Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
WallBuilders.com ^ | 3/2003 | David Barton

Posted on 02/05/2004 8:15:23 AM PST by ZGuy

A black civil rights leader recently told an assembly at Michigan State University that American democracy was only decades old rather than centuries – that not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act when blacks could vote did democracy truly begin. [1]

Such a declaration does not accurately portray the history of black voting in America nor does it honor the thousands of blacks who sacrificed their lives obtaining the right to vote and who exercised that right as long as two centuries ago. In fact, most today are completely unaware that it was not Democrats but was actually Republicans – like the seven pictured on the front cover – who not only helped achieve the passage of explicit constitutional voting rights for blacks in 1870 but who also held hundreds of elected offices during the 1800s. [2]

Black Voting in the 1700s

Acknowledgment that blacks voted long before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was provided in the infamous 1856 Dred Scott decision in which a Democratic-controlled US Supreme Court observed that blacks “had no rights which a white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” [3] Non-Democrat Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, one of only two on the Court who dissented in that opinion, provided a lengthy documentary history to show that many blacks in America had often exercised the rights of citizens – that many at the time of the American Revolution “possessed the franchise of [voters] on equal terms with other citizens.” [4]

State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.” [12]

As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections; [13] and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. [14]

This is not to imply that all blacks were allowed to vote; free blacks could vote (except in South Carolina) but slaves were not permitted to vote in any State. Yet in many States this was not an issue, for many worked to end slavery during and after the American Revolution. Although Great Britain had prohibited the abolition of slavery in the Colonies before the Revolution, [15] as independent States they were free to end slavery – as occurred in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. [16] Additionally, blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office. [17]

Congressional Actions

In the early years of the Republic, the federal Congress also moved toward ending slavery and thus toward achieving voting rights for all blacks, not just free blacks. For example, in 1789 Congress banned slavery in any federally held territory; in 1794, [18] the exportation of slaves from any State was banned; [19] and in 1808, the importation of slaves into any State was also banned. [20] In fact, more progress was made to end slavery and achieve civil rights for blacks in America at that time than was made in any other nation in the world. [21]

In 1820, however, following the death of most of the Founding Fathers, a new generation of leaders in Congress halted and reversed this early progress through acts such as the Missouri Compromise, which permitted the admission of new slave-holding States. [22] This policy was loudly lamented and strenuously opposed by the few Founders remaining alive. Elias Boudinot – a president of Congress during the Revolution – warned that this new direction by Congress would bring “an end to the happiness of the United States.” [23] A frail John Adams feared that lifting the slavery prohibition would destroy America; [24] and an elderly Jefferson was appalled at the proposal, declaring, “In the gloomiest moment of the Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source.” [25] Congress also enacted the Fugitive Slave Law allowing southern slavers to go North and kidnap blacks on the spurious claim that they were runaway slaves [26] and then passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, allowing slavery into what is now Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. [27]

This new anti-civil rights attitude in Congress was also reflected in many of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. For example, in 1835 North Carolina reversed its policies and limited voting to whites only, [28] as also occurred in Maryland in 1809. [29]

Political Parties

The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.” [32]

The original Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks – six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans. [33] The Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position and defended slavery, even warning that “all efforts of the abolitionists [those opposed to slavery]. . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and . . . diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union.” [34] The next Democratic platform (1860) endorsed both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision; [35] Democrats even distributed copies of the Dred Scott ruling to justify their anti-black positions. [36]

Specific Constitutional Rights for African-Americans

When Abraham Lincoln was elected the first Republican President in 1861 (along with the first ever Republican Congress), southern pro-slavery Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall. They left the Union and took their States with them, forming a brand new nation: the Confederate States of America, and their followers became known as Rebels. During the War, Lincoln implemented the first anti-slavery measures since the early Republic: in 1862, he abolished slavery in Washington, DC; [37] in 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, ordering slaves to be freed in southern States that had not already done so; [38] in 1864, he signed several early civil rights bills; [39] etc. After the war ended in 1865, the Republican Congress passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and the 14th Amendment providing full civil rights for all blacks, thus fulfilling the original promise of the Declaration of Independence.

Most southern States ignored these new Amendments. [40] Congress therefore insisted that the southern States ratify and implement these Amendments before they could be readmitted into the United States. [41]

Until their readmission, the civil rights of the Rebels in the South – including their right to vote in elections – were suspended. [42] The Constitution authorizes that certain civil rights may be suspended “in cases of rebellion” or when “the public safety may require it” (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2). In fact, because the Rebels had taken up arms against their own nation – an act of treason according to the Constitution (“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them . . .” Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 1), they could have been executed (Art. III, Sec. 3, cl. 2). Instead, amnesty was granted to the Rebels if they took an oath of fidelity to the United States, which most eventually did. (Regrettably, after their readmission, and after Democrats regained the State legislatures from Republicans, those States worked aggressively to circumvent the 14th Amendment in violation of the pledge [43] they had taken.)

Because the Rebels (who had almost exclusively been Democrats) were not allowed to vote in the early parts of Reconstruction, Republicans became the political majority in the South; and since nearly every African-American was a Republican and could now vote, most southern legislatures – at least for a few years – became Republican and included many black legislators. In Texas, 42 blacks were elected to the State Legislature, [44] 50 to the South Carolina Legislature, [45] 127 to Louisiana’s, [46] 99 to Alabama’s, [47] etc. – all as Republicans. These Republican legislatures moved quickly to protect voting rights for blacks, prohibit segregation, establish public education, and open public transportation, State police, juries, and other institutions to blacks. [48] (It is noteworthy that the blacks serving both in the federal and State legislatures during that time forgivingly voted for amnesty for the Rebels. [49])

During the time when most southern Democrats had not yet signed the oath of fidelity to the United States and therefore could not vote, they still found ways to intimidate and keep blacks from voting. For example, in 1865-1866, the Ku Klux Klan was formed by Democrats to overthrow Republicans and pave the way for Democrats to regain control [50] – as when Democrats attacked the State Republican Convention in Louisiana in 1866, killing 40 blacks, 20 whites, and wounding 150 others. [51] In addition to the use of force, southern Democrats also relied on absurd technicalities to limit blacks. In Georgia, 28 black legislators were elected as Republicans, but Democratic officials decided that even though blacks had the right to vote in Georgia, they did not have the right to hold office; the 28 black members were therefore expelled. [52]

Because of such blatant attempts to nullify the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, the Republican Congress passed the 15th Amendment to give explicit voting rights to African-Americans. Significantly, not one of the 56 Democrats serving in Congress at that time voted for the 15th Amendment. [53]

Democratic Efforts to Limit Voting Rights for Blacks

During Reconstruction (1865-1877), Republicans passed four federal civil rights bills to protect the rights of African-Americans, the fourth being passed in 1875. [54] It was nearly a century before the next civil rights bill was passed, because in 1876 Democrats regained partial control of Congress and successfully blocked further progress. As Democrats regained control of the legislatures in southern States, they began to repeal State civil rights protections and to abrogate existing federal civil rights laws. As African-American US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) noted, “The opposition to civil rights in the South is confined almost exclusively to States under democratic control . . .” [55]

Devious and cunning methods were required to circumvent the explicit voting protections of the 14th and 15th Amendments, and southern Democrats implemented nearly a dozen separate devices to prevent blacks from voting, including:

1. The poll tax

The poll tax was a fee paid by a voter before he could vote. The fee was high enough that most poor were unable to pay the tax and therefore unable to vote. Although the poll tax affected both whites and blacks, it was disproportionately hard on blacks who were just emerging from slavery, many of whom had not yet established an independent means of living. A poll tax was first proposed in Texas in 1874, right after Democrats reclaimed power from the Republicans, [56] but it was North Carolina in 1876 that became the first State to enact a poll tax, [57] and other southern States quickly followed. [58]

2. Literacy tests

Literacy tests required a voter to demonstrate a certain level of learning proficiency before he could vote. In some cases, the test was 20 pages long for blacks, and those administering the tests were white Democrats who nearly always ruled that blacks were illiterate. In Alabama, the test included questions such as, “Where do presidential electors cast ballots for president?” “Name the rights a person has after he has been indicted by a grand jury.” [59] Democrats required blacks to have an above average education before they could vote but then simultaneously opposed black education and even worked with the Ku Klux Klan to burn down schools attended by blacks. [60] Clearly, they did not intend for blacks to vote.

3. “Grandfather” clauses

“Grandfather” clauses were laws passed by Democratic legislatures allowing an individual to vote if his father or grandfather had been registered to vote prior to the passage of the 15th Amendment. [61] Since voting in the South prior to the 15th Amendment was almost completely by whites, this law ensured that poor and illiterate whites, but not blacks, could vote.

4. Suppressive election procedures

Some election procedures (such as “multiple ballots”) were intentionally made complex and misleading. For example, a Republican voter might be required to cast a ballot in up to eight separate locations – or sometimes to cast a vote for each Republican on the ballot at a separate location – before the ballot would be counted. Democratic officials, however, often failed to inform black voters of this complicated procedure and their ballots were therefore disqualified. [62]

5. Black codes and enforced segregation

Black Codes (later called Jim Crow laws) restricted the freedoms and economic opportunities of blacks. For example, in the four years from 1865-1869, southern Democrats passed “Black Codes” to prohibit blacks from voting, holding office, owning property, entering towns without permission, serving on juries, or racially intermarrying. [63]

National observers at that time concluded that the South was simply trying to institute a new form of slavery through these Black Codes. [64] This tactic was obvious to African-Americans, thus causing black US Rep. Joseph H. Rainey (Republican from SC) to quip: “I can only say that we love freedom more – vastly more – than slavery; consequently we hope to keep clear of the Democrats!” [65]

Southern Democrats went well beyond Black Codes, however, and also imposed forced racial segregation. In 1875, Tennessee became the first State to do so, [66] and by 1890 several other southern States had followed. [67] As a result, schools, hospitals, public transportation, restaurants, etc., became segregated. (Even though the Republican Congress had already passed laws banning segregation, the US Supreme Court struck down those anti-segregation laws in a series of decisions in the 1870s and 1880s. [68])

6. Bizarre gerrymandering

Once the Democrats regained State legislatures at the end of Reconstruction, they began to redraw election lines to make it impossible for Republicans to be elected, thereby preventing blacks from being elected. [69] For example, although many blacks were elected as Republicans in Texas during Reconstruction, when the last African-American left the State House in 1897, none was elected (either as a Republican or a Democrat) for the next 70 years until federal courts ordered a change in the way Texas Democrats drew voting lines. [70] Furthermore, although Republicans had been an overwhelming majority in the State legislature during Reconstruction, after Democrats redrew election lines, for several decades there were never more than two Republicans serving in the House nor one in the Senate. [71] This pattern was typical in other southern States as well.

7. White-only primaries

Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected was by enacting Democratic Party policies prohibiting blacks from voting in their primaries. When Texas later codified this policy into State law, the US Supreme Court struck down that Texas law in 1927, [72] but not the party policies. The Democratic Parties in Georgia, [73] Louisiana, [74] Florida, [75] Mississippi, [76] South Carolina, [77] etc., therefore continued their reliance on white-only primaries. Because Democrats solidly controlled every level of government in the South (often called the “solid Democratic South” [78]), this policy had the same effect as a State law and again ensured that no black would be elected. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld this Democratic policy [79] but then reversed itself and finally struck it down in 1944. [80]

8. Physical intimidation and violence

In 1871, black US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (Republican from SC) observed that: “the declared purpose [of the Democratic party is] to defeat the ballot with the bullet and other coercive means. . . . The white Republican of the South is also hunted down and murdered or scourged for his opinion’s sake, and during the past two years more than six hundred loyal [Republican] men of both races have perished in my State alone.” [81] Elliott’s term “coercive means” accurately described the lynchings as well as the cross burnings, church burnings, incarceration on trumped-up charges, beatings, rape, murder, etc.

The Ku Klux Klan was a leader in this form of violent intimidation by Democrats. As African-American US Rep. James T. Rapier (Republican from al) explained in 1874, Democrats “were hunting me down as the partridge on the mount, night and day, with their Ku Klux Klan, simply because I was a Republican and refused to bow at the foot of their Baal.” [82]

Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective. Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 persons were lynched – 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. [83] Why were so many more blacks lynched than whites? According to African-American Rep. John R. Lynch (Republican from SC), “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” [84]

Republicans often led the effort to pass federal anti-lynching laws, [85] but Democrats successfully blocked every anti-lynching bill. For example, in 1921, Republican Rep. Leonidas Dyer (MO) introduced a federal anti-lynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it. [86] The NAACP reported on December 17, 1921, that: “since the introduction of the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in Congress on April 11, 1921, there have been 28 persons murdered by lynchings in the United States.” [87] Although some Democrats introduced anti-lynching bills across the decades, their Democratic leaders killed every effort and Congress never did pass an anti-lynching bill. [88]

9. Restrictive eligibility requirements

Election policies designed to limit black voting included requirements that a voter must reside in a state for two years, his county for one year, and his ward or precinct for six months before he could vote. [89] This requirement especially limited the effect of workers seeking employment – often blacks. After the poll tax was abolished, some States, still trying to achieve the same effect, enacted annual registration fees for voters. The lower courts struck down such fees in 1971; [90] in 1972 the Supreme Court struck down the excessive filing fees established by Democratic legislatures; [91] these fees were designed to prevent what the Supreme Court had termed the “less affluent segment of the community” [92] from participating as candidates.

10. Rewriting of State constitutions

As a part of Reconstruction, most southern States had been required to rewrite their State constitutions to add full civil rights protections. [93] However, less than two decades later, many States revised their constitutions to remove those clauses. For example, in 1868 North Carolina had rewritten its constitution to include civil rights, [94] but in 1876 it amended its constitution to exclude most blacks from voting. [95] Over the next two decades, Democrats in Mississippi, [96] South Carolina, [97] Louisiana, [98] Florida, [99] Alabama, [100] and Virginia [101] also altered their constitutions or passed laws to negate many of the rights given to blacks during Reconstruction.

11. Other requirements

Other restrictions used by Democrats to keep blacks from voting included property ownership requirements. For example, in Alabama in 1901, a voter was required to own land or property worth at least $300 before he could vote [102] (today that would equate to more than $6,500. [103]) Some States would withhold voting rights for the “commission” of a crime – not for a serious crime or a felony but rather for violating any of a long list of petty offenses (unemployed blacks or those looking for work were often charged with vagrancy, resulting in a loss of their voting rights). [104]

An Historical Sidenote

Current writers and texts addressing the post-Civil War period often present an incomplete portrayal of that era. For example, africana.com notes: “Southerners established whites-only voting in party primaries . . . or gerrymandered electoral districts, thus diluting the strength of black voters.” [105] Although it is true that both whites and southerners were the overwhelming source of difficulties for African-Americans, it was just one type of southern whites that caused the problems: southern racist whites. There was another type of southern whites: the non-racist whites, many of whom suffered great persecutions and even loss of life for supporting blacks. These whites are often unrecognized or unacknowledged in black history and are wrongly grouped with racist whites through the use of the overly broad terms such as “southerners” or “whites.” To make an accurate portrayal of black history, a distinction must be made between types of whites.

For example, the Rev. Richard Allen (1760-1831), a founder of the AME church in America, suffered many injuries at the hands of “whites”: he was a slave, his mother and brothers were sold separately and his family was split by his master, Allen was opposed by prominent Gospel ministers, etc. Yet Allen understood that only some whites were hostile. In fact, in his own memoirs, Allen openly acknowledges whites who helped him. For example, Allen writes to other blacks: “I hope the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush [a white signer of the Declaration] and Robert Ralston [a white wealthy merchant] will never be forgotten among us. They were the first two gentlemen who espoused the cause of the oppressed and aided us in building the house of the Lord for the poor Africans to worship in.” [106] Allen also notes that in 1784 when he started his first church in Philadelphia, “there were but few colored people in the neighborhood – the most of my congregation was white.” [107] Such positive portrayals of black/white relations are too often missing from black history pieces today; instead, “whites” are described as oppressors. Some were; some were not.

Another illustration is provided by the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Constitutional amendments must be passed by a margin of two-thirds in Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States. Those Amendments abolishing slavery and providing civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans were passed by two-thirds of the white men in Congress and by white men in the legislature of three-fourths of the States – an overwhelming majority of these white men were Republicans and were not racists. (Among the literally hundreds of whites voting for these amendments were two African-American Republicans elected in Massachusetts in 1866. [108])

Therefore, the africana.com quote would be much more historically correct – although more politically incorrect – were it to read: “Democratic legislatures in the South [instead of just “southerners”] established whites-only voting in party primaries . . . ” This weakness of distinction is typical of far too many black history writings addressing the post-Reconstruction era.

An Obvious Purpose

It is clear that many southern Democrats despised blacks and Republicans and used every possible means to keep them from power. This hostility was evident in the numerous devices they used – including violence. In fact, after examining the abundant evidence, Republican US Sen. Roscoe Conkling (nominated as a US Supreme Court Justice in 1882) concluded that the Democratic Party was determined to exterminate blacks in those States where Democratic supremacy was threatened. [109]

The Democrats’ hostility was evident not only in their actions but also in the words they used to describe blacks and Republicans. Democrats applied epithets that were at that time considered base, vulgar, and derogatory – terms such as “scalawags” (those in the South who had opposed succession) [110] or “radicals” (early Republicans were considered radical because their party was bi-racial and because they allowed blacks to vote and participate in the political process). [111]

Clearly, because Republicans embraced and welcomed blacks as equals, Democrats abhorred and bitterly opposed them. As black US Rep. Richard H. Cain (Republican from SC) explained in 1875: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” [112] Many Democrats today – including many black Democrats – have picked up the Democrats’ long-standing hatred for Republicans without understanding its origins. They often blame that generations-long contempt on issues other than the anti-black, anti-Republican sentiments that shaped their Party, but history is clear.

Fighting the Constitution

Decades after the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, many Democrats still steadfastly opposed those protections. In 1900, Democrat US Sen. Ben Tillman (SC) declared: “We made up our minds that the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were themselves null and void; that the [civil rights] acts of Congress . . . were null and void; that oaths required by such laws were null and void.” [113] Democrats such as Rep. W. Bourke Cockran (NY), Sen. John Tyler Morgan (AL), Sen. Samuel McEnery (LA), and others agreed with this position and were among the Democrats seeking a repeal of the 15th Amendment (voting rights for African-Americans). [114] In fact, Sen. McEnery even declared: “I believe . . . that not a single southern Senator would object to such a move” [115] (of the 22 southern Senators, 20 were Democrats [116]).

Effect on Black Voting

Unrelenting efforts by Democrats to suppress black voting were successful. Eventually, in Selma, Alabama, the voting rolls were 99 percent white and 1 percent black even though there were more black residents than whites in that city; [117] and in Birmingham – a city with 18,000 blacks – only 30 of them were eligible to vote. [118] Black voters in Alabama and Florida were reduced by nearly 90 percent, [119] and in Texas from 100,000 to only 5,000. [120] By the 1940s, only 5 percent of blacks in the south were registered to vote. [121]

More Recent Civil Rights Efforts

In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, a few Democratic leaders began to oppose their own party’s policies against blacks. Democratic President Harry S. Truman from Missouri was perhaps the first and most vocal national Democratic leader to advocate strong civil rights protections, [122] yet his party rejected his efforts. [123] Reformers such as Truman learned that it was a difficult task for rank-and-file Democrats to reshape their long-held views on race.

In fact, in 1924 when Texas Democratic candidate for Governor, Ma Ferguson, ran against the Democratic Ku Klux Klan candidate in the primary, it cost her the widespread support of the Texas Democratic Party. [124] Democrat Franklin Roosevelt understood his Party, however, and in his 1932 race he made subtle overtures to blacks but avoided making any overt civil rights promises. FDR was so unsuccessful in this approach that his Republican opponent, Herbert Hoover, received over 75 percent of the black vote in that election. [125]

Unlike FDR, Harry Truman worked boldly and openly to change his party. In 1946, he became the first modern President to institute a comprehensive review of race relations and, not surprisingly, faced strenuous opposition from within his own party. In fact, Democratic Sen. Theodore Bilbo (MS) admonished every “red blooded Anglo Saxon man in Mississippi to resort to any means” to keep blacks from voting. [126] Nonetheless, Truman pushed forward and introduced an aggressive civil rights legislative package that included an anti-lynching law, an anti-poll tax law, desegregation of the military, etc., but his own party killed all of his proposals. [127]

Southern Democratic Governors, denouncing Truman’s proposals, met in Florida and proposed what they called a “southern conference of true Democrats” to plan their strategy. [128] That summer at the Democratic National Convention when Truman placed strong civil rights language in the national Democratic platform, a walkout of southern delegates resulted. Southern Democrats then formed the Dixiecrat Party and ran South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President. [129] (It was concerning this 1948 presidential bid by Thurmond that Republican Sen. Trent Lott (MS) uttered his disgraceful comments [130] that made national news.) Thurmond’s bid was unsuccessful; he later had a change of heart on civil rights and in 1964 left the Democratic Party. In 1971, as a Republican US Senator, Thurmond became the first southern Senator to hire a black in his senatorial office. [131]

In 1954, additional civil rights progress was made when the US Supreme Court rendered its Brown v. Board of Education decision, [132] integrating public schools and ending segregation. (Significantly, the Court was only reversing its own position taken nearly sixty years earlier in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld segregation laws enacted by Democratic State legislatures.)

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134] Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

In 1963, following the Birmingham riots, Democratic President John F. Kennedy proposed a strong civil rights bill. Its language was taken from the wording of Eisenhower’s original civil rights bill (before it was gutted by Democrats) and from proposals made by Eisenhower’s civil rights commission. [136] Kennedy’s tragic assassination halted his bill.

In 1964, the 24th Amendment was added to the Constitution, abolishing the poll tax. Significantly, on five previous occasions the House passed a ban on the poll tax but Senate Democrats had killed the bills each time. [137] As early as 1949 (as part of Truman’s proposed civil rights package), Democratic Sen. Spessard Holland (FL) introduced a constitutional amendment to end poll taxes, but it was 1962 before it was approved by the Senate. [138] Significantly, 91 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted to end the poll tax but only 71 percent of the Democrats did so; and in the Senate, of the 16 Senators who opposed the 24th Amendment, 15 were Democrats. [139] (The 24th Amendment banned poll taxes only for federal elections; in 1966, the US Supreme Court struck down poll taxes for all elections, including local and State. [140])

In 1964, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson picked up the civil rights bill introduced by President Kennedy. However, even though Democrats held almost two-thirds of the seats in Congress at that time, Johnson could not garner sufficient votes from within his own party to pass the bill. (Johnson needed 269 votes from his Party to achieve passage but could garner the support of only 198 of the 315 Democrats in Congress. [141]) Johnson therefore worked with Republicans to achieve the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, followed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (The 1965 Voting Rights Act by Johnson was a resurrection of Eisenhower’s original language before it had been killed by Democrats. When it was finally approved under Johnson, of the 18 Senators who opposed the Voting Rights Act, 17 were Democrats. In fact, 97 percent of Republican Senators voted for the Act. [142])

The 1965 Voting Rights Act banned literacy tests and authorized the federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that had used voter eligibility tests. Within a year, 450,000 new southern blacks successfully registered to vote; [143] and voter registration of African-Americans in Mississippi rose from only 5 percent in 1960 to 60 percent by 1968. [144]

The 1965 Voting Rights Act opened opportunities for African-Americans that they had not enjoyed since Republicans had been in power a century before; the laws and policies long enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end. As a result, the number of blacks serving in federal and State legislatures rose from 2 in 1965 to 160 in 1990. [145]

Current Controversies – and Successes

In recent years, much national media coverage has focused on allegations of election fraud in Dade County and West Palm Beach, Florida; St. Louis, Missouri; Michigan (the buying of votes); New Mexico (the destruction of thousands of uncounted ballots); etc. Significantly, each one of these incidents occurred in an area that was overwhelmingly Democratic and where the elections had been administered by Democratic election officials. The fact that such problems occur in areas under Democratic rather than Republican control might surprise many today, but it would not have surprised African-Americans a century ago.

In 1875, African-American US Rep. Joseph H. Rainey (Republican from SC) declared: “We intend to continue to vote so long as the government gives us the right and necessary protection; and I know that right accorded to us now will never be withheld in the future if left to the Republican Party.” [146] In fact, on the floor of Congress, Rainey told Democrats: “Your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats are in opposition to them, and if they (the Democrats) could have [their way], our race would have no foothold here. . . . The Democratic Party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are Republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans so long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us.” [147]

The original philosophies and actions of both major parties are vividly documented in history but are largely unreported today. And while there has been good and bad on both sides, a general pattern is clearly established: African-Americans made their most significant gains as Republicans. Even today many of those patterns still remain. It is significant that black Republican US Rep. JC Watts (OK) chaired the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. Watts was the third African-American to chair a National Republican Convention (the first was US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) in 1884 and then US Sen. Edward Brooke (MA) in 1968); [148] however, no African-American has ever chaired, or even co-chaired, a Democratic National Convention. Similarly, in the 130 years that Democrats controlled Texas, only 4 minority individuals served Statewide; in the 8 years that Republicans have controlled the State, 6 minority individuals already have served Statewide. In fact, Texas just elected three African-Americans to statewide office – all as Republicans, apparently becoming the first State in America’s history to achieve this distinction. Furthermore, Maryland and Ohio each just elected black Lt. Governors – both as Republicans.

An important point is illustrated by these recent elections (and by scores before them): in Democratic-controlled States, rarely are African-Americans elected statewide (with the exception of US Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1992-1998)); and African-American Democratic Representatives to Congress usually are elected only from minority districts (districts with a majority of minority voters). Minority Republicans, on the other hand, are elected statewide in Republican States, or in congressional districts with large white majorities. [149]

Perhaps this explains why African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass a century ago reminded blacks: “The Republican Party is the ship, all else is the sea.” [150] The history of African-American voting rights in America proves Douglass was right.


(To view an Adobe pdf version of this newsletter, including pictures, click here.)

Would you like to receive The WallBuilder Report? We are pleased to send you the David Barton’s publication for six months. However, beyond that period, we need to hear from you in some manner. Write us a letter, give us a call, make a purchase, or even send us a contribution! Whatever, or however, simply show us you’re with us in rebuilding America and we’ll keep The WallBuilder Report coming your way. Click here to sign up, or call us at (817) 441-6044, or write us at: WallBuilders, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008-0397.

 



Endnotes

[1] The Washington Times online, Steve Miller, “Jackson dismisses Founding Fathers,” September 16, 2002 (at http://www.wa shtimes.com/national/20020916-78725174.htm).

[2] Stanford University online, Peter Kolchin, “Reconstruction,” 1997 (at http://www.stanford.edu/~paherman/reconstruction.htm).

[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856).

[4] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 573 (1856), Curtis, J. (dissenting).

[5] The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), p. 92, 1776 Delaware Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #6.

[6] Constitutions (1785), p. 104, 1776 Maryland Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #5.

[7] Constitutions (1785), p. 5, 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #11.

[8] Constitutions (1785), p. 58, 1777 New York Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #7.

[9] Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900), p. 404.

[10] Constitutions (1785), p. 78, 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #7.

[11] Constitutions (1785), p. 8, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #9.

[12] Carter G. Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations (Washington, DC: The Associated Publishers, Inc., 1925), p. 310, Rep. Robert Brown Elliott from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on January 6, 1874.

[13] John Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise; or, Who Has the Right to Vote? (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Son, 1865), pp. 22-23.

[14] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, p. 27.

[15] Benson Lossing, Harpers' Popular Cyclopedia, pp.1299-1300; W.O. Blake, History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, p. 177; Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773; Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776; Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.

[16] Thomas R. R. Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America (Philadelphia: T. & T.W. Johnson & Co., 1858), pp. 171-172; see also The Public Laws of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, as revised by a Committee, and finally enacted by the Honorable General Assembly, at their Session in January, 1798 (Providence: Carter and Wilkinson, 1798), pp. 607-611; see also The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut. Book 1. Published by Authority of the General Assembly (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), pp. 623-626; see also Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, From the Fourteenth Day of October, One Thousand Seven Hundred, to the Twentieth Day of March One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten. Published by Authority of the Legislature (Philadelphia: Jon Bioren, 1810), Vol. 1, pp. 492-497.

[17] Constitutions (1785), p. 5, 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #11; p. 8, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, #9; p. 78, 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, #7.

[18] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834), Vol. II, p. 2215, 1789, “An act to provide for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio”; see also The Constitutions of the United States of America (Trenton: William and David Robinson, 1813), p. 366, “Northwest Ordinance,” Article #6.

[19] Debates and Proceedings (1849), p. 1425, “An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave-trade from the United States to any foreign place or country” in 1794.

[20] Debates and Proceedings (1849), p. 1266, “An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States” in 1807.

[21] Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery, pp. 153, 163, 169.

[22] Debates and Proceedings (1849), pp. 2555, 2559, “An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and state government” in 1820.

[23] George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 290, in a letter to Elias Boudinot on November 27, 1819.

[24] Charles Francis Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), p. 386, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 18, 1819.

[25] Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), p. 157, in a letter to Hugh Nelson on February 7, 1820.

[26] Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States of America, from December 1, 1845, to March 3, 1851, George Minot, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1862), 31st Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 55, September 18, 1850, Vol. 9, pp. 462-465.

[27] Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States of America, from December 1, 1851, to March 3, 1855, George Minot, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1855), 33rd Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 59, May 30, 1854, Vol. 10, pp. 277-290.

[28] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, p. 22.

[29] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 22-23.

[30] Thomas Hudson McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties, 1789-1905 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), pp. 18-20; Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives online, “Party Divisions” (at ht tp://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.php); CNN AllPolitics.com, “Democratic Party History,” August 2, 2000 (at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/features/history/).

[31] Eugene V. Smalley, A Brief History of the Republican Party. From Its Organization to the Presidential Campaign of 1884 (New York: John Alden, Publisher, 1885), p. 30.

[32] Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise, pp. 32-33.

[33] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, pp. 97-99.

[34] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, p. 91.

[35] McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, pp. 108-109.

[36] Harper’s Weekly online, “The Dred Scott Decision” (at http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Slavery/DredScottAd.htm) , in an advertisement that appeared in Harper’s Weekly, July 23, 1859.

[37] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1863), 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 54, April 16, 1862, Vol. 15, pp. 376-378.

[38] James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. VI, 157-159, Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863.

[39] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1863, to December, 1865, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866), 38th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 166, June 28, 1864, Vol. 13, p. 200; 1st Session, Chapter 144, June 20, 1864, Vol. 13, p. 144-145 [equalized pay]; and 2nd Session, Chapter 90, March 3, 1865, Vol. 13, pp. 507-509.

[40] Dominicus-von-Linprun-Gymnasium online, “American History: The Past of a Nation”

(at http://www.gymnasium-viechtach.de/ushistory/2_e.htm).

[41] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-430; Statutes, from December, 1867, to March, 1869 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1869), 40th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 69, June 22, 1868, Vol. 15, pp. 72-74.

[42] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, p. 429.

[43] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1867, to March, 1869, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1869), 40th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 6, March 23, 1867, Vol. 15, pp. 2-4.

[44] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbok/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html)

[45] Langston Hughes, Milton Meltzer, and Eric C. Lincoln, A Pictorial History of Blackamericans (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 204.

[46] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 205.

[47] Alabama Moments in American History online, “Alabama’s Black Leaders During Reconstruction” (at http://www.alabam amoments.state.al.us/sec26det.html); etc.

[48] The Handbook of Texas online, “Reconstruction” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html).

[49] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 291, Sen. Hiram R. Revels from his speech on the Georgia Bill on March 16, 1870; p. 337, Rep. Richard H. Cain from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on January 10, 1874; p. 379, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey from his speech made on March 5, 1872 in reply to an attack upon the colored state legislators of South Carolina by Representative Cox of New York; etc.

[50] Smalley, Brief History of the Republican Party, pp. 49-50; see also The Handbook of Texas online, “Ku Klux Klan” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbok/online/articles/view/KK/vek2.html).

[51] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 199; see also The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson online, “The New Orleans Massacre” (at http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/06FirstImpeachmentDiscussion s/iiib-8a.htm); and Harper’s Weekly online, “The Riot in New Orleans” (at http://www.blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Reco nstruction/RiotInNewOrleans.htm).

[52] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 291, Sen. Hiram R. Revels from his speech on the Georgia Bill on March 16, 1870; see also National Anti-Slavery Standard, September 26, 1868, “The South. The Rebel Perfidy in the Legislature. Colored Republicans Expelled” p. 1, and Georgia Secretary of State online, “Expelled Because of their Color: African-American Legislators in Georgia” (at http://www.sos.state .ga.us/Archives/ve/1/ec1.htm).

[53] Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1869), 40th Congress, 3rd Session, February 25, 1869, pp. 449-450; Journal of the Senate of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1869), 40th Congress, 3rd Session, February 25, 1869, p. 361.

[54] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 31, April 9, 1866, Vol. 14, pp. 27-30; 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 153, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-430; Statutes at Large, from December, 1869, to March, 1871 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1871), 41st Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 114, May 31, 1870, Vol. 16, pp. 140-146; Statutes at Large, from December, 1873, to March, 1875 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1875), 43rd Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 114, March 1, 1875, Vol. 18, Part 3, pp. 335-337.

[55] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 375, Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on February 3, 1875.

[56] The Handbook of Texas online, “Constitution Proposed in 1874” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/mhc12.html), and “Constitution of 1876” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/mhc7.html) .

[57] The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, Francis Newton Thorpe, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909), pp. 2834-2835, 1876 North Carolina Constitution, Article 5, Section 1; Article 6, Section 4.

[58] Palm Beach Post online, Mark Caputo, “Black Judge’s Honor Restored in History Books,” February 27, 2002 (at http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/governorsoffice/black_history/ju dge2.html); University of Dayton School of Law online, J. Whyatt Mondesire, “Felon Disenfranchisement: the Modern Day Poll Tax” (at http://academic .udayton.edu/race/04needs/voting06.htm).

[59] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “America in Ferment: The Tumultuous 1960s,” November 14, 2002 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[60] PBS online, “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” (at http://www.pbs. org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_kkk.html); see also Cyberschool online, “African Americans Under Congressional Reconstruction” (at http://br t.uoregon.edu/cyberschool/history/ch15/rights.html); see also Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 199; etc.

[61] Ohio State University online, “Voting Restrictions: Jim Crow” (at http://1912.hist ory.ohio-state.edu/race/jimcrow.htm); see also SkyMinds.Net, “American Civilization: The Reconstruction” (at http://www.skyminds.net/ civilization/12.php).

[62] Florida: History, People & Politics online, Unit 3: Florida as a State; “Civil Rights: The Case of Florida; Black Codes” (at http://www.fcim.org/ flhistory/unit3_t4_case.htm); see also World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at http://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09_prn.shtml); see also Pensacola Beach Residents & Leaseholders Assn. online, “Reconstruction and Revanchism in Escambia County, 1865-1888” (at http://www.pbrla.com /hxarchive_civwar_recon.html).

[63] African-American History online, “The Black Codes of 1865” (at http:// aafroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa121900a.htm); see also The Handbook of Texas online, “Black Codes,” p. 1 (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/jsb1.html) .

[64] The Handbook of Texas online, “Reconstruction” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html).

[65] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 305, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey, speaking on April 1, 1871, to explain how the Ku Klux Klan’s actions limit African-American people’s participation in the political process.

[66] CNN.com, “Timeline of the Civil Rights Movement, 1850-1970,” February 1, 2001 (at http://www.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/specials/bhm/story/timeline.html).

[67] African-American History online, “Creation of the Jim Crow South” (at http://a afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201a.htm); see also National Park Service online, “Jim Crow Laws” (at http://www.nps.go v/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm); etc.

[68] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).

[69] United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section online, "Introduction to Federal Voting Rights Laws” (at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/vo ting/intro.htm).

[70] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics,” p. 3 (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html) , and “Texas Legislature,” pp. 4, 6 (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/TT/mkt2.html ).

[71] The Handbook of Texas online, “Texas Legislature,” p. 4 (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/TT/mkt2.html ).

[72] Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).

[73] Our Georgian History online, Col. Samuel Taylor, “Georgia’s Gilded Age: Georgia History 101” (at http:// www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/history101/gahistory09.html).

[74] SSHA Political Network News online, J. Morgan Kousser, “H-Pol’s Online Seminar: Historical Origins of the Runoff Primary,” Fall 1996 (at http://w ww2.h-net.msu.edu/~pol/ssha/netnews/f96/kousser.htm).

[75] World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at http://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09_prn.shtml).

[76] Ohio State University online, “Voting Restrictions: Jim Crow” (at http://1912.hist ory.ohio-state.edu/race/jimcrow.htm).

[77] Jim Crow Guide to the USA online, Stetson Kennedy, Chapter 10 (at http:// www.stetsonkennedy.com/jim_crow_guide/chapter10_2.htm).

[78] Harvard University Press online, “The Transformation of Southern Politics,” from a book review of The Rise of Southern Politics, Earl Black and Merle Black, p. 2 (at http:// www.hup.harvard.edu/Newsroom/pr_rise_south_repubs.html); see also The Atlantic online, Grover Norquist, “Is the Party Over?,” p. 3 (at http://www .theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/gop/norquist1.htm)

[79] Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 55 (1935).

[80] Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 658 (1944); see also The Handbook of Texas online, “White Primary” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/WW/wdw1.html ).

[81] Neglected Voices online, “Speeches of African-American Representatives Addressing the Ku Klux Klan Bill of 1871,” pp. 5,10, Representative Robert B. Elliot, responding on April 1, 1871 to arguments that the Bill is unconstitutional, and that Ku Klux Klan is not violent (at http://www .law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/ElliotR.html).

[82 Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 354, Rep. James T. Rapier from his speech on the Civil Rights Bill on June 9, 1874.

[83] University of Missouri-Kansas City online, statistics provided by the Archives at Tuskegee Institute, “Lynching Statistics by Year” (at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html ).

[84] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, p. 276, Rep. John R. Lynch from his speech in the case of his contested election.

[85] Robert L. Zangrando, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980), p. 16.

[86] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates in the Second Session of the 73rd Congress of the United States of America (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. 78, Part 11, p. 11869, June 15, 1934.

[87] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 269.

[88] History Matters online, “The Body Court: Lynching in Arkansas” (at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d /5467/); see also History @ Bedford/St. Martin’s online, “Conclusion” (at http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/modules/mod23/mod15_frame conclusion.htm).

[89] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution” (at http://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html).

[90] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” p. 6 at (http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/AA/wmafr.html ). &nbs p;

[91] Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972).

[92] Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144 (1972).

[93] Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamation of the United States of America, from December, 1865, to March, 1867, George P. Spanger, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 152, March 2, 1867, Vol. 14, pp. 428-429.

[94] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), Vol. V, pp. 2800-2803, 2814, 1868 North Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, #10, #33, Article 6, Section 1.

[95] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), Vol. V, pp. 2822-2823,2834-2835, 1876 North Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, #10, Article 5, Section 1; Article 6, Section 4.

[96] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 2067-2068, 1832 Mississippi Constitution, Amendment 13, Article VIII; see also p. 2079, 1868 Mississippi Constitution, Article 7, Section 2; pp. 2120-2121, 1890 Mississippi Constitution, Article 12, Sections 241, 243-244.

[97] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 3276, 3279-3280, 1865 South Carolina Constitution, Article 4, Ordinance, Section 3; see also pp. 3281, 3297-3298, 1868 South Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Sections 1-2, Article 8, Sections 2, 12; see also pp. 3307-3308, 1895 South Carolina Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #9, “Right of Suffrage,” Sec. 3 (c).

[98] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 1449, 1462-1463, 1868 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1-3, 98, 103; see also pp. 1471, 1502, 1879 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #5, #188; see also pp. 1562-1563, 1898 Louisiana Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #197, Sections 2-4, #198.

[99] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 704, 719-720, 1868 Florida Constitution, Article 1, 15.

[100] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 132, 144, 1867 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, Article 7, Section 2; see also p. 154, 1875 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #1, Article 8, Section 1; see also pp. 209-210, 215, 1901 Alabama Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #181, #194.

[101] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), pp. 3873-3875, 1870 Virginia Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1 Article 3, Section 1; see also pp. 3904-3907, 1902 Virginia Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #1, #18-19.

[102] The Federal and State Constitutions (1909), p. 210, 1901 Alabama Constitution, Article 8, #181.

[103] Columbia Journalism Review online, “CJR Dollar Conversion Calculator” (at http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp).

[104] Florida: History, People & Politics online, Unit 3: Florida as a State; “Civil Rights: The Case of Florida; Black Codes” (at http://www.fcim.org/ flhistory/unit3_t4_case.htm).

[105] Africana.com, “History: Fifteenth Amendment or 15th Amendment,” p. 2 (at http://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_521.htm).

[106] Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen (New York, Nashville: Abingdon Press, reprint of an earlier edition, 1960), p. 26.

[107] Allen, Life Experience (1960), p. 21.

[108] Virtual Black History Museum in Louisiana online, “1800s Interactive First’s Timeline,” p. 3 (at http://www.sabine. k12.la.us/mjhs/Archives/1800.htm).

[109] A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters online, T.H.R. Clarke, B. McKay, editors, p. 43 (at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FLD001+75319795+):@@@$REF$ ).

[110] Hughes, Meltzer, and Lincoln, Pictorial History (1983), p. 202; see also “Reconstruction” (at http://www.stanfo rd.edu/paherman/reconstruction.htm). 

[111] The Handbook of Texas online, “African Americans and Politics” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/wmafr.html), and “Reconstruction” (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/mzr1.html).

[112] Neglected Voices online, Representative Richard H. Cain, responding on February 3, 1875, to arguments that the Bill would unconstitutionally infringe the rights of whites (at ht tp://www.law.nyu.edu/davidp/neglectedvoices/RaineyFeb031875.html).

[113] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters, p. 1 (at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FL D001+75319795+):@@@$REF$).

[114] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters, pp. 1, 10-11, 31 (at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(FL D001+75319795+):@@@$REF$); see also Library of Congress online, Hon. John P. Green, Colored Men and the Democratic Party: Review of American History on This Issue (Springfield, Ohio: Springfield Publishing Company), p. 6. (at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mur ray:@field(FLD001+91898214+):@@@$REF$).

[115] Library of Congress online, Green, Colored Men and the Democratic Party, p. 6 (at . http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(F LD001+91898214+):@@@$REF$).

[116] Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1927 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1928), pp. 435-444, 479-488.

[117] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “Voting Rights, Period: 1960s,” p. 1 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[118] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution,” p. 5 (at http://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html).

[119] Alabama Public Television online, Wayne Flint, “History of the 1901 Alabama Constitution,” p. 6 (at http://www.aptv.org/con stitution/history.html); see also World Socialist Web Site, Jerry White, “Florida’s Legacy of Voter Disenfranchisement,” April 6, 2001, p. 2 (at http://www. wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/flor-a09.shtml).

[120] Mike Kingston, Sam Attlesey, and Mary G. Crawford, Political History of Texas (Austin: Eakin Press, 1992), p. 187.

[121] Africana.com, “History: Fifteenth Amendment or 15th Amendment,” p. 2 (at http://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_521.htm).

[122] Democratic National Committee online, “Brief History of the Democratic Party” (at http://www.democrats.org/ about/history.html), the article states, “With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender.” (emphasis added).

[123] Documentary History of the Truman Presidency online, “The Truman Administration’s Civil Rights Program: The Report of the Committee on Civil Rights” and President Truman’s Message to Congress of February 2, 1948, Vol. 11, p. 3 (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/g uide_intros/tru11.htm), and “The Truman Administration’s Civil Rights Program: President Truman’s Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law, 1948-1950,” Vol. 12, pp.

1-2 (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/ Aph/truman_docs/guide_intros/tru11.htm).

[124] The Handbook of Texas online, “Democratic Party,” p. 2 (at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/DD/wad1.html ).

[125] Colorado College online, “A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States of America,” p. 8 (at http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/PS/faculty/loevy/civil%20rights.h tml).

[126] Truman Presidency online, “Report of the Committee on Civil Rights,” Vol. 11, p. 3 (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/g uide_intros/tru11.htm).

[127] United States of America Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates in the Second Session of the Eightieth Congress Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1948), Vol. 94, Part 1, p. 927 February 2, 1948; see also Truman Presidency online, “Report of the Committee on Civil Rights,” Vol. 12, p. 13, (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/guide_intros/t ru12.htm).

[128] Truman Presidency online, “Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law,” Vol. 12, p. 2 (at  http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/gu ide_intros/tru12.htm).

[129] Truman Presidency online, “Attempts to Put the Principles of Racial Justice into Law,” Vol. 12, p. 2 (at  http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aph/truman_docs/gu ide_intros/tru12.htm).

[130] Time online, Karen Tumulty, “Trent Lott’s Segregationist College Days,” p. 2 (at http:/ /www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html), Lott stated that “…if the rest of the country had followed our [Mississippi’s segregationist Dixiecrat party] lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years either.”

[131] The Washington Post Writers Group online, Ellen Goodman, “Forgiving History?,” 2002, p. 2 (at http://www.pos twritersgroup.com/archives/good1212.htm).

[132] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s” (at http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04_history/subs_t imeline/c_africans/frame_c_1950.html).

[136] Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings, Part 3, p. 131; “Civil Rights Act of 1957” online, Part 3 (at http: //www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part4/CRact57.htm); see also The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 27, 30-31; civilrights.org, “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” (at http://www.civilrights.org/library/permanent_collection/resources/1964cra.html ); “Voting Rights Act of 1965,” 42 U.S.C. 1973I.

[137] United States of America Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1963), 1st Session, Vol. 109, Part 9, June 27, 1963, pp. 11864-11865; Library of Congress online, “Today in History,” January 23, 2002, pp. 1-2 (at http://memory.loc.gov/am mem/today/jan23.html).

[138] Library of Congress online, “Today in History,” January 23, 2002, p. 2 (at http://memory.loc.gov/am mem/today/jan23.html).

[139] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1962), 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 1962, Vol. 18, pp. 630, 654.

[140] Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

[141] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964, Vol. 20, pp. 606, 696.

[142] Congressional Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1966), 89th Congress, 1st Session, 1965, Vol. 21, pp. 984, 1063.

[143] Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History online, “Voting Rights, Period: 1960s,” p. 2 (at http:/ /www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=369).

[144] Africana.com, “Voting Rights Acts of 1965,” Kate Tuttle, pp. 1-2 (at http://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_393.htm).

[145] Africana.com, “Voting Rights Acts of 1965,” Kate Tuttle, p. 2 (at http://www.africana.com/A rticles/tt_393.htm).

[146] Neglected Voices online, p. 6, Representative Joseph H. Rainey, responding on February 3, 1875, to arguments that the Bill would unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of whites, p. 6 (at http://www .law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/ElliotR.html).  

[147] Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations, pp. 379-380, Rep. Joseph H. Rainey from his speech made on March 5, 1872 in reply to an attack upon the colored state legislators of South Carolina by Representative Cox of New York.

[148] James Haskins, Distinguished African American Political and Governmental Leaders (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1999), p. 155; see also USA Today online, “Conventions 2000: Rep. J.C. Watts,” p. 1 (at http://www.usato day.com/community/chat/0817watts.htm); African American Political History online (at htt p://www.garyjosejames.com/AfricanAmericanPoliticalHistory.html). 

[149] Maryland State Archives online, Michael Steele,“Lieutenant Governor,” January 27, 2003 (at http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921 .html); see also Ohio Republican Party online, “Leadership: Lt. Governor Jennette Bradley” (at http://www.ohiogop.org/Victory2002.asp?FormMod e=Candidates&CID=8&T=Lt%2E+Governor+Jennette+Bradley); see also Black News Weekly online,“Ga. Could Send 5 Blacks to Congress,” p. 2 (at http://www.blacknewsweekly.c om/210.html); see also The Weekly Standard online, Beth Henary, “Things Go Right in Texas,” November 7, 2002 (at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/ 875ahmds.asp); etc.

[150] Library of Congress online, A Republican Text-Book for Colored Voters online, p. 13 (at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(F LD001+75319795+):@@@$REF$).



TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 229; americanhistory; blackhistory; blacks; blackvote; davidbarton; democrats; elections; pseudohistory; votingrights; wallbuilders

1 posted on 02/05/2004 8:15:23 AM PST by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Barton is great. He's probably the number one irritation for American history revisionists who want to remove God from government.
2 posted on 02/05/2004 8:19:38 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
This needs to be sent to Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpton, and the rest of the unelected 'Leaders of the Black Community' that badmouth Republicans.
3 posted on 02/05/2004 8:25:08 AM PST by jtminton (2Timothy 4:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
b-
4 posted on 02/05/2004 8:27:55 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Wow, great essay! Bookmarked!
5 posted on 02/05/2004 8:27:55 AM PST by Paradox (Cogito ergo Doom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Following is excerpted from a book I bought lately:

Table 3. Race Requirement for Suffrage, 1790-18551
State Year of
Statehood2
Year of
Requirement
Race
Alabama 1819 1819 White
Arkansas 1836 1836 White
California 1850 1849 White
Connecticut 1788 1715
1818
No Requirement
White
Delaware 1787 1737
1792
No Requirement
White
Florida 1845 1838 White
Georgia 1788 1789 No Requirement3
Illinois 1818 1818 White
Indiana 1816 1816 White
Iowa 1846 1846 White
Kentucky 1792 1792
1799
No Requirement
White
Louisiana 1812 1812 White
Maine 1820 1819 No Requirement
Maryland 1788 1776
1801
No Requirement
White
Massachusetts 1788 1780
1821
No Requirement
No Requirement
Michigan 1837 1835 White
Mississippi 1817 1817 White
Missouri 1821 1820 White
New Hampshire 1788 1792 No Requirement
New Jersey 1787 1776
1807
No Requirement
White
New York 1788 1777
1821
No Requirement
White, or "Man of Color, meeting property/tax requirements.
North Carolina 1789 1776
1835
No Requirement
White
Ohio 1803 1802 White
Pennsylvania 1787 1790
1838
No Requirement
White
Rhode Island 1790 1762
1842
No Requirement
No Requirement
South Carolina 1788 1790 White
Tennessee 1796 1796
1834
No Requirement
White4
Texas 1845 1845 "Africans, and descendants of Africans" excluded
Vermont 1791 1786 No Requirement
Virginia 1788 1762 White
Wisconsin 1848 1848 White

1Source = The Right to Vote; The contested History of Democracy in the United States, by Alexander Keyssar, Basic Books, New York, 2000. The above is an abbreviated version of a Table which also lists citizenship and "Native American" requirements. Cases where a state changed their original requirement are indicated, with date, in the Table; there were also many cases where a state reiterated their original requirement, at a later date, by statute or constitutional change, but these are omitted for brevity.
2Or date admitted to Union for original 13.
3Georgia's 1777 constitution explicitly limited the franchise to whites, but their constitutions of 1789 and 1798 did not. All secondary sources agree that blacks could not vote, but a very extensive search has not turned up a clear legal basis for that exclusion.
4White, "provided that no person shall be disqualified from voting in any election on account of color, who is now, by the laws of this State, a competent witness in a court of justice against a white man".


6 posted on 02/05/2004 8:28:57 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Bookmarked..
7 posted on 02/05/2004 8:29:03 AM PST by TomServo ("Why does the most evil man in the world live in a Stuckeys?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
a Democratic-controlled US Supreme Court observed that blacks “had no rights which a white man was bound to respect;

Something you won't find in public school history texts.

8 posted on 02/05/2004 8:31:55 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
There is no black voting rights. We must vote democRAT or we're traitors.
9 posted on 02/05/2004 8:31:58 AM PST by South40 (My vote helped defeat cruz bustamante; did yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
more progress was made to end slavery and achieve civil rights for blacks in America at that time than was made in any other nation in the world.

Not true. Slavery was banned outright in Upper Canada (now Ontario) in the early 1790s. Additionally, the laws of Upper Canada made no racial distinctions at all- blacks could vote and hold office.

10 posted on 02/05/2004 8:37:52 AM PST by Squawk 8888 (Earth first! We can mine the other planets later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
You can't let facts and history get in the way of "The Agenda" It's too important.


/S -off
11 posted on 02/05/2004 8:40:21 AM PST by Only1choice____Freedom (The word system implies they have done something the same way at least twice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Some great reference material, here. I look back at LBJ's embrace of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...and realize what a fraud he and the Democrats pulled on the American people. It was only a few years early, that he, as Senate Majority Leader, gutted most of Ike's Civil Rights Acts of '57 and '60. For all the talk of helping po' black folk, it was LBJ who not only supported a poll tax to keep blacks from voting, he was also against federal lynching laws. At least he (and the NAACP) had the courage to recognize that it was Republican, Everett Dirkson, who deserved the credit for tirelessly working to get the 1964 CRA passed.

What most people don't realize...but was even acknowledged by Congressional Quarterly, was that Eisenhower was responsible for the greatest advances in Civil Rights in the past 80 years. As has even been noted here, most of what was in the 1964 Act, was what Ike and Herbert Brownell (Ike's AG) proposed in their original drafts of the '57 and '60 Civil Rights Acts, but were watered down by Democrats such as LBJ. These facts need to get out.
12 posted on 02/05/2004 8:43:59 AM PST by cwb (Dean = Dr. Jeckyll exposing his Hyde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Excellent post: i.e. Its language was taken from the wording of Eisenhower’s original civil rights bill (before it was gutted by Democrats) and from proposals made by Eisenhower’s civil rights commission. [136]

Republicans have consistently used the motto of Ronald Reagan; "It's remarkable what you can get done if you don't care who takes the credit". A Republican president, Eisenhower, was the first Chief Executive since the Civil War to send federal, active duty troops (not Nat.Grd.), into the South to enforce the Constitution. The Democrats have never forgiven Republicans and, at the same time, have taken all the credit for the advancement of civil rights.

13 posted on 02/05/2004 8:48:41 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
As well you won't find repeated in the history books that:

a Democratic-controlled US Supreme Court observed that blacks “had no rights which a white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” [3]

Now the Democrats believe that last line applies to the taxpayer as well.

14 posted on 02/05/2004 8:58:30 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
Not true. Slavery was banned outright in Upper Canada (now Ontario) in the early 1790s.

Canada doesn't count.

15 posted on 02/05/2004 9:02:34 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cwboelter
Eisenhower was responsible for the greatest advances in Civil Rights in the past 80 years

I wasn't aware of that, but given what he saw and accomplished in Europe I'm not surprised. I'd be willing to bet that witnessing the end result of the Nazi racial laws influenced his thinking.

16 posted on 02/05/2004 9:09:07 AM PST by Squawk 8888 (Earth first! We can mine the other planets later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
"I wasn't aware of that..."

The sad thing is, many people aren't, thanks to our left-wing dominated public education system. Even worse, I've seen revisionism to point were college professors say Ike wasn't in favor of Civil Rights because of his disagreements with Earl Warren. Ike's appointments of Herbert Brownell as his Attorney General and even Earl Warren as Chief Justice, were fundamental to the advancements that Civil Rights undertook during this period. And while Ike and Warren clashed over certain issues, Ike new that the "government" couldn't just force this change on America all at once. Ike knew that if the government proceeded too recklessly, that the Southern segregationists would just abandon public education and turn to private institutions that would continue to segregate. So while he publically separated himself from the Brown vs Board decision, it was his AG that led the charge in that case...with some saying Ike even wrote some of the arguements.

I watched a C-Span roundtable years ago with the very liberal scholar, Blanche Wisen Cooke, who even conceded that Ike's administration was fundamental to the changes in CR. He wasn't only the first president in 80 years to propose new Civil Rights legislaton, he was the first to substantively address affordable housing for blacks. While Truman paid lip-service to integration in the military, Ike made high-ranking officers pay if they didn't integrate. That is also why he issued an Executive Order eliminating any segregation that still existed in the Military, the District of Columbia and in US Government bureaucracy. It was also Ike who was the first president to use federal troops to enforce Brown vs Board in the Little Rock Nine case.

Just as his appointments of Warren and Brownell were significant, so were his appointments of 5 other moderate Republicans to positions in the Federal (Southern) Judiciary that would see Brown V. Board through to its final conslusion...which was desegregation of the South. Unlike the Democrats of their day, Ike practiced what he preached when he appointed Frederic Morrow, the first black, to an executive position on his White House Staff...which included appoitments for others all over government. All of this, along with his support for the '57/'60 CRAs and his creation of the Civil Rights Commission, make Eisenhower one of the true leaders of Civil Rights in America. Unfortunately, you won't hear this in your history or Poli-sci classes.

17 posted on 02/05/2004 10:21:54 AM PST by cwb (Dean = Dr. Jeckyll exposing his Hyde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
lol
18 posted on 02/05/2004 11:31:46 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend; mhking
ping
19 posted on 02/05/2004 11:52:37 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP; Carry_Okie; forester; sasquatch; B4Ranch; SierraWasp; hedgetrimmer; ...
Bookmarked for later read. Pinging the short list.
20 posted on 02/05/2004 11:58:36 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!
21 posted on 02/05/2004 12:26:13 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Bump!


22 posted on 02/20/2005 5:34:15 PM PST by Perseverando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
So, I'm bumping this 6 1/2 year old thread to see if anyone can fill in the missing parts for me.

This essay doesn't say what happened between the mid 1960s, when Republicans passed the civil and voting rights acts over the objections of the Democrats, and now.

What happened that shifted the black vote away from the Republican party? Did the black community leave the Republicans, or did the Republicans leave the black community?

23 posted on 07/15/2010 10:19:10 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washi
What happened that shifted the black vote away from the Republican party?

A prominent Republican, Sen. Barry Goldwater, the party's presidential candidate in 1964, refused to vote for the Voting Rights Act.

His reasoning was clear. The Act applied in only 13 of the 50 states. Only the states of the old Confederacy were subject to the law. Therefore, it was clearly unconstitutional -- an affront to "equal protection under the law".

The Democrat Senate leadership and the Johnson administration refused his demand that the act be made to apply to all fifty states.

Goldwater, a principaled man -- and the furthest thing from a racist -- paid the price for his principals. And the GOP paid along with him.

24 posted on 07/15/2010 10:28:06 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Thanks for the reply, okie01.

It's good to finally know what the turning point was. I've had an interesting time reading spins of Goldwater's decision from both the right and the left.

It looks like the left did a better job of selling their spin to the public.

25 posted on 07/15/2010 10:45:07 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cwb

Billboards with a few historical facts changed weekly along the US major highways.


26 posted on 07/16/2010 3:46:43 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Good read.


27 posted on 07/16/2010 5:48:14 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; ForGod'sSake

History ping


28 posted on 07/16/2010 7:53:25 AM PDT by EdReform (Stop Obamacare - Join the Obamacare Class Action Suit: www.obamacareclassaction.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
29 posted on 07/16/2010 8:06:21 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washi
It looks like the left did a better job of selling their spin to the public.

There was only one outlet for news in the sixties -- the MSM.

The only "spin" that got a public airing was spin from the left.

In a manner of speaking, what Walter Cronkite wanted, America got.

30 posted on 07/16/2010 9:05:22 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKwPrm7DYQ&feature=PlayList&p=13910B29EB9B6FF9&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=33

The Canada Song


31 posted on 07/17/2010 10:23:04 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Washi
What happened that shifted the black vote away from the Republican party? Did the black community leave the Republicans, or did the Republicans leave the black community?

Until 1936 republicans always won the black vote. In 1932 Roosevelt got 23% of the black vote, in 1936 the switch was made, and it was permanent, in 1936 Roosevelt got 71% of the black vote while the GOP got the 28%, a complete and instant, and permanent reversal.

The democrat presidential candidates never had to sweat the black vote again.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

32 posted on 03/14/2014 8:33:53 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

If we could get 28% of the Black vote today we’d never lose.


33 posted on 03/16/2014 8:16:30 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson