction management program, for $1.2-million.

By the Numbers

Up until the past couple of years, Favre was not one who could be classified as a “substantial” political donor. Although he – but more usually his company – contributed to campaigns and PACs, like LABI’s and ABC’s, but in relatively modest amounts.

In 2016, he put $58,000 into Eddie Rispone’s Citizens For A Better Baton Rouge PAC, which ran ads supporting Bodi White and opposing Sharon Weston-Broome in the Baton Rouge mayor’s race. Weston-Broome won that contest.

In 2017, Favre served as chairman of LABI’s Board of Directors. That threw him into close alliance with LABI’s chairman emeritus, Lane Grigsby.

Favre, who had a pattern of giving $50 per year to each of LABI’s four regional PACs (East PAC, West PAC, North PAC, South PAC), put $25,000 into each of those funds in April of 2018 – donated by his company.

That same month, he personally put $100,000 into the LA Free Enterprise PAC, which Lane Grigsby had seeded with another $100,000 one month prior. The fund is managed by John Diez, president of Magellan Strategies, a research and polling firm based in Baton Rouge. Diez also serves as LABI’s Director of Political Action Committees and of the super PAC, Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority, which has now been renamed the Louisiana Conservative Majority PAC. (That’s the super PAC once controlled by David Vitter, who has since turned it and its work over to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.)

The Grigsby-Favre LA Free Enterprise PAC spent about $75,000 of its money this past fall. In addition to hosting “PAC strategy meetings” at Hooters (Baton Rouge twice, Metairie four times, West Bank three times, and Bossier City twice) the PAC spent on oppositional research and direct mailings to influence the Plaquemines Parish Council elections – hoping to impanel a council that would vote to permanently end the parish’s coastal lawsuits against the oil and gas industry.

Those lawsuits are still set to go to trial later this year.

Follow the Money

In 1973, Lane Grigsby founded what has become Cajun Industries – now with five divisions: Cajun Constructors, Cajun Industrial Design and Construction, Cajun Deep Foundations, Cajun Maritime, and Cajun Equipment Services. As of 2016, the company’s total annual revenue was more than $721-million.

Grigsby was one of the first to join the newly-formed Louisiana Association of Business and Industry in 1976, with its initial mission of getting the “Right to Work” law passed, and dismantle what then-head of LABI, Ed Steimel termed “uncontrolled and excessive political power of labor unions.”

(It should be noted that, in LABI’s arguments for passage of the “Right-to-Work” law, Steimel claimed Louisiana lagged behind the rest of the nation in job creation during the prior 8 years because of organized labor – neglecting to mention the effect Louisiana politicians’ hard-line stance in favor of segregation and against implementing Civil Rights.)

Distaste for labor unions has remained one of Grigsby’s core values. In 2014 and 2015, Grigsby was heavily involved in LABI’s push for the slyly named “Pay Check Protection” bill, which would prohibit governmental agencies from collecting and remitting workers’ union dues. LABI did internet broadcasts of these meetings for their members, and NOLA.com captured snippets from them, publishing Grigsby’s video commentary to YouTube. (Though they misidentify him in one clip as “Wayne” Grigsby)

“The impetus of it is to cut off the unions’ funding. They lose their stroke.” Grigsby explains. “This is a fatal spear to the heart of the giant, in truth.”

A second clip shows Grigsby stating, “Guys, this is where you grab the aorta, and shut it off. If you control the money flow, you control the success.”

While that bill failed to pass, there can be no doubt that Lane Grigsby controls plenty of money, as well as its flow to like-minded politicians and causes.

As one of the 1980 co-founders of Associated Builders and Contractors, he retains a lot of “stroke” with the organization, which operates two political action committees: ABC Merit PAC and ABC Pelican PAC (which is run by Thad Rispone), and which have each contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Louisiana candidates over the years. Interestingly, those regularly benefiting from the ABC PACs are either Republicans running for statewide office, or state lawmakers who rank highly on LABI’s annual legislative scorecard.

(Also interestingly, there’s another PAC which goes by the “ABC” moniker: the Alliance for Better Classrooms. Grigsby originally set that one up in 2011. More on that later.)

Associated Builders and Contractors states in its strategic plan, “Without a voice influencing politics in the state, member companies will face complex and insurmountable challenges that will impact their bottom line,” and says the group’s goals include “robust political fundraising” and to “become one of the most influential lobbying organizations in the state.” Conveniently, that would align with electing one of their own as governor, would it not?

Educating Campaign Influencers

For at least eight years, Lane Grigsby has been refining his recipes for this year’s political picnic. He came to the attention of capital reporters in 2011, when– after his retirement from daily running Cajun Industries – he decided to infuse considerable cash and clout into buying the
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) races.

Campaigns for the unpaid elected Board of Elementary and Secondary Education seats were normally sleepy, low-budget affairs. But then-Gov. Bobby Jindal had decided he wanted the newly-imported Recovery School District superintendent, John White, to become State Superintendent of Education. In the spring of 2011, after demanding the resignation of then-state Superintendent Paul Pastorek – literally within days of White’s arrival – Jindal ran into resistance to his plan to install White in the top K-12 education post, with BESE members refusing to agree. (They are, technically, the only ones with the power to hire and fire the Superintendent.)

Jindal was convinced having White at the helm would be necessary for implementing his planned “signature” legislation for his second term: education reform. Grigsby, who viewed the laundry list of proposed changes as being an opportunity for he and his business buddies to start profiting from the tax dollars going into public education – as well as a chance to spank the state’s teachers who would not give up their faith and support in unions – was only too happy to help.

He stated unequivocally that he was working to “inject free-market principles into the monopoly of public education.”

In an interview with NOLA.com in October 2011, Grigsby offered an example from his business experience as an illustration for why he supported “reform” of public education.

“When job seekers interview at Cajun Industries, we have to find out how many children they have. We’ve got to take the number of children, multiply it by $10,000 and add that to their salary so they can put their kids in private school.”

John White and Lane Grigsby

For that race, Grigsby started and funded the Alliance for Better Classrooms (ABC PAC), seeding it with $100,000, and getting Cajun Industries and its executives to kick in another $160,000 overall. It’s a process he repeated in 2015, with his own and company donations, and adding $100,000 more in his wife’s name. That was to ensure elected BESE members would “hold the line” on education reforms and John White’s job, no matter who the new governor turned out to be. (This PAC is still active, and presently has former LABI president Dan Juneau at the helm.)

In 2015, Grigsby also started and ran Empower Louisiana PAC, which funneled millions from Michael Bloomberg, the Waltons, Eli Broad and others into the BESE races, to purchase BESE and protect John White.

Grigsby also started and ran another PAC in 2015 — LA Forward, Inc.  Louisiana Campaign Finance records don’t specify its purpose, but they show the fund spent about $50,000 with Jay Connaughton of Innovative Advertising of Mandeville. This publication previously provided some background on Connaughton in an article about state Attorney General Jeff Landry’s efforts to protect the Koch Industry’s group, Americans for Prosperity, from having to disclose their donors.

In 2016, Lane Grigsby started a new PAC, called “Citizens for Judicial Excellence,” which shares the address of Cajun Industries. It’s purpose? To influence judicial races. In particular, it was aimed toward candidates who might ultimately be positioned to rule on the coastal lawsuits against the oil and gas industry. Grigsby personally contributed more than $280,000 to CJE, and the PAC spent $316,350 on a single attack ad in the Jimmy Genovese-Marilyn Castle state Supreme Court race. Genovese was the target, yet he won the race.

And, as we reported last March, Grigsby has hired David Vitter, as his business and personal lobbyist.

Altogether, Lane Grigsby has contributed more than $2-million of his personal money toward stirring the political pot in Louisiana over the past decade. Cajun Industries has put in nearly a half-million more dollars.

With Grigsby’s and Favre’s buddy Eddie Rispone running for governor, one thing is certain: there’s more where that came from.

Don’t Give Prejudice A Pass

By Peter Cook

This Thursday, the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) will vote to elect a new leader.

OPSB District 1 representative John Brown, who has served as board president for the past two years, cannot run for re-election due to term limits. As a result, members have been engaged in behind-the-scenes discussions in recent weeks to decide who will assume the board’s top post.

The current members of the Orleans Parish School Board, including Leslie Ellison (third from left).

According to sources privy to those conversations, Leslie Ellison, who represents District 4 and currently serves as the board’s vice-president, has emerged as a leading contender to replace Brown at the helm. However, given her history of homophobic remarks and her retrograde positions on LGBT rights, electing Ellison as OPSB president would be completely unacceptable.

A history of homophobia

Ellison’s anti-LGBT views are well-documented and stretch back to at least 2004 when she organized a rally at the state capitol in Baton Rouge to oppose a series of bills that would have extended discrimination protections to gay and lesbian citizens.

According to an article in The Advocate, Ellison organized the gathering at the behest of Apostle Willie Wooten, the founder of Gideon Christian Fellowship in Gentilly, where she attends church and works as an administrator. Wooten has drawn national attention for his homophobic beliefs and has said that homosexuality is “deviant” and “too nasty.” He has also been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality, arguing that same-sex marriage would open the door to the legalization of polygamy and incest.

Thanks to the efforts of Ellison and Wooten, all four of the bills in question eventually went down in defeat.

Ellison and Apostle Willie Wooten (above) organized a 2004 rally in Baton Rouge against a series of bills that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In an appearance before the Senate Labor and Industrial Committee, Ellison, who at the time was board chair of the now-defunct Milestone-SABIS charter school, told lawmakers that she refused to sign a charter renewal contract with the Louisiana Department of Education because it included a clause prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But the ugliness of Ellison’s prejudice was most clearly revealed in a caustic exchange with fellow board member Seth Bloom during an OPSB meeting the following year.

As the board prepared to vote on a series of updates to the district’s anti-bullying policy, which specifically included protections for gay and lesbian students, Ellison offered an amendment that would have stripped that language from the document.

Bloom, who is gay, reacted to her motion by saying, “I just find it perplexing that certain minorities seek protection for certain minorities but not for others.” To which Ellison snapped back: “This has nothing to do with being black. I can’t change my blackness at all.”

Ellison insinuated that being gay or lesbian is a matter of personal choice in a nasty exchange with fellow board member Seth Bloom.

Ellison’s insinuation that being gay or lesbian is a matter of personal choice – an idea that neither science nor logic supports – drew audible gasps from the audience. Nevertheless, she didn’t stop there. Ellison also tried to block a requirement that schools integrate the board’s anti-bullying guidelines with their curriculum and disciplinary policies. In explaining her position, Ellison made the absurd assertion that it would force schools to teach 5 year-olds about gay sex (it didn’t and hasn’t).

OPSB needs to send the right message

Although Ellison hasn’t had the opportunity to publicly weigh-in on these issues in the past few years, there is no reason to believe her views have radically changed. According to campaignfinance reports filed with the Louisiana Board of Ethics, Ellison’s failed 2015 state senate campaign willingly accepted $2000 in contributions from the Family Resource Council, a D.C.-based activist group that opposes equal rights for LGBT citizens, promotes the thoroughly-debunked practice of “gay conversion therapy,” and is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In light of these facts, it’s hard to understand why so many members of the Orleans Parish School Board are apparently willing to consider Ellison for president. After all, had Ellison made racist or anti-semitic remarks, her bid for school board president would be a non-starter. So why would prejudice be OK when it comes to gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals?

It’s a question worth asking. As WWNO’s Jess Clark reported just this past week, GLSEN (formerly known as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) released the results of a national survey of LGBT students that illustrates the tragic impact that prejudice has in their lives. In Louisiana, the statistics were particularly disturbing: nearly 80% of LGBT students reported they were verbally harassed at school due to their sexual orientation or gender expression, 32% had heard school staff make homophobic remarks, and nearly 20% were victims of physical assault.

Graphic from GLSEN’s 2017 National School Climate Survey.

If Ellison is elected board president, the board will be sending a message to these kids, who struggle with hatred everyday, that homophobia is fine and their basic rights and dignity as LGBT individuals doesn’t really matter.

I hope that’s something our school board members keep in mind before they cast their votes this week.

A native of Pennsylvania and graduate of Washington & Lee University, Peter Cook began his career in education as a teacher in New Orleans in 2002 and has worked across the country as a consultant and strategic advisor for school district leaders. Today, he works as an education policy writer and blogger, focusing largely on New Orleans, which he has called home for more than fifteen years.   


Publisher’s Note and Additional Documentation:

This commentary originally appeared on Peter Cook’s self-published education policy website on Jan. 14th, 2019 and has been republished, in full, with permission.  

The video of Ellison’s testimony to the Louisiana Senate Labor Committee occurred on March 29th, 2012, and Cook uploaded the footage to YouTube on Nov. 24th, 2014.

On Monday, I shared a truncated clip of the video on Twitter (the edits were  necessary to comply with constraints set by Twitter on the permissible length of video content and did not exclude any substantive or exculpatory  portion of Ellison’s testimony). So far, the clip has been viewed nearly 11,000 times and has received approximately 42,000 impressions.

Among others, the clip has been shared by Charles Blow of The New York Times and had also been shared by Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Greenblatt removed the tweet without explanation. 

Ethan Ashley

Currently, Ethan Ashley represents District 2 on the Orleans Parish School Board, and those familiar with internal discussions about Ellison’s bid for the board presidency claim he supports her candidacy. According to his own campaign website, Ashley “serves as the National State and Local Advocacy Director for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).”  

When I shared the clip of Ellison’s testimony on Twitter, I was unaware that Cook had reposted the full video on his website earlier in the day. I had received an email from a trusted source with a link to Cook’s YouTube and was provided with additional, credible information that convinced me a video recorded seven years ago and uploaded five  years ago (with fewer than 250 views) was worthy of the public’s scrutiny and attention. 

In his commentary, Cook mentions Ellison’s work in 2004 with Willie Wooten, the founder and head pastor of Gideon Fellowship Church. There are a couple of other details worth mentioning: On Dec. 28th, 2018, Ellison signed and filed a report with the Louisiana Secretary of State listing herself as the church’s registered agent and administrator.

Today, she has a much more prominent leadership role in the church than she did in 2004, when the two of them organized a rally in Baton Rouge.

The year after that rally, Wooten published a book titled Breaking the Curse Off Black America in which he argues that, by 2009, God would punish African Americans for the next forty years if they did not oppose gay rights and ensure that gay children were subjected to conversion therapy. His book is still available for purchase on Amazon, where you’ll find this passage in its free preview:

And there is one more detail to consider: A year before she was elected as a Democrat in 2012, Ellison was registered as a Libertarian.  

I appreciate Cook allowing The Bayou Brief to republish his commentary and am grateful for his relentless work in documenting education policymaking as a service to the people of Louisiana .   

Update:

The Anti-Defamation League issued a letter to Ellison, expressing  “serious concern” about her statements about LGBTQ student rights and the separation of church and state. 


      

The Mission, the Impact, and the Money | A Report on Year 1

Although the Bayou Brief is a young publication, we were built by a small group of professional and experienced journalists, writers, and advocates who each possess a deep institutional knowledge about Louisiana. We are a team of subject-matter experts all motivated by a belief in the critical need for a free and fearless press, one that is unrestrained and not beholden to the agendas of big business or those in positions of corporate or political power.

We are a 501(c)(4) nonprofit entirely funded by individual members and through the financial contributions of nonprofit and foundational organizations who share our values and understand the importance of a more informed public. We do not publish advertisements or sponsored content. Our reporting is not obscured behind paywalls and is offered at no cost to readers.


And this is also true.

These findings are based on a multi-factorial, proprietary analysis of the web traffic, reach, and visibility of more than a dozen of Louisiana’s most well-known news publications, applying data collected on 95 different keywords (i.e. DeSoto Parish, Jeff Landry, Ralph Abraham) on an aggregate level (statewide) and on all seven of the state’s major media markets. To be clear, “readers” only applies to a publication’s online audience.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, we are legally required to disclose our finances to the public in a 990 report to the IRS within two years of our initial incorporation. As soon as our report is filed, we will make it easy for all of our readers: We will publish the full report right here.

We also understand and believe in our ethical duty to demonstrate that we are fully complying with the laws that govern tax-exempt organizations, and we know our contributors and readers will recognize the value of their support. Suffice it to say, we are operating on a shoe-string. The Bayou Brief is a nonprofit, but we are not a charity. We are a social welfare organization.

Our Choice

Early on, we made the decision to incorporate as a 501(c)(4) and not a 501(c)(3) for a number of reasons, recognizing that, in doing so, donations cannot be declared as tax-deductible and that it may prevent us from applying for certain grant opportunities. However, we understood the trade-off: As a social welfare organization, we would be less constrained about political advocacy, and given the state’s toxic partisan environment, we also recognized that our editorial independence was sacrosanct. There was another practical concern: As a publication that seeks to speak truth to power, we knew the importance of protecting the privacy of our supporters. We could have easily incorporated as a for-profit entity, and just like every other news organization in Louisiana, with the exception of The Lens in New Orleans, a 501(c)(3), we would have also been under no obligation to disclose the names and addresses of those who pay for a subscription. But we are not motivated by a desire to maximize profits; we merely want to share our investigative reporting, at no charge, to the public.

Our report will show the following: All told, we have earned less than $80,000 a year. Our publisher earns less than any other similarly-situated nonprofit executive, and, in fact, initially launched the Bayou Brief with his own savings. You will also learn that our all of reporters do not earn the money they deserve; they are contributors because they share our values, and they love their work. We have spent money on technology, software,  travel costs, subscription services, legal fees, public records, sponsorships, and promotions on Facebook. We have very little overhead; we operate from a home office. We typically maintain between $10,000 to $20,000 in cash reserves. Our board members are not compensated.

Assuming our donors maintain their commitments, the Bayou Brief could continue to operate just as we do today. But we believe- and the data demonstrates- that we could create a much more innovative and robust publication, a publication that Louisiana and the Deep South needs now more than ever by aggressively pursuing large-scale, multi-year funding.

This year, that is precisely what we intend to do. When the nonprofit news organization focused on New Orleans first launched, they immediately and deservedly attracted more than $700,000 in funding. That is a lofty goal, of course, but we will do everything we can to ensure we have the long-term funding required to ramp up our investments in journalists all across the state. We believe we have made the case for the Bayou Brief, and with your continued support, there is only one direction: Up.

From the Archives | Nic Pizzolatto’s Louisiana


Publisher’s Note: This interview was originally published on Jan. 24th, 2014 on CenLamar, my long-running personal “blog” site that I shuttered after launching The Bayou Brief. We are republishing the interview in full, with edits for formatting and context. 

Tonight, HBO is airing the two-part premier of Season Three, which has already received rave reviews and has been consistently described as a brilliant “return to form.” Season Three was filmed in Arkansas, where Pizzolatto attended graduate school and stars Oscar and Golden Globe-winning actor Mahershala Ali. 

Readers of the Bayou Brief are likely familiar with Nic’s younger brother Nath, who serves as our sports editor and covers Saints football. Last year, Nath spent some time in Arkansas working with his brother, behind the scenes, on Season Three. If you’re hoping for spoilers or advanced reviews though, you’re out of luck: Nath is sworn to secrecy. 


When I was an undergrad, my friend’s brother Nic became famous. Put more precisely, he became famous among my classmates in Rice University’s English Department: The Atlantic bought and published two of his short stories, and this was, as Vice President Biden would say, “a big fucking deal,” bigger than anything I could have ever imagined for myself as a wannabe fiction writer who also happened to be from Louisiana.

I thought his stories were perfect and beautiful and maddeningly true. He would later publish a collection of short stories, and in some of those, he wrote about the Louisiana that I knew, the forgotten parts of the state that could be both magical and dystopian. I envied him for being so diligent, so precise, for giving away the beginning, the middle, and the ending of the same kind of stories I’d wanted to tell. And, of course, for getting published in The Atlantic.

But these were also his stories. They never belonged to me, and truth be told: He is a better writer than I am.

At the time, Nic was also a graduate student in the same creative writing program in Fayetteville, Arkansas as my first cousin Paul White III and his wife Jen, which made our worlds seem even smaller to me, and also made me feel even more loyal to Nic’s work.

We had only met once, over a weekend of debauchery in Las Vegas (Nath had finished in second place at a “bracelet” event in the World Series of Poker), but I believed Nic understood Louisiana, all of it, the same way I did. 

His first novel, Galveston, confirmed that to me. I sank into it; I was hooked, and Nic and I have remained friends.

Brothers and Lake Charles, LA natives Nic and Nath Pizzolatto (L-R). Courtesy: The Pizzolatto family. 

Because of Nic’s HBO show True Detective, he has been lauded as a genius writer. I knew that more than a decade ago, when his first story in The Missouri Review about a boy going to a horse race with his alcoholic father reduced me to tears.



Jan. 24th, 2014

Lamar: In the premiere (of Season One), while driving through the dystopia of Erath, Louisiana, there’s an exchange between Hart and Cohle that I found fascinating and provocative.

Cohle: “People out here, it’s like they don’t even know the outside world exists, might as well be living on the fucking moon.”

Hart: “There’s all kind of ghettos in the world.”

Cohle: “It’s all one ghetto, man, a giant gutter in outer space.”

Whose side are you on? Is it all one big ghetto? Or are there all kinds of ghettos in the world?

Nic: Well, that’s the scene where the show firmly announces it is not what you might’ve expected. I’m not on either character’s side. I let the characters speak for themselves and I speak for myself. My own suspicions about the nature of reality are not articulated by Cohle or Hart. And, you know, I don’t speak like either one.

Woody Harrelson and Matt McConaughey on  “True Detective” Season One. 

Lamar: But is there something special and unique about the slums of rural southwestern Louisiana?

Nic: Rural Southwestern Louisiana means something to me because it’s where I grew up and its imagery and culture stayed inside me long after I left, so a lot of dense layering- materially, visually, thematically –was not only possible, but very personal to me. I think, too, these areas are part of the wide ‘unknown’ America, the fly-over places where economic and cultural gulfs are waiting to be explored for what they might tell us about ourselves as a whole.

Lamar: I understand you had initially intended on setting True Detective in rural Arkansas and were enticed back to Louisiana, in part, because the incentives the state provides for film projects. As you may know, Hollywood South has not been without its critics, many of whom suggest that the State is not really receiving anything of economic benefit in exchange. I’m not trying to get you into any trouble here, but I’m curious if you have an opinion on the value of Louisiana’s film incentives, if you think that Louisiana is actually investing in a lasting industry and lasting jobs or if we’re just engaging in a type of “race to the bottom”? That is, what happens if a state like Michigan, for example, offers twice as much in tax incentives and credits as Louisiana?

Nic: Well, there’s no question we moved it to Louisiana for tax incentives, but there were other states we could have chosen. I chose Louisiana so that I could take full possession of everything I’d ever wanted to explore and portray about the place. So it was fortunate, in that it actually brought the work to a more personal place with me.

As for the future of the Louisiana film business, I don’t have enough working knowledge of its history and prospects to really comment, but yes, I’d think that when the incentives drop or other, better ones are offered by other states, the industry would totally migrate to those places, the same way it migrated to Louisiana. There’s also the idea of just having shot-out a place. If most movies and a lot of TV in the last years have been set in Louisiana, which has a very particular look, then it stands to reason people will be getting tired of seeing it.

But my whole life there it was always something— the petroleum industries, the riverboat casino gambling, the film industry –that was finally going to lift Louisiana out of nearly last place and provide some kind of economic future for its children.

What money there was didn’t seem to go to the right places, though, and the entertainment industry is as tough and fickle a place to do business as any. So maybe just take all that into consideration.

Lamar: As you know, I’ve been a fan of your writing for years. I actually published a review of your first novel, Galveston. In a recent profile, a reporter referred to you as a “former novelist.” Have you really decided to stop writing books?

Nic: God, no: I’ll always write fiction, and I have many books left to write, I hope, and some plays and other things. The books are off to the side, patiently waiting for me to lose my HBO job. At which point I’ll get back to the business of novels.

Lamar: When you grew up in Louisiana, we were a blue state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature. Now, Louisiana is considered a deep red state, with a Republican supermajority and a Republican governor. In your estimation, has Louisiana really changed all that much, or did it just take people a couple of decades to figure out that they were actually Republicans?

Nic: I’m shocked to recall we were a blue state. I don’t think the rest of the country would’ve considered it blue, no matter the name of the party in control. That might be my personal experience as around my family and peer groups, from birth to college, it was all deeply conservative and religious. On the surface, at least.

Everything only on the surface.

Lamar: What is your relationship like with the state today? You’ve obviously been drawn to it in your work, and you write about the “Dirty Coast” better than just about anyone on the planet. It’s interesting to me, because it’d be easy to label you as a “romantic,” but the truth is, I think, you seem more interested in “de-romanticizing” than anything else.

The Louisiana in your book and in “True Detective” is gritty and dirty and poor. Although some may say it’s also “gothic,” it’s not the Louisiana most people from outside of the state are familiar with. Do you think this is because you’re from Lake Charles- a part of the state very rarely written about- or is it reflective of a larger impulse? A way of illuminating by demystifying?

Nic: I guess the answer I would provide is that I am interested in de-mystifying and seeing a place and people clearly, but that I see such a compulsion as the only way we honor anything, the only way we honor reality, to attempt seeing it unvarnished and then to love it or not.

You’ll see the same landscape more or less that I traversed in ‘Galveston’, and these are all the places I knew from where I lived and traveled. But remember that we just photographed what was there.

We didn’t build any houses or refineries, and we stayed in a localized region (the same way the detectives do). I see de-mystifying as a romantic gesture, an impulse toward the true, even if the mechanics of that impulse are reached through the imagination.

The Business of Running State Government

We hear it all the time: “Government should be run like a business.” Those most prone to spouting this cliche’ are usually members of the business community themselves, and generally have an idealized notion that business is efficient and– thanks to competition in the marketplace – businesslike operations foster effectiveness.

Yet as McGill University professor of Management Henry Mintzberg has written in the Harvard Business Review, “Running government like a business has been tried again and again, and has failed again and again.”

It is, essentially, a logical contradiction, which ensures it will not succeed.

Mintzberg points out that the measure of business success is profitability. Yet as we’ve seen during seemingly endless Louisiana legislative debates over the past several years, those who advocate for “more businesslike government” are also the ones adamantly opposed to the state having even a fraction of a cent of surplus funding – insisting repeatedly on making Louisiana “do more with less.”

“Government,” they insist, “is not supposed to show a profit.”

Contrary to the usual preconceived notions of the makeup of the Louisiana Legislature, the majority of our lawmakers are not lawyers. (Perhaps logic would prevail more often, if they were.) Presently, only 27% (27 House members, 12 senators) of the 144 total legislators are attorneys by trade. However, more than 42% of total state lawmakers (45 House members, 16 senators) state their primary occupation as“business owner” or “business other”.

The persistent efforts of the Jindal administration (aided and abetted by business people in the Legislature) to starve state government by privatizing government services – while further wooing business “customers” with corporate tax giveaways – has done nothing to increase Louisiana’s overall valuation. We remain at or near the bottom of every list of “quality of life” measurements. We, the citizen-”shareholders”, have seen minimal return on ourinvestment.

Take an example from recent news: Georgia-Pacific, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, is permanently shutting down and selling off the majority of its Port Hudson paper mill by mid-March. The announcement, made Thursday, January 10, is costing at least 650 employees of the East Baton Rouge facility their jobs – positions that pay, on average, about $80,000 annually.

It’s a big turnaround from what local officials were told last month, as Georgia-Pacific sought a new industrial tax exemption (ITEP) for a recently-completed $42-million expansion that promised 30 additional jobs. The exemption from paying property taxes on the expansion is valued at $772,000 in the first year.

In 2018, through ITEPs previously granted, G-P was exempt from paying close to $9-million in local property taxes on the Port Hudson facility. Since 1998, they’ve received 36 exemptions, and avoided paying more than $203-million in property taxes, according to the database compiled by Together Baton Rouge.

Jindal speaking to Koch Bros. group AFP in 2015

In 2010, the Jindal administration cut an “economic development” deal with Georgia-Pacific: the company would do a $300-million mill modernization, and the state would finance it with $300-million in Gulf Opportunity Zone bonds – plus give the company a $3-million tax credit and ITEP property tax exemptions. The state would benefit, we were told, because 1000 jobs would be “saved”.

How’s that working out for us, now?

There is one sector of the business community that is doing phenomenally well: construction, and industrial construction, in particular.

On January 4, 2019, Gov. John Bel Edwards and the Louisiana Department of Economic Development announced South Louisiana Methanol – a project of New Zealand-based Todd Corporation, partnered with Saudi Arabia-based SABIC – is building a $2.2-billion new methanol complex in St. James Parish. Ultimately, it will provide 75 permanent full-time jobs, and, while being built, employ 800 construction workers temporarily.

November 16, 2018, it was announced Wanhua will build a $1.25-billion chemical complex in St. James Parish, providing 170 full-time jobs and 1000 construction jobs.

In July, Shintech said it was ready to start a $1.49-billion expansion in Iberville Parish, for 120 more full-time jobs and 3000 construction jobs.

In April, Formosa announced it would build a $9.4-billion chemical facility in St. James Parish, eventually offering 1200 permanent full-time jobs, and requiring 8000 construction workers.

Last January, Entergy began work on a new $872-million generating plant in Calcasieu Parish, requiring 700 construction workers.

And in April 2017, Lotte Chemical of South Korea agreed to move its US headquarters to Calcasieu Parish, overseeing their joint project with Westlake Chemical. That’s needing 3000 construction workers, and will eventually provide 265 permanent full-time jobs.

Louisiana is in a cycle of major industrial expansion, and demand for construction workers is continuing strong — so strong that workers are being imported from elsewhere to fill the positions.

Several reliable sources from within the construction industry have informed this reporter that many of the employees building these mega-projects are not U.S. citizens. Several of the contractors have file folders of names, ID cards, and social security numbers that they provide to undocumented workers, and in exchange, those workers are paid less than those who have their own documentation. In fact, one Louisiana Democratic candidate for Congress spoke out about this practice during campaign forums held this past fall.

The owners of Louisiana’s industrial construction firms are earning record profits. What to do with all that money?

A majority of CEOs and presidents of Louisiana’s top contractors utilize their wealth in philanthropic pursuits. Turner Industries’ Roland Toups is a notable supporter of Catholic organizations and a major contributor to Our Lady of the Lake Hospital’s programs and expansion campaigns. Ratcliff Companies’ Robert Ratcliff uses his wealth and expertise to support cultural improvement efforts in Alexandria.

Others use their wealth to benefit the universities located in their communities. Lenny Lemoine of Lemoine Companies is deeply involved with growth and improvements at U-L Lafayette. Lincoln Builders’ Clint Graham similarly supports Louisiana Tech, and Paul Flowers of Woodward Design+Build assists Tulane University in a like manner.

Over the past 15 years, each of these contractors and their companies have contributed to political campaigns and causes. They give to business-related political action committees (PACs), including the LABI-run regional PACs, but in modest amounts. Additionally, they support candidates within or from their local communities, but rarely do they give the maximum campaign donations allowed by law.

A few of Louisiana’s industrial contractors have made politics their charity-of-choice. Robert Boh of Boh Brothers and Lawrence Gibbs of Gibbs Construction both donate large amounts to candidates’ campaigns. Yet looking through their records of contributions over the past 15 years, it’s clear they are “non-denominational” in their support, giving to Democrats and Republicans alike – as long as those running are members of the local community to begin with.

Other industrial contractors on Louisiana’s top ten list have made it their mission to grow their personal influence on government policies, spending immense amounts toward buying politicians and political influence, and funding large PACs under their personal control. This is the group we’re calling the “Erector Set”.

Over the past decade, they’ve been weaving their web of influence through activism within the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry. (Principals with five of Louisiana’s top ten contractors serve on LABI’s Board of Directors.) They’ve each endowed their own political action committees (PACs) with six-figure donations – PACs they each chair and control – and have given copious sums to their buddies’ PACs, as well as those run by LABI and the contractors’ own trade groups.

They’ve heavily supported certain candidates for offices — almost exclusively Republicans – and have engineered policy changes through those paid-for politicians.

They’ve been testing their king-making machine, and now they’re ready to go all-in on crowning a new king with one of their own “Erector Set”, as Governor of Louisiana.  We’ll be bringing you all the sordid specifics next.

Clementine’s Hunters: Chapter 1 | In Her Own Words


by Lamar White, Jr., with special appreciation for the assistance and insight provided by Michelle Riggs of LSUA and Thomas Whitehead of NSU.


In her late seventies and early eighties, Clementine Hunter was no longer a mere curiosity–– an illiterate, self-taught painter, born only a generation removed from slavery, a woman who had never traveled more than 100 miles away from the banks of the Cane River, the land where she was born and raised, and who had spent the majority of her life picking cotton before she ever picked up a paintbrush.

Her art may have still been dismissed by some as childlike and therefore unsophisticated, but by then, her critics were irrelevant. Hunter had established herself, in her own right, as an incomparable, important, and irreplaceable talent.

By then, a handful of Louisianian and national historians understood that Hunter’s artwork and the stories she told in her work were unique to a moment in the arc and the bend of American history; they were inextricably tied to a specific time and a specific place that would never come “back in style” like a sartorial trend. She hadn’t yet become an artist who could sell her work for tens of thousands of dollars or a woman now considered one of the nation’s greatest folk artists.

At the time, it may have been difficult to imagine that one of her paintings, “Black Jesus,” would become a part of the Smithsonian’s permanent collection.

“Black Jesus” by Clementine Hunter, 1985; Smithsonian Permanent Collection.


It would have seemed even more astonishing to believe that an exhibition of her work at the new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture would be its “largest collection of art we have by a single artist.

Incidentally, like many of Hunter’s paintings, the “Black Jesus” that belongs to the Smithsonian is one of several of the same title. Arguably, her best expression on the theme belongs to the Alexandria Museum of Art (AMoA) in my hometown of Alexandria, Louisiana; it may be the museum’s most valuable jewel. (The AMoA also owns one of the best web addresses of any museum on the planet: www.themuseum.org).

“Black Jesus” by Clementine Hunter, 1963; Alexandria Museum of Art

If you pay close attention to the two works of the same title, there are a few details that may strike you as notable: For one, the painting now in Alexandria was created 22 years before the painting that now belongs to the Smithsonian, and then, notice the differences in Hunter’s signatures. These are not insignificant; they are small details that eventually become critical to an FBI investigation into a massive scam.

But in order to understand any of this, you must first understand what made Clementine Hunter so compelling, and to do that, you should allow her to tell her own story. 

When I first conceived of this series for The Bayou Brief, I had not intended or planned to write any of the chapters myself. In subsequent chapters, we will share the scholarship and reporting of men and women who are truly subject-matter experts, but it quickly became evident that I would, at the very least, need to introduce Clementine Hunter to readers in a prologue.

Otherwise, there was a chance this series could be mired by an impulse to continually repeat some basic biographical facts: That she was a Clemen-teen, not a Clemen-tyn, that she lived until she was 101, that she was born in a plantation in Central Louisiana that was likely once owned by the man who inspired the fictional character Simon Legree in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s epochal book Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In the prologue, I also briefly mentioned my great aunt- the sister of my paternal grandmother, Joanne Lyles White- Dr. Sue Lyles Eakin.

Dr. Eakin, like Hunter, also lived a long and consequential life, and like Hunter, she also left behind a series of invaluable contributions to Louisiana history, including, most notably, her scholarship on a book that had almost been entirely forgotten before she picked up a copy when she was not yet a teenager, Twelve Years a Slave.

As I mentioned in the prologue, Sue Eakin, who earned her doctorate in history when she was sixty, and Clementine Hunter, who began to paint when she was in her fifties, definitely knew one another, though they were a generation apart. I also knew that somewhere, buried in the massive collection of archival materials her children donated to LSUA, there were cassette tapes of the two women talking with one another.      

LSUA is now in the process of digitizing these interviews and hopes to have some of them available for the public by the end of the month. When they do- and with their permission- I will update this chapter to include the audio. (To those wishing to hear Hunter in her own voice, I’ve attached a recording of an interview archived by Harvard University that was conducted in 1975). 

In lieu of the audio, though, LSUA’s archivist Michelle Riggs provided me with a transcription of one of Dr. Eakin’s conversations with Clementine Hunter in 1974. While the 1975 interview offers a glimpse into the late artist’s cadence and wisdom, the transcription from 1974, which was completed in 2013 by a brilliant, young graduate student of Louisiana history, Meredith Melançon, gives us a less guarded and much richer understanding of Hunter’s sense of self and her story.

So, although we await the digitized version, the transcript still offers precisely what readers need first: Clementine Hunter in her own words.



Publisher’s Note: I have made a few, minor edits for formatting and clarity. On a few occasions, Dr. Eakin and Hunter make references to some of Hunter’s artwork.

After consulting with Thomas Whitehead, arguably the nation’s leading scholar on Hunter (buy his book, Clementine Hunter: Her Life and Art, co-authored by Art Shriver, here), I have included works that are at least representative of the ones referenced.

It will require additional archival research to determine whether the two women were discussing an educational slideshow, an LP record or tape recording with supplementary slides, or if they were merely discussing Hunter’s artwork in a more conversational fashion. Whitehead believes there likely was a slideshow accompanying their conversation, and if and when the show can be located and authenticated in Dr. Eakin’s archives, we will edit and augment this chapter to include it. All of the artwork that appears in this chapter was located in the public domain and is intended exclusively for educational use.              

Dr. Sue Lyles Eakin

An interview with Clementine Hunter conducted by Dr. Sue Lyles Eakin in 1974, as transcribed by Meredith Melançon on Nov 19th, 2013. Courtesy of Sue Eakin Papers, Central Louisiana Collections, James C. Bolton Library, LSU Alexandria, Alexandria LA. 

Portions of the interview are inaudible. When available, the interview was filled in with the text from the unpublished work Clementine: The Artist as Historian of Plantation Life by Sue Eakin. (Publisher’s Note: Whitehead also noted he had reviewed drafts of Dr. Eakin’s book). 


Sue Eakin: We got to try and be quiet because . . . laughing . . . Clemetine tell us about yourself . . . tell us about where you were raised . . . born at Cloutierville and . . .

Clementine Hunter: I was born and raised at Chopin.

Eakin: Oh, at Chopin.

Hunter: Way down there in the Marco.

Eakin: At Marco, and Chopin, was that a plantation?

Hunter: Yes, that’s a plantation.

Eakin: Your daddy worked on the plantation?

Hunter: Yeah, my daddy farmed.

Eakin: And who did he farm for?

Hunter: I don’t know who he farmed for.

Eakin: Oh, it was somebody owned the plantation. Your daddy didn’t rent land?

Hunter: On no, he didn’t rent no land. He didn’t rent land.

Eakin: About how many people were there on the plantation?

Hunter: Oh, it’s been so long I don’t know exactly but they had a good many.

Eakin: Now this picture here was wash day. Tell us about what you remember about wash day.

“Wash Day #2,” Clementine Hunter; Alexandria Museum of Art

Hunter: What I remember about wash day, you see them, that’s all they used to do. You know wash out under a tree. Well, if it was sunshine, you see we washed under a tree. And a long time ago they used to get them blocks and beat the clothes. That’s what momma and them used to do. Beat them clothes and then boil them. They called that cleaning them or something, I don’t know. Then they would rub ‘m on the rubboard.

Eakin: What were they blocks called?

Hunter: The blocks were called cypress, cypress blocks. Yea, it was round. Like that.

Eakin: Where’d they get the water?

Hunter: Out the well, out the cistern we called it, cistern. They got it out the well.

Eakin: With a bucket?

Hunter: With a bucket, draw it up with a bucket.

Eakin: A rope and a bucket.

Hunter: Yeah.

Eakin: You see, Clementine, these kids don’t remember anything about that. So that’s what we want you to tell them.

Hunter: Well, we sure did just get a bucket and a rope to . . . , out of the water, out the cistern, we called it. Not . . .

Eakin: Where’d they get their soap?

Hunter: The soap, they make it.

Eakin: Tell them that.

Hunter: Make the soap, you know, put lye, they get lye and grease and lye and make the soap. Let it stay there ‘til it get cold and it be just like the soap you buy here. We called that cold water soap.

Eakin: Cold water

Hunter: Soap. It’d be white and pretty.

Eakin: Where’d you boil the clothes?

Hunter: In a pot outside.

Eakin: Great big black pot.

Hunter: Yeah, I had one I don’t know what become of it.

Eakin: Yeah, let me try….

“Melrose Auction,” Clementine Hunter; 1970. Note: This is not the work Eakin and Hunter are discussing. 

Hunter: That’s the white soap. I wash ‘em under the parasol. Didn’t have no tree for me to get under so I opened that over me while I was washing. I’m boiling my clothes right now in a black pot and rinsing them and hanging them out, you know. That other lady, she done dried some and she going home with hers on her head. She got hers in a bundle on her head. She going home with hers, theys already dry. And they, they lady is yet washing and boiling the clothes. She got to come back and get some more. In the same pot that I’m boiling the clothes in, that’s what you make, I take that to make the soap. When I ain’t boiling no clothes I make my soap in the pot. You put grease and lye, a lot of grease, old grease and lye and you take a stick and stir it up ‘til it get hard and pour it out and when it get cold you cut it with a knife just like . . . soap . . . that’s the way it looked like. It was white. It was white just like this P & G soap.


Eakin: Tell us about going to church.

Hunter: That’s an old man and an old lady going to church. She got her parasol and he got his stick, he walking with a stick. And . . .

Eakin: [faint questions] Did all the people go to church?

Hunter: Some of them, all of them go don’t go to church every Sunday but not all the services. One of them 7 o’clock, one 10 o’clock. All of them don’t go at the same time. Some go at 10 some go at 9. I goes at 9, to church.

Eakin: Clementine, talk about the little angels, even if they . . .

Hunter: That’s the sheeps, some little sheeps and a goose. That man yonder taking care. You see that? Goose. See that little sheep there? That’s a barn. That’s a barn there behind that man. I can’t see that. That’s me feeding my ducks, the goose. See that? . . . Feeding the goose. But she’s coming to the land. 

That’s a Saturday night. That’s a Saturday night, that man shooting that one and that one got scared when they was fighting. They was fighting down there today to that hall and he got up on the roof with his bottle of wine. And he drink it because he was scared to drink it down on the ground. That one down on the ground beating the other one taking his whiskey out his mouth. And that old woman yonder fighting, fighting the other woman, pulling her hair, got her hair all down. And the other one drinking and the wine just wasting on her. Look at her wine. She look like I don’t know what drinking that wine.

Eakin: [laughing]

Hunter: They eating watermelons. They eating watermelons, two ladies. Sitting to the table eating watermelons.

Eakin: How’d they get the watermelon?

Hunter: They grow ‘em out in the field. In the watermelon patch. They has a patch with all the watermelon in it. Then when they get ripe they goes and gits ‘em and cuts ‘em and eats’em. 

Eakin: What part of the year do they get ripe?

Hunter: They get ripe about, *when cotton open. Git ripe ‘long August, like dat. They get ‘em and cut ‘em and eat ‘em. He cuttin’ the watermelon. He cuttin’ the watermelon and fixin’ to eat it.

Hunter: That’s the African House and that’s the Calico girls.

Eakin: Why are they out here?

Hunter: They go to the African House. They going to have a tour when they all get there. They all ain’t there yet. That’s what they waiting on.

Eakin: What plantation is that?

Hunter: Melrose Plantation. That’s where they have the tour like every two days in October. They have that tour.

Eakin: inaudible

Hunter: Well, I been working since it started. I reckon about 15 or 16 years I been working there with them.

Eakin: You were a cook down there weren’t you?

Hunter: Yea, I cooked. I cook almost seven years. I cooked until the old lady died, when she died that’s quit. Didn’t cook there no more.

Eakin: Who was the old lady?

Hunter: Mrs. Henry.

Eakin: Tell me about her. What did she look like? Was she a nice lady?

Hunter: Yea, she was nice, she was good to me. She done got sick and died. And I just didn’t want to be there no more and I just left. That’s me painting. Got my brushes, got my paint on my lap and that’s the way I paint. I don’t have no easel or nothing. I don’t care to paint on that. I just paint like you see there. That’s the way I paint. I don’t paint no other way.

Eakin: Is that a photographer taking your picture?

Hunter: Yes, somebody. I don’t know who. Somebody taking my picture right now. I don’t know who it is.

Eakin: Who are those people?

Hunter: They is rocking in the other place. One wrenching clothes, and one washing, and what the other one doing? One boiling clothes. That’s off in the yard yonder. Somewhere in the yard and I’m painting under the tree. That’s where I’m painting. They stirrin’ the clothes in the pot. She done wrung hers out.

They haullin’ cotton. Haulin’ cotton and pickin’ cotton. Haulin’ cotton and pickin’ cotton. That old man don’t look good to me.

Eakin: How many mules does he have?

Hunter: One. One mule. He look like he gonna fall off of the wagon. [laughing]

Eakin: Did they have a lot of mules on the plantation? Tell them about it.

Hunter: Not too many. They didn’t have too many mules. Just a few mules. They didn’t’ have too many. Just enough for the people to haul the cotton with.

Eakin: Now, Clementine, if you will just tell them all you remember about cotton picking. The kids see the machines picking cotton. They don’t remember that people ever picked cotton. Tell them about it will ya.

Hunter: We picked cotton in sacks. We don’t pick with no machines now. I mean not no more. Cause when we used to pick cotton, I picked draggin’ my sack. That’s the way I picked it. Now they pick with machines. I picked it draggin my sack. And I picked three, I picked three hundred and fifty pounds of cotton a day. That’s what I was pickin. Three hundred and fifty, draggin my sack from 8 o’clock in the morning until 5o’clock in the evening.

Eakin: How much did they pay you for it?

Hunter: Fifty cents.

Eakin: Fifty cents a hundred?

Hunter: And they didn’t give no more than fifty cents a hundred when I was pickin’ cotton.

Eakin: How much would that be today? $3?

Hunter: I reckon. I don’t know. Cause I just picked . . .

Eakin: Two and a half?

Hunter: About two and a half because it was fifty cents a hundred. That’s all I was getting. And fifty cents a day for to hoe the cotton. Just fifty cents a day.

Eakin: All day long?

Hunter: All day long, fifty cents a day from sun up to sun down. Now you know we ain’t got to do that now, but they used to do it in them time when I was small.

Eakin: Did you take your babies to the field?

Hunter: I take my babies to the field, put them under a tree and put the water there and put their food their and leave them under a tree and I be working. That’s what I done with my children. Some people make out like now they got to have babysitters. I ain’t. I got mine in the field. Out in the field. Babysitters! I ain’t had none.

Eakin: What’s in the art here?

Hunter: That’s just a cart . . .

Eakin: . . . cart . . . riding . . .

Hunter: That’s just a cart to haul cotton. That’s a cart to haul cotton. That’s all.

Eakin: inaudible

Hunter: . . . Oh, that’s a sick man. That’s a sick man. That’s a nurse. He in the hospital. She givin’ him medicine. She feedin’ him. He can’t get up. That’s about all, I think.

That’s a Baptist church. The people are all gathering around to the church, to go in the church. Some to the door to go in and some standing around to go in. So that’s about all of that.

That’s Baptists. Baptizing in the Cane River. That’s a baptizing. That’s a Baptist Church, so. That’s all of that. They had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven to baptize.


That’s a gin. They ginning cotton. Ginning cotton and bales of cotton. That’s the bales of cotton and that man rolling the bales over. And that man yonder feeding the sucker.

Oh, yeah. Going to the funeral. They going to the funeral. In them times they carried the casket in the wagon. See in the wagon? And now, the ambulance come get ‘em. That’s in the olden times. That’s a long time ago where they would haul it to church in the wagon. That’s a burial. One man ringing a bell. Ringing a bell for them to bury the man. I say ‘man’ I don’t know what it is. Might be a woman.

Eakin: laughing

Hunter: Oh, that’s the weddin’. That’s the weddin’. Let’s see.

Eakin: Tell them about marrying and all that cause I don’t know . . .

Hunter: Well, I don’t know.

Eakin: In the church?

Hunter: Yeah, they married not in the church they married on the outside of the church. They had so many people they married on the outside. Some of them married on the outside, some of them married under a tree and all like that. They make it look like, you know, and that man. I don’t like the way he look. He don’t look so natural. But she like him. She like that man. But I don’t.

Well, that’s pickin’ pecans. That lady picking pecans. Well, she too old, look like, to bend down, her. She just picking one up at a time.

Eakin: Oh, that’s marvelous.

Hunter: Oh, she playing cards. They playing cards.

Eakin: Where are they playing?

Hunter: They playing on Melrose under a tree. That’s where they playing cards at.

Eakin: inaudible

Hunter: . . . that man there, that woman there, there’s two women playing cards. Shoot, three women, no two women. There’s three, yeah, there’s three. Three women playing cards. They going soon be fighting because they winning her money. Yeah, they winning all her money.


Oh, they got that man in the *go-run I called it. They going to kill him. See him sitting in that courthouse there? I be scared if I was him. Look at him? See . . . sitting there? They gonna get him. He killed a man. And now they got him. And he sitting just as straight in that chair. I’m telling you, you something else. That my house?

Eakin: Yeah. Tell me how long you been living here?

Hunter: Oh I been living in this house about thirty years. Right here in this house. Once I moved, I was staying to the spillway. A little, a place below Melrose. I was living in a house there. And I moved from there I moved here to this house where I’m living now. And didn’t do nothing but raise flowers.

Eakin: Is that all? Clementine, tell us something about yourself, all about yourself.

Hunter: I don’t know about myself.

Eakin: [laughing] You were born in Cloutierville and about when you started painting.

Hunter: Well, I don’t know exactly. I just painted. I don’t know. I just got to painting. Five, I had five children when I started to paint. I wasn’t no girl when I was painting. I just took that up like that, you see. I didn’t go learn nothing no where. I just picked up any kind of piece of board and paint, paint on it.

The Lord gave it to me and I just took it up. I didn’t know whether it was right or wrong but I painted.

Eakin: Tell what you painted, you know. You painted the life you knew, right?

Hunter: Well, yeah. I painted different things. Pecan picking and cotton picking. Different things that I know . . . I didn’t . . . I painted anything after that, just painted.

Eakin: You painted the people you knew about, right?

Hunter: I done made my own people. I didn’t know who people, I just made a person.

Eakin: I know but it was like people you knew.

Hunter: Oh yeah, just like people, uh huh.

Eakin: It was the way people lived . . . wasn’t it?

Hunter: Yeah, that’s right.

Eakin: Do you figure you’ve had a happy life, Clementine?

Hunter: I been having a happy life . . . I’m yet happy. If I just could do. But you know a person can’t do what they used to do. They got to take it easy now. Yes, I do.

Eakin: If a child would ask you how to paint, and how could they become a painter, what would you tell them?

Hunter: Well, I couldn’t tell them. I just couldn’t’ tell them because they just have to do like I do. The Lord done show me, you know, how to paint different things. I would mark it. I would see it in my sleep and I would get up and mark it with a pencil. My husband told me he said, you gotta be crazy, he say you gotta be crazy getting up at night fooling with a picture. And I would, I say , well, what I answer him, I say, what God gave you, you ain’t gonna go crazy. That’s what I told him. And I said I got to keep it up.

Eakin: Would you tell children to paint what they know or, how would you tell them?

Hunter: No, I wouldn’t tell them nothing about painting. None of the childrens.

Eakin: They Lord will tell them, huh?

Hunter: Yeah, I tell them sometimes. I say, they ask me, I said well I can’t tell you ‘cause some people done come here and ask me would I teach they children. I told them I couldn’t. I couldn’t teach the children ‘cause I couldn’t give them what the Lord give me. ‘Cause he might would take it from me if I was going to give it to somebody else. I can’t give it to nobody else. I got to keep it myself. That’s all.

Eakin: That’s wonderful.


Clementine Hunter interview with Dorothy Robinson, with the assistance of Thomas Whitehead, 1975; Harvard University archives.  


Divisional Round Preview: Saints vs. Eagles

A surprise upset in Chicago Sunday night meant the Philadelphia Eagles, and not the Dallas Cowboys, would be visiting New Orleans for the next round of the playoffs.

As far as potential playoff matchups go, it’s hard for the Saints to ask for better than a team they smacked around to the tune of 48-7 earlier this year. Of course, that probably won’t be the margin of victory again, and the Eagles are playing better now than they were then, but New Orleans is still an 8-point favorite for good reason.

Here, then, is a preview of the game, with discussions of the key matchups and of how the Saints can win.

When the Saints have the ball

DVOA Overall Pass Run
NO 4 3 8
PHI 15 15 9

The Saints’ offense went through a bit of a slump toward the later stretch of the season, but still finished strong overall, and they bounced back against Pittsburgh in week 16 when everyone was healthy. Strong in all facets of the game, and playing at home, if everyone is healthy, the Saints should be able to execute their offense smoothly.

Two major factors might interfere with that. One is the Eagles’ defensive line, their strongest unit and one of the deepest in the league. They’re led by All-Pro defensive tackle Fletcher Cox and versatile veteran Michael Bennett, but they have a lot of talent top-to-bottom, including veterans Haloti Ngata and Chris Long and former first-round pick Brandon Graham. The Eagles’ strength against the run and their pass rush comes from this line, and it could be the key to stopping the Saints.

The Saints have the talent to counter their defensive line with their own offensive line… if everyone is healthy. The biggest worry right now for the Saints is the level of nagging injuries bothering the o-line; four of the five starters (everyone except Max Unger) as well as backup left tackle Jermon Bushrod have been limited in practice this week. Certainly they’ll all play, but it would be a lot better if they were 100 percent.

The Eagles secondary has been something of an unreliable unit for them all year, between injuries and a dearth of experience. Two of the four starters, including ostensible #1 cornerback Ronald Darby, have been on injured reserve most of the year. By DVOA the Eagles have struggled most against #2 receivers and running backs. The last Saints-Eagles matchup reflected this, as Tre’Quan Smith had his best game of the year with 10 catches for 157 yards. (Alvin Kamara only caught one pass, the famous fourth-down attempt with the game well in hand where he split out and simply caught a “go” route down the sideline for a 37-yard TD. The Eagles double-teamed Michael Thomas last time and probably will again, although last time he still caught four passes for 92 yards and a touchdown. And this time, Ted Ginn is back in the saddle as the #2 receiver. Don’t be surprised if the Saints take some deep shots early, both to use Ginn’s speed in the advantageous matchup and also to keep the defense honest and open up the passing game underneath.

The Eagles are a better run-stopping team, but the Saints had a strong performance against them back in week 11, and even if the Eagles do better, they’ll still have a formidable challenge on their hands.

The Saints have a really good matchup here for lighting up the Superdome through the air.

When the Eagles have the ball

DVOA Overall Pass Run
PHI 16 11 27
NO 11 22 3

Carson Wentz threw three interceptions against the Saints last time, but Nick Foles is back at starter for the Eagles, hoping to recreate last year’s magic, when he similarly took over for Wentz after a late-season injury and guided the Eagles to the Super Bowl. Foles does a few things very well, like play-action, but his skill set is more limited than Wentz’s, and if the Saints can take away what he does well and force him to improvise, they stand a great chance of getting him in trouble.

Much like when the Saints have the ball, the matchup in the trenches will be strength vs. strength. The Eagles have an All-Pro center in Jason Kelce and three other current or former All-Pro linemen. Last matchup, Kelce only played six snaps, and backup Steven Wisniewski was dominated on the regular by Sheldon Rankins. This time around, it probably won’t be so easy, but the matchup is still favorable for the Saints in a number of ways.

New Orleans’ strong run defense facing Philadelphia’s weaker run offense means the Saints should be able to force the Eagles into unfavorable down-and-distance situations and force them to pass. That could be favorable for the Saints as well, based on the matchup.

As Derrik Klaasen noted for Football Outsiders, the Eagles were one of the most frequent– and successful– teams at running a two-tight end set (12 personnel) in the passing game, with Zach Ertz (the new record holder for tight end receptions in a single season) and second-round pick Dallas Goedert. But the Saints have been one of the best teams in the league defending tight ends in the passing game (fourth by DVOA), so if they play up to their capabilities, they should be strong.

The Saints have been worse at defending wide receivers, although most of that comes from early in the year when the team was getting routinely torched for big games. I think the team actually has strong matchups here: Marshon Lattimore should be able to blanket Alshon Jeffery, Eli Apple is (I believe) superior to Nelson Agholor, and while Golden Tate is a very good receiver, P.J. Williams’ performance in the slot (Saints are 6th in DVOA against “other WR” beyond 1s and 2s to boot) makes me think he can limit Tate and keep him from big plays. Add Marcus Williams’ range on the back end, and the Saints shouldn’t have to do anything too fancy in coverage. That said, Philadelphia’s offensive line being what it is, don’t be surprised if you see New Orleans blitz fairly regularly to try to rattle Foles and force throws before they’re open.

The big worry for the Saints is as detailed at the beginning of this section: Foles’ play action game and fearlessness throwing downfield could break plays open if the defensive backs aren’t careful and bite too easily. Philadelphia’s best chance of staying in the game may be completing bombs, and the Saints need to protect against the big play and not give the Eagles a chance to stay in the game that way.

Prediction

The Saints probably won’t win 48-7 again, but they’re 8-point favorites for a reason: They’re the better overall team at every unit, and in particular they match up well with the Eagles, with an offense that can attack their weaknesses and a defense that is at its best against their strengths. This was almost surely the best matchup for the Saints in the divisional round, and even if they don’t dominate to the degree they did in week 11, this is their game to lose.

Saints 27, Eagles 17

A Week 17 recap and the year in review

There really isn’t much worth discussing about the Saints’ performance in week 17, as a team with nothing to play for played like it, resting most of their starters for parts of or the entire game, as much as could be allowed with roster limitations.

The most exciting part for diehard fans like me was seeing Teddy Bridgewater return to action. Bridgewater started his first game since the Vikings’ wild-card match against the Seattle Seahawks at the end of the 2015 season. Bridgewater’s severe knee injury in training camp the next year kept him off the field for nearly two years; the Vikings let him leave in free agency the next year, where he signed with the Jets before they traded him to the Saints.

Bridgewater, despite playing almost entirely behind a backup offensive line and without Alvin Kamara, showed many of the traits that made him a desirable QB prospect and a target of the Saints in the preseason. The office didn’t move the ball much with all the backups playing, but Bridgewater threw his first touchdown pass in over three years:

The defense, well, played like the game didn’t matter, surrendering 33 points, mostly to third-string quarterback Kyle Allen (although fourth-stringer Garrett Gilbert came in to finish one field goal drive near the end of the game after Allen suffered an injury). Marcus Davenport split a sack with David Onyemata, his first since returning from injury. With most of the defensive starters playing a minimal or limited workload, the name of the game was mostly avoiding injury. (Even then, alarmingly, three different Saints went down after a play, although none of them were hurt seriously or out for long.)

Also, Taysom Hill scored a touchdown.

The game didn’t matter because the Saints had locked up home-field advantage throughout the playoffs, so they were able to cruise to a 13-3 record. With that in mind, analyzing the game further won’t be very productive. So let’s look at how the regular season went for the Saints, and who and what deserve recognition:

Most improved player: Sheldon Rankins. Rankins, the #12 overall pick in 2016, was drafted to provide interior pressure from the defensive line.  During a practice in preseason, though, Rankins broke his leg and wasn’t able to return until November. That injury slowed his development as a pass rusher, both due to the fact that he couldn’t get reps in, and because it takes time to adjust and get comfortable again with the body after a major injury like that. He still notched four sacks in nine games as a rookie, but last year that number was down to two despite starting sixteen games.

But in his third year, Rankins took a major step forward, bringing the confidence to match his athleticism and technique. Rankins’ explosiveness up the middle, combined with his devastating spin move, allowed him to get consistent pressure up the middle, and the versatility his athleticism grants him allowed him to move around the line, attack from all angles, and even drop into coverage. (Most notably, by dropping into coverage on a zone blitz against Pittsburgh, Rankins was able to strip JuJu Smith-Schuster and seal the win in week 16.)

In his third year, just 24, Rankins put it all together to leap from a solid if unspectacular starter into a Pro Bowl-caliber player. He should be a fixture of the Saints interior line for years to come.

Runner-up: Alex Anzalone. Drafted to be the kind of athletic coverage backer the Saints need, Anzalone only played four games as a rookie before shutting down with a shoulder injury. In his second year, he played all sixteen games, and though he still trailed Demario Davis and A.J. Klein in snaps, he managed to come up with some major impact plays in crucial games for the Saints, and looks to join the four players picked in front of him as yet another strong addition from the Saints’ 2017 draft class.

Best new addition: Demario Davis. The Saints have seemingly been trying to shore up the linebacker spot since the days of the Dome Patrol ended. Last year they spent money on A.J. Klein and Manti Te’o and drafted Alex Anzalone to try to cure their woes, with mixed results. Klein was okay– depending on whose analysis you trust, anywhere from “pretty good” to “well below average”– while Te’o was a solid run stopper but mostly wasn’t athletic enough to take on a bigger role (something reflected by the time he spend this year as a healthy scratch), and Anzalone got hurt too early in the season to make an impact.

The Saints tried one more time to address the position in free agency this offseason, and struck gold when they landed Davis. Despite worries by some analysts that the Saints were handing Davis a big contract based on an outlier season, he ended up being exactly what the Saints needed: A solid cover man on running backs, a sure tackler excellent at diagnosing run plays, and a very good blitzer to boot (his five sacks put him third on the team behind Cameron Jordan and Rankins). Finally, it seems the Saints have found the three-down linebacker they need.

Runner-up: Eli Apple. A midseason acquisition is an unusual choice, sure– by definition– midseason acquisitions are unusual– and Apple didn’t set the world on fire, but he was enough of an improvement over Ken Crawley to help solidify the Saints defense down the stretch (#2 in DVOA from weeks 9-15).

There really weren’t many other contenders for this award. Patrick Robinson was playing well enough to be considered before his injury; Marcus Davenport and Tre’Quan Smith didn’t play enough snaps to be selected over Apple; and Ben Watson played like, well, a 38-year-old tight end (granted, a tight end that’s pretty darn good for being 38 years old, but still, 38 years old).

Most secretly valuable player: Ted Ginn. I was tempted to give this to Terron Armstead, based on the decline in the offense’s performance while he was injured. Given his Pro Bowl starter nomination and his second-team All-Pro selection, though, it’s hard to say his value is secret to anybody. Ginn, on the other hand, has transformed in his 30s from a no-hands speedster into a sharp route runner who uses his natural gifts to get substantial separation from defenders, and he’s a reliable #2 for Drew Brees. Indeed, when he was out, the offense struggled to move the ball downfield, as defenses could double-team Michael Thomas while not really worrying about anyone else. (This was more pronounced when Armstead was out, as the Saints’ screen game suffered substantially, taking away one of the offense’s most reliable packages.) With Ginn back in week 16,
the difference was immediately evident– especially for the snaps Armstead played– as the offense had a much easier time moving the ball downfield. (Indeed, Ginn came up with a crucial 25-yard catch on a third-and-20 on the Saints’ game-winning drive.)

Runner-up: If we disqualify anyone who got some kind of awards accolades as not being “secretly valuable”– which means Terron Armstead and Max Unger’s Pro Bowl selections take them out of the running, as does Ryan Ramczyk’s second-team All-Pro selection– it’s probably Marcus Williams, whose name you didn’t hear called very often this year, but when you’re a safety that’s often a good thing. He didn’t pull down as many interceptions this year as last, but his range at free safety largely kept the back end locked down while the Saints pass rush made life miserable for opposing quarterbacks.  (If Marshon Lattimore hadn’t made the Pro Bowl last year, I’d consider him for this honor; the Saints’ shaky start this season led him to become a bit underrated, as nobody really seemed to notice when he bounced back to his old level. He was very deserving of a Pro Bowl nod this season.)

Speaking of the AP All-Pro team, the Saints only put one player on it this year, Michael Thomas, but four on the second team: Drew Brees, Terron Armstead, Ryan Ramczyk, and Cameron Jordan. A little disappointing that more players weren’t recognized from the league’s best team, but it’ll have to do. And unfortunately, the fact that Patrick Mahomes got 45 of 50 votes for the AP first team is probably indicative of how the MVP voting will go. Not here, though:

MVP: Drew Brees. Duh. Cameron Jordan and Michael Thomas are next on the ballot.

Last thing: The benefit of writing this column so late is, I now know who the Saints’ opponent will be next week. After a surprise upset Sunday afternoon, the Philadelphia Eagles will be traveling to New Orleans. The two teams met earlier this year in the Superdome; that game was possibly the Saints’ best performance of the year, a 48-7 blowout that was every bit as lopsided as that score indicates. I’ll be back later in the week with a preview of the game.