Much To the Chagrin of the Dems Back Then
Published on October 6, 2008 By KFC Kickin For Christ In US Civil War

I love History and I love Research.  I love to go thru the archives and see what I can find.  I love to go back to the beginning of things and see how far we've come since then.  Many times I'm amused at what we believe now  as gospel truth in comparison to where we've been. 

I talked with my grandmother this morning, a die-hard liberal.  She told me she voted for Obama even though she hates Obama but felt she had no choice.  Many of us believe she's a racist growing up in an era when it was ok to be so.  She's a Democrat after all.  She is loyal, have to give her that.  I asked her if she knew who the very first Black Senator was.  She did not.   So I thought I'd share what I know about Hiram Revels.

Hiram Revels was from Mississippi and was elected the first black Senator in US history.  He was a Republican!  The date was March 16, 1870 and the Senate galleries were packed as Senator Revels stood to deliver his first speech as a Senator. 

He was a product of post Civil War when Republicans dominted state governments in the South.  Back then Senators weren't popularly elected so the Mississippi Legislature voted, with the backing of the black community, to send him to the Senate.  Revels later wrote in his autobiography "It would in their judgment be a weakening blow against color line prejudice." 

He was born free and like Obama was of mixed race.  Hiram's mother was white and his father was black.  He started out as a minister and was once jailed for preaching the gospel to the blacks. 

The Washington Post called his first Senate speech "the sensation of the town."  He made a point in his speech assuring whites that they had nothing to fear from blacks seeking payback from slavery.   He said "they bear toward their former masters no revengeful thoughts, no hatreds, no animosities." 

Many say that Obama faces obstacles in this presidential race because of his color.  Perhaps he does to some degree but nothing like what Revels encountered back in 1870.  He had much more overt opposition than Obama will ever have.  Back then just a few weeks before his speech, a small group of Democratic Senators spent days trying to deny Revels his seat in the Senate solely because of his color.

A Senator Davis of KY mocked Republicans by declaring, "Oh ye Pharisees political!  You who profess such obedience to the will of the people!  You who represent universal democracy, not only the white man, but the Negro and the mulatto, and you now want to get in all the Mongolian race too!"   This same Senator called the 1866 law to extend citizenship to blacks a "farce."

My how things have changed.  My grandmother calls herself an old Democrat.  I don't think she really realizes totally what that means but it looks like she's a throwback to how it used to be once upon a time. 


Comments
on Oct 06, 2008

KFC, there was a lot more to the whole Republican party at that time then you would think. They were the predominant party, and most blacks went with them because the Democrats were the party of the south, of "their former masters."

The Republicans were actually split between those who truly and honestly favored emancipation and those who played it as a stunt. So, whie he may have been a Repbulican, I question the reason why. Was it because he truly aligned his beliefs with them, or was it because it was the status quo for blacks then.

 

Also, the Republican party then, was pretty darn different than it is now. One example is government and state rights, back then the republicans (during the reconstruction) were all for harsh, military/goverment control. Now-a-days, I highly doubt a true republican/conservative would call for that, as it'd violate state rights.

I would explain more, but I've got to head to class. I'll just leave with saying that you might want to dig a little deeper and take another glance at it. Not necessarily saying you're wrong and I'm right, hahaha; just that there's much more to the parties back then, and there was a shift later own as well.

 

Have a good day.

 

on Oct 07, 2008

Most "firsts" do not include the reconstruction South since they were still being run by the feds at the time.  However, the first black - post reconstruction - senator was still a republican.  Check out Edward Brooks, Massachusettes.

on Oct 10, 2008

I do not think the "election" of blacks to high officwe during the Time/Period of RECONSTRUCTION can be taken as proof or even a sign of wempowermwent. The Whites were disenfranchised wholesale and hence the preference for blacks. I do not think the election of blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction and the era of carpetbaggers can be held up as beacons of racial/ethnic equality.

on Oct 10, 2008

I do not think the "election" of blacks to high officwe during the Time/Period of RECONSTRUCTION can be taken as proof or even a sign of wempowermwent. The Whites were disenfranchised wholesale and hence the preference for blacks. I do not think the election of blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction and the era of carpetbaggers can be held up as beacons of racial/ethnic equality.

See my response.

on Oct 11, 2008

See my response

I read and agree with it, though I do get the feeling that you see the Reconstruction Era as integral to the post bellum history of Southern US.

on Oct 13, 2008

I read and agree with it, though I do get the feeling that you see the Reconstruction Era as integral to the post bellum history of Southern US.

Of course it is integral.  But not representative.  History shapes us, for good and bad.  And the south bristled under the yoke of a tyranical federal government for years, and when they got their freedom again, they resented the fact.  All of which has nothing to do with Edward Brooks, but a lot to do with why racism thrived in the south for long after the civil war.

on Oct 16, 2008

All of which has nothing to do with Edward Brooks, but a lot to do with why racism thrived in the south for long after the civil war.

AS Scarlette O'Hara said: I will think about it at Tara. For Tomorrow is another day. AS long as there is a feeling of nostalgia for the plantation anmd its past there will always be a temptation to see the world that was Gaone with the Wind in racial or ethnic terms.

on Oct 16, 2008

AS long as there is a feeling of nostalgia for the plantation anmd its past there will always be a temptation to see the world that was Gaone with the Wind in racial or ethnic terms.

No.  NO more so than Germans descended from Nazis yearn for the return.  Or view the world in that light (some surely do, but a very small and diminishing number).