Blacks and Republicans: A Historic Alliance

In honor of February being Black History Month, I thought it might be informative to look at one aspect of the history of blacks in America; namely, the history of blacks and the Republican Party. Though black voters in America have in recent decades become a monolithic voting block for the Democrat Party, such has not always been the case. In fact, I think it would come as a great surprise for many blacks today to learn that not only have Republicans not always been thought of as their political enemies, they once had a political and ideological alliance. Even today these two groups agree on a wide range of issues, from educational choice and traditional marriage, to the importance of religion, specifically Christianity, to our history and culture.

On March 20, 1854, a group of people opposed to the Democrats’ policies supporting slavery met in Ripon, Wisconsin with the express purpose of organizing to end the moral evil of slavery. Just ten days later, on March 30th, President Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a law which authorized the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. As a result, these anti-slavery members of the Whig and Free-Soil Democrats would form the Republican Party, and within a few short years had established a major power base in the northeastern and Midwestern states.

In 1856, the Republican Party held its first national nominating convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it nominated John C. Freemont as their presidential candidate. Freemont ran under the slogan “Free soil, free silver, free men, Fremont”. He would lose that election to Democrat James Buchanan after Democrats warned the election of the anti-slavery Freemont would lead to civil war, but despite the loss in the 1856 election, the Republicans had established themselves as a major party, and would win the presidency just four years later with Abraham Lincoln.

In 1857, in possibly the most morally reprehensible ruling in American history, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in U.S. territories, and that Scott had no standing to petition the court because blacks were not, and could never be, American citizens. This ruling also declared unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise, which ended slavery in U.S. territories. The ruling was 7-2, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat. The lone dissenting votes were cast by John McLean (Republican) and Benjamin Curtis (Whig).

With the election of Lincoln, an outspoken opponent of slavery, Democrats saw the writing on the wall, and even before Lincoln was inaugurated, seven of the slave states had declared secession, forming the Confederacy. Perhaps temporarily mollified by Lincoln’s First Inaugural speech, the remaining slave states did not immediately join the Confederacy. Lincoln, while abhorring slavery, did not feel like the Constitution gave him the right to dictate to the states an end to slavery. His goal was to end the expansion of slavery, and then use an enticement to end slavery where it existed. In this speech, he declared “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln sought a pragmatic solution to ending slavery. Realizing he was president and not king, he sought an end to slavery in a way that would avoid war between the slave and Free states. Whereas the abolitionists demanded the immediate release of all slaves on moral grounds, Lincoln suggested a graduated approach whereby slave-owners would be paid out of the U.S. Treasury for the freeing of their slaves, with the compensation level dropping each year. This would achieve the goal of ending slavery, while allowing slave-holders to transition to the new economic reality without causing significant economic upheaval.

Despite the fact that a large faction of his own party saw him as too moderate on the abolition issue, the pro-slavery Democrats trusted his promises even less. The March 1861 edition of DeBow’s Review captured the prevailing sentiment about the Republican Party and Lincoln, stating “That the leading object of the mass of the [Republican] party, as a near or ultimate purpose, is the emancipation of the slaves, no man who has marked the power of the fanatical element in the organization and the growth of it can doubt.”

Lincoln felt that the United States had been formed by a compact of the states dating back to the 1774 Articles of Association, and he therefore believed secession was an unconstitutional act unless mutually agreed to by all parties involved. Unable to establish trust between the factions and come to a compromise, shots rang out at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and the hostilities of the War Between the States commenced.

In January 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring as free men all slaves still being held in servitude in the Confederacy. Before the war ended in 1865, well over 600,000 soldiers on both sides met their death. Families torn apart by split allegiances, brother against brother, and father against son, it marked the darkest days of this great union.

The end of the war would not mark an end to the suffering of blacks in America, but slavery was ended, and though it would take more than a century to see true equality under the law for black Americans, the process had begun.

It is entirely fitting that this month, which celebrates the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation; another proclamation has been submitted for consideration by the State Senate of Georgia, one of the original slave states. In the “Freedom Resolution of 2013”, Republican State Senator Barry Loudermilk calls upon the legislature to acknowledge the role of the state, as in institution, in past slavery, and to express sincere remorse and repentance for its role in perpetuating that evil practice, which runs counter the God’s Law, and the principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded. It reads in part:

“Whereas, the practice of slavery was sanctioned, condoned and perpetuated through the laws of this state until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution on December 18, 1865; and

Whereas, while even the most abject apology cannot right the transgressions, injustices and oppressive acts of the past, the spirit of true repentance can promote reconciliation among all people and avert the repetition of past injustices for future generations;

Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED BY THE GEORGIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY that the State of Georgia hereby acknowledges, as was written in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, that the act of slavery is a “cruel warfare against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty,” and; therefore, this state expresses profound remorse and lamentations for the past practice of involuntary servitude instituted, condoned and maintained through the laws of this state; and

Be it further RESOLVED, that through the spirit of repentance and reconciliation “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” and the government of this state shall hitherto commit itself to the preservation and protection of the natural rights of all people, and to the propagation of the ideals of liberty and justice for all mankind.”

The Republican Party, to their shame, has allowed its proud history to be hijacked and rewritten by the Democrat Party, obscuring the leading role it took in ending slavery, and helping to insure that ALL men, including blacks, are truly free. This will be the first in a series of articles that sheds light on the history of the Democrat Party in perpetuating the enslavement of blacks, enslavement no less evil today just because shackles and whips have been replaced with being trapped in failing schools and crime-ridden neighborhoods, and of the Republican Party’s role in correcting these injustices.

I have to laugh while reading this. You’ve had to go back to before 1900 to find something that blacks can relate to. After the Dixiecrats transformed into Republicans, that party has been anti-black, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-middleclass, anti-union, anti-choice…well, anti-everything.

Anonymous's picture

You have taken the intellectually lazy path and repeated commonly accepted falsehoods. It was the Republican Party that passed voting rights for blacks and women. It was the GOP who voter in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment is far higher proportions than did Democrats. And, if I remember correctly, only two Democrats who voted against the civil rights acts ever switched parties. Check your facts, dearest.

The GOP is not anti-black at all, nor are they anti-immigrant (they are pro-LEGAL immigration, befitting a party that philosophically understands the need for the superiority of the rule of law, rather than cynical demographic pandering). The middle class has done very well under GOP/conservative policies. It is under Obama and the Democrats that middle class income has dropped by over $4000, and it is the middle class that will bear the brunt of the trillions of debt run up by Democrats over the last four years. The GOP is not anti-union, per se, but is certainly pro-free market, which means not allowing the unions to extort businesses, and not allow unions and Democrats to team up to give unions lavish pay and benefit packages that far exceed the private sector, which has to be paid for by the middle class.

Louis DeBroux's picture

Great article Louis DeBroux and VERY TRUE/historically accurate! The anonymous comment above was exactly as you said “the intellectually lazy path”. I was actually thinking about the history of the GOP and minority voters earlier today before reading this article. I was thinking about how the GOP was the party that was the majority party within the legislative branch that supported the 1964 Voting Rights Act and yet ended up losing support from Black Americans. It was a PR problem that the GOP lost to the Dems - basically, the Dems did a better job selling their lie than the GOP defending against it.

I was thinking about how similar the situation is today in regards to the GOP and the Hispanic/Latino community. I feel what we have seen since 2006 to present in regards to the Hispanic/Latino community is similar to what occurred during the 1960s between the GOP and Black Americans.

I am not for amnesty but I am also not against solving this problem either. If we dig our heels in and say no to everything then it will basically finish driving out the majority of minorities out of the GOP. I think this is a goal of President Obama as was said by his staff on his Inauguration day - we are going to finish fracturing the GOP and destroy it. What we have to do is look to solutions to the problem in a way that does not compromise our principles, which is why I did not attack Marco Rubio for his plan. Is it perfect - no - and he admitted that but it is a starting point to bring a conservative point of view to the solutions table.

Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh’s solution would solve the problem but notice NEITHER political party will put forth this idea to the people or to their party - give blanket amnesty to all who are here but they cannot vote for 25 years. To me that proves they really don’t care about immigration, border security, amnesty or anything else - all they care about is pandering for votes! And that is the problem with our federal government and the majority of politicians that are corrupting our system!

Elizabeth Allen's picture

I agree. The Republicans seems incompetent to defend their principles, which have been proven historically to bring the greatest level of personal liberty and prosperity to the most people. The Republicans need to do a better job of declaring that they are against ILLEGAL immigration, but whooly support legal immigration for people of all races. They need to show that it is not racism, but a respect for the rule of law, which leads us to oppose amnesty (if we allow our government to continue to become as corrupt as those of the nations they fled, we will soon be no different than them).

Louis DeBroux's picture

There is nothing historic about this partnership. People should not connect color to political alliance. - Scott T. Sohr

Amanda Cole's picture

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <u> <p> <br> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <pre> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <span> <img> <object> <embed> <param> <blockquote> <div> <table> <tr> <td> <tbody> <thead>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

More information about formatting options

 

Twitter


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.