Senator Hiram Revels Would Be Ashamed Of President Barack Obama

The front page of has been running a story by John Blake entitled, “Parallels to country’s racist past haunt age of Obama“.   From start to finish the article is a blatant attempt to paint the entire Republican agenda as a plan to restore racial segregation and institutionalized discrimination in the United States.  Mr. Blake uses anecdotal stories of the N-word in twitter accounts (though presumably not referring to the twitter responses to Stacy Dash’s tweet) and complaints about “black flash mobs” alongside citing any opposition to Obama’s legislative agenda as examples of Republicans trying to undo years of racial progress made by the courageous Democratic party through the years.  Mr. Blake uses the example of Senator Revels and failure of the Reconstruction movement to draw an analogy to today’s President Obama and the failure of his “post-racial” legislative agenda.  The analogy is very appropriate, but not for the reason that Mr. Blake presented.

It is important to understand historical facts before addressing how shockingly false and malicious Mr. Blake’s article really is.  When one moves beyond the rhetoric and looks at the historical achievements of the Republican party, it is shocking that any African-American votes Democrat:

  • 1865 – Republican Abraham Lincoln won the civil war and abolished slavery.  Good start for the party.
  • 1870 – Republican Hiram Revels is elected to the US Senate.  The first black man to be elected to the US Senate got some support from Democrats because they thought that his election would break the Republican party.
  • 1870 – 1948 Not much happened for the Black population of the US despite powerful presidencies of Democratic heroes like FDR and Truman.
  • 1948 – Republican Dwight Eisenhower forces desegregation of the armed forces against strong opposition.  After Brown vs Board of Education, Eisenhower famously deploys the 101st Airborne Division to forcibly desegregate schools in Little Rock, AR.  He declares racial segregation a national security issue and establishes the Civil Rights Commission and puts a permanent civil rights office in the Justice Department.  The first civil rights legislation since the 1870′s, the Civil rights act of 1957 was passed despite strong Democratic opposition. Senate Democrats did manage to water down the bill so that a second voter rights bill was necessary.  Partially at the request of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. President Eisenhower passes a follow-up voter protection civil rights act of 1960, again against strong Democratic opposition.
  • 1964 – Democratic President LBJ passes the landmark Civil Rights Act against Democratic opposition in congress.
  • 1970 – Republican President Richard Nixon signs the Philadelphia Plan and Affirmative action is born (yes, Richard Nixon is responsible for Affirmative Action).  Though not pertinent to racial issues, it is also interesting to point out that Nixon is responsible for the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteeing equal rights for Women under the law.
  • 1983 – Republican President Ronald Reagan makes Martin Luther King, Jr day an official federal holiday.  In 1988, he would expand and strengthen the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
  • 1991 – President George H. W Bush appoints the second African-American Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.

The road to equal rights under the law was largely paved by Republicans. However, most Republicans (sans Nixon), view legal equality as the just end goal fo legislative activity.  Until the time of the Civil Rights act, Democrats largely sought to deny civil rights to the African-American population.  Since then, the Democratic party started a new, though equally devastating, policy towards the African-American population.  The plan was to create an entitled dependent class that would get “special” protections and privileges under the law.  Such special privileges would be justified by stoking racial tension and convincing the African-American population that anything short of special treatment under the law is oppression.  Quotas, affirmative action, and over-reaching anti-discrimination laws that make it very easy to sue employers were passed ensuring that people would always doubt the accomplishments of minorities and make employers think twice about employing people that they would not be able to fire. The measures ensured that African-American unemployment would always remain high. In addition to destructive “special” privileges under the law, entitlement programs were geared towards the African-American population and created a dependent class that required government handouts to survive.

This narrative of this policy is clearly illustrated in Mr. Blake’s CNN article.  Anyone who denies that narrative and points out the devastating consequences of those policies is deemed a racist.  The Democratic party has been using narrative of racial strife, special rights, and government handouts to manipulate the African-American electorate into voting for them.  Any African-American who votes against the Democratic party is viciously attacked as a sell-out or “uncle Tom”.

Manipulating the black vote for personal benefit by keeping old conflicts and hatred alive is by no means a characteristic unique to the modern Democratic party.  The same immoral and powerful narrative was used by the Republican party for a short time in the 1870′s.  One courageous man stood up to his own party and publicly denounced the strategy:

Since reconstruction, the masses of my people have been, as it were, enslaved in mind by unprincipled adventurers, who, caring nothing for country, were willing to stoop to anything no matter how infamous, to secure power to themselves, and perpetuate it….. My people have been told by these schemers, when men have been placed on the ticket who were notoriously corrupt and dishonest, that they must vote for them; that the salvation of the party depended upon it; that the man who scratched a ticket was not a Republican. This is only one of the many means these unprincipled demagogues have devised to perpetuate the intellectual bondage of my people…. The bitterness and hate created by the late civil strife has, in my opinion, been obliterated in this state, except perhaps in some localities, and would have long since been entirely obliterated, were it not for some unprincipled men who would keep alive the bitterness of the past, and inculcate a hatred between the races, in order that they may aggrandize themselves by office, and its emoluments, to control my people, the effect of which is to degrade them.

The man behind this courageous quote was ex-senator Hiram Revels, in 1875.  The Republican party had been using slavery and the crimes of the civil war to secure the black vote.  Senator Revels knew that the only way to move on to a post-racial society is to come together and stop stoking up racial and cultural hate of years past.  He even voted to give confederates citizenship if they swore an oath of loyalty to the US.  He knew that the hate narrative continued by President Grant to secure political points would ruin the Reconstruction efforts and negate the powerful symbolism of his own election into the US senate.  How ironic that an article designed to fabricate stories of white oppression and stoke the fires of racial strife would highlight the most courageous figure in US history to rage against such tactics.

The article concludes by asking how Senator Revels might feel if he could see Obama and America in 2012.  That one is easy to answer:  Senator Revel would have seen a familiar historic election of an African-American to an office that had never been available to his race.  He would have celebrated the promise that election held to launch America into a post-racial era.  Now imagine if after the promise and hope that election gave, the party that achieved it falsely used racial hate and divisiveness to secure political gain.  For once we don’t have to speculate what his reaction would be, because the story is the exact same as what Senator Revel experienced 140 years ago.  We can safely assume that he would hang his head in shame.

7 thoughts on “Senator Hiram Revels Would Be Ashamed Of President Barack Obama

  1. “The bitterness and hate created by the late civil strife …. would have long since been entirely obliterated, were it not for some unprincipled men who would keep alive the bitterness of the past, and inculcate a hatred between the races, in order that they may aggrandize themselves by office, and its emoluments, to control my people, the effect of which is to degrade them”

    What a great quote. Senator Revels clearly described this divisive game
    140 years ago. Isn’t it sad that “unprincipled men” are still working hard “to keep alive the bitterness of the past”?

    The never-ending racial grievance industry will expand dramatically if Romney wins. It is a despicable business.

  2. Found some really interesting stuff here:
    and here:

    He speaks around the country and has written a book called Stolen History

    Some of What you will read about in this book:

    1. The Curious Story of John Casor (the origin of state-endorsed slavery in America)

    2. The Colorline (the origin of racial segregation in this country – PRE-revolution)

    3. The Progressives Attack on Christianity (the origin of “Uncle Tom” as an insult)

    4. The Jefferson Davis Story (profiling the first congressmen of color in the U.S. – all Republicans and all elected before the early 1900′s.)

    5. The Anti-Slavery Party (the historical voting record for and against civil rights legislation by the 2 parties – and the party records are NOT what you’d think.)

    …and several more chapters. This book, dear reader, will surprise you, make you want to “check the record” for yourself, and ultimately challenge what you think you have known about America’s Democrat and Republican parties and the history of race relations in the United States. In the end, it might even make you angry

  3. Down to the wire here. Let’s hope the country does vote for love of country, not for revenge and redistribution. Even the children at Halloween can’t abide the idea that redistribution trumps hard work.

  4. While I appreciate the rebuttal to Blake’s article – the selective history you outline is as misleading as his work. I’m sure you will be offended by facts as everyone seems to be this year, but lets have a look:

    1870 – 1948 “Nothing Happens” is minimizing the backlash of Reconstruction to fit your narrative – The Civil Rights act of 1863 and 1875, and ensuing Jim Crow law instituting segregation are hardly non-events.

    • Mr/Ms. Independent Voter,
      Thanks for your concerns, and I’d love to clear a few things up for you. For starters, the history was selective since the research points were characterized as the “historical achievements of the Republican party”. It was not the “evil segregationalist history of the Democratic party” — which would have required quite a bit more research than I wanted to do for a rebuttal. However, thank you for doing some negative history research for me on the Jim Crow laws that were legislated into place by state-level DEMOCRAT “redeemer” governments starting in the 1880′s. Jim Crow came to the Oval office with the election of the progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson (Democrat HERO as he fathered the income tax). Wilson re-segregated federal offices. Jim Crow was a counter-movement to the Republican-led Reconstruction movement that failed to carry through, as you pointed out.
      As for the Civil Rights acts of 1863 and 1875… If you pull up a spreadsheet and create a numerical line from 1-2000, you will see that 1863 actually falls outside of the 1870 – 1948 time frame when I said that nothing happened FOR the black population. Plenty of bad things happened TO them in that time frame like Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats in robes and pointy hats. The Civil Rights act of 1875 put in place by Republicans was not mentioned, because no one followed it and the Supreme court specifically rulled against it in a 1883 decision. It was more of a “non-event” than a UN resolution…

  5. Mr/Mrs Jess Jones -
    You have Kung Fu – however nitpicking dates within a single standard deviation from your original 70 year gap – to rebut a portion of a trend – does not effectively negate my original discussion. Which I think you will notice, makes no mention of party. I’m looking at actions and not names. A thumb-suck approximation of the hatred created in the late 19th century would fit the mold of the current republican behavior. Take a look at rural areas – what party is dominant? Now have a look at where hatred is closest the surface, where racial tensions still thrive. Seen any empty hanging chairs lately? Any similarities to what you’re spouting about late 19c democrats you want to point out?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>