Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
David Barton: WE'RE HERE IN AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM TO TALK
ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY--
SO MUCH OF WHICH
IS TRULY UNKNOWN TODAY.
FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU KNOW OF
JAMES ARMISTEAD, A BLACK PATRIOT
AND SPY DURING THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION, WHO HELPED MAKE
POSSIBLE THE 1781 YORK TOWN
VICTORY THAT ESTABLISHED AMERICA
AS AN INDEPENDENT NATION?
OR PETER SALEM, A BLACK PATRIOT
WHO WAS A HERO OF
THE 1775 BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL?
HE ALSO FOUGHT AS ONE OF
THE LEGENDARY MINUTE MEN AND
WAS A SOLDIER AT THE BATTLES
OF SARATOGA AND STONY POINT.
AND IN THE FAMOUS PICTURE,
THE 1776 CROSSING OF
THE DELAWARE ON CHRISTMAS NIGHT,
TWO MEN DEPICTED AT THE FRONT
OF THE BOAT INCLUDE
PRINCE WHIPPLE
AND OLIVER CROMWELL, TWO BLACK
PATRIOTS WHO SERVED WITH
GEORGE WASHINGTON
AND THE AMERICAN GENERALS
DURING THE REVOLUTION.
FEW ARE AWARE THAT MANY OF
THE SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT DURING
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WERE
BLACK, AND, UNLIKE THE LATER
SEGREGATED REGIMENTS IN THE
CIVIL WAR, MANY OF THE UNITS IN
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WERE
FULLY INTEGRATED WITH BLACK
PATRIOTS FIGHTING AND DYING
SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH THEIR WHITE
FELLOW COMRADES AND SOLDIERS.
WHILE THIS PART OF OUR HISTORY
IS UNKNOWN TODAY,
AMERICANS KNEW THIS INFORMATION
IN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
BECAUSE OF THE WRITINGS OF BLACK
HISTORIANS SUCH AS WILLIAM NELL.
NELL WAS THE FIRST
BLACK AMERICAN TO HOLD A POST
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IN 1852, HE AUTHORED THIS WORK,
SERVICES OF COLORED AMERICANS
IN THE WARS OF 1776 AND 1812,
AND THREE YEARS LATER IN 1855,
HE PENNED THIS WORK,
THE COLORED PATRIOTS
OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
DESPITE SUCH EXTENSIVE WORKS,
MANY OF OUR EARLY BLACK HEROES
AND PATRIOTS ARE UNKNOWN TODAY;
AND EQUALLY UNKNOWN IS MUCH OF
WHAT OCCURRED
IN BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY.
THAT HISTORY WILL SURPRISE
AND PERHAPS EVEN SHOCK YOU,
BUT AS YOU WILL SEE, IT'S A
HISTORY BASED ON INDISPUTABLE
FACTS AND DOCUMENTS.
(♪♪ Music Throughout ♪♪)
TOO OFTEN TODAY, ONLY A HANDFUL
OF THE HEROES FROM BLACK HISTORY
ARE PRESENTED--MUCH LIKE SHOWING
ONLY A SNAPSHOT OR TWO
OUT OF SEVERAL ALBUMS OF PHOTOS.
TOO MUCH IS NOT SEEN AND OFTEN
TOO MUCH IS WRONGLY ASSUMED JUST
FROM THE LITTLE THAT IS SEEN.
ONE OF THE WORLD'S OLDEST
HISTORY BOOKS, THE BIBLE, OFFERS
A GOOD LESSON ON THIS POINT.
WE ALL KNOW THE BIBLE STORY
OF DAVID'S VICTORY OVER GOLIATH,
YET THE BIBLE ALSO TELLS A STORY
OF DAVID'S ADULTERY WITH
BATHSHEBA AND OF HIS FAILURE
WITH HIS SON, ABSALOM.
IF ALL WE LEARNED ABOUT DAVID
WERE HIS FAILURES, THAT WOULD
NOT BE THE COMPLETE STORY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ALL WE
LEARNED ABOUT DAVID WERE HIS
VICTORIES, NEITHER WOULD
THAT BE THE COMPLETE STORY.
IT TAKES ALL OF THESE ACCOUNTS
TO PRESENT THE FULL ACCURATE
STORY.
SO FROM THE BIBLE, AND FROM
FORMER WRITERS IN BLACK HISTORY,
SUCH AS WILLIAM NELL,
CARTER WOODSON,
BENJAMIN QUARLES, JOSEPH WILSON,
BOOKER T. WASHINGTON,
EDWARD JOHNSON, AND OTHERS,
WE LEARN THAT YOU MUST PRESENT
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
TO GET THE FULL STORY,
NOT ONLY OF HISTORY IN GENERAL,
BUT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
POLITICAL HISTORY IN PARTICULAR.
ALTHOUGH THE HISTORY OF BLACK
AMERICANS BEGINS IN 1619 WITH
THE ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST SLAVES
IN AMERICA, THE POLITICAL
HISTORY OF BLACK AMERICANS
ACTUALLY BEGINS IN THE YEAR
1787; THE YEAR IN WHICH
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM
WAS CONSTRUCTED; 1787 WAS THE
YEAR THE CONSTITUTION
WAS WRITTEN.
TODAY, MANY CRITICS ASSERT THAT
THE CONSTITUTION WAS
A PROSLAVERY DOCUMENT, AND
TO PROVE THIS THEY POINT TO THE
3/5ths CLAUSE CLAIMING THAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT BLACKS
ARE ONLY 3/5ths OF A PERSON.
ONE OF THE EARLIEST
BLACK AMERICANS TO INVESTIGATE
THIS CLAIM
WAS THE FAMOUS ABOLITIONIST,
FREDERICK DOUGLASS.
DOUGLASS HAD BEEN BORN INTO
SLAVERY AND REMAINED A SLAVE
UNTIL HE ESCAPED TO NEW YORK.
THREE YEARS AFTER HIS ESCAPE,
HE DELIVERED AN ANTISLAVERY
SPEECH IN MASSACHUSETTS.
HE WAS PROMPTLY HIRED
TO WORK FOR THE STATE'S
ANTISLAVERY SOCIETY
AND HE ALSO SERVED AS A PREACHER
OF ZION METHODIST CHURCH.
DURING DOUGLASS'S FIRST YEARS
OF FREEDOM IN THE NORTH,
HE STUDIED AT THE FEET
OF ABOLITIONIST,
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON,
WHO TAUGHT HIM THAT
THE CONSTITUTION WAS
A PROSLAVERY DOCUMENT.
DOUGLASS ACCEPTED THIS CLAIM
AND HIS EARLY SPEECHES AND
WRITINGS REFLECTED THAT BELIEF.
HOWEVER, DOUGLASS LATER BEGAN TO
RESEARCH THE ISSUE FOR HIMSELF.
HE READ THE CONSTITUTION.
HE READ THE WRITINGS OF THOSE
WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION
AND WHAT HE FOUND REVOLUTIONIZED
HIS THINKING.
HE CONCLUDED THAT
THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT
A PROSLAVERY DOCUMENT,
BUT RATHER IT WAS
AN ANTISLAVERY DOCUMENT.
HE EXPLAINED...
Frederick Douglass: I WAS ON
THE ANTISLAVERY QUESTION,
FULLY COMMITTED TO THE DOCTRINE
TOUCHING THE PROSLAVERY
CHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
I ADVOCATED THIS WITH PEN AND
TONGUE ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF
MY ABILITY, HOWEVER, UPON A
LATTER RECONSIDERATION OF
THE WHOLE SUBJECT, I BECAME
CONVINCED THAT THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY
CONTAINED NO GUARANTEES IN FAVOR
OF SLAVERY, BUT ON THE CONTRARY,
IT IS IN ITS LETTER AND SPIRIT
AN ANTISLAVERY INSTRUMENT
DEMANDING THE ABOLITION OF
SLAVERY AS A CONDITION OF ITS
OWN EXISTENCE AS THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND.
NOW, HERE WAS A RADICAL CHANGE
IN MY OPINIONS.
BROUGHT DIRECTLY, WHEN I FIRST
ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY,
INTO CONTACT WITH A CLASS
OF ABOLITIONISTS REGARDING
THE CONSTITUTION
AS A SLAVE-HOLDING INSTRUMENT,
NOW IT'S NOT STRANGE THAT
I ASSUMED THE CONSTITUTION TO BE
JUST WHAT THEIR INTERPRETATION
IS, BUT I WAS NOW CONDUCTED
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND
PERPETUATE A SYSTEM OF SLAVERY,
ESPECIALLY AS NOT ONE WORD CAN
BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION
TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A BELIEF.
David: BUT, IF THE CONSTITUTION
IS NOT PROSLAVERY, THEN WHAT
ABOUT THE 3/5ths CLAUSE?
HAD DOUGLASS NOT READ
THAT CLAUSE?
YES, HE HAD.
THEN HOW COULD HE CONCLUDE WHAT
HE DID ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?
IT WAS VERY SIMPLE.
HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 3/5ths
CLAUSE DEALT ONLY WITH
REPRESENTATION AND NOT THE WORTH
OF ANY PERSON.
YOU SEE, THE CONSTITUTION HAD
ESTABLISHED THAT FOR EVERY
30,000 INHABITANTS IN THE STATE,
THAT STATE WOULD RECEIVE ONE
REPRESENTATIVE TO CONGRESS.
THE SOUTHERN STATES SAW THIS
AS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO STRENGTHEN SLAVERY.
SLAVES ACCOUNTED FOR MUCH
OF THE SOUTHERN POPULATION.
IN FACT, ALMOST HALF THE
INHABITANTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA
WERE SLAVES.
THEREFORE, SLAVE OWNERS COULD
SIMPLY COUNT THEIR SLAVES
AS REGULAR INHABITANTS,
AND BY SO DOING, COULD ALMOST
DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF THEIR
PROSLAVERY REPRESENTATIVES
TO CONGRESS.
OF COURSE, THE ANTISLAVERY
LEADERS FROM THE NORTH
STRENUOUSLY OBJECTED TO THIS.
AFTER ALL, SLAVE OWNERS DID NOT
CONSIDER THEIR SLAVES TO BE
PERSONS, BUT ONLY "PROPERTY."
THESE SLAVE OWNERS WERE,
THEREFORE, USING THEIR
"PROPERTY" THAT IS, THEIR
SLAVES, TO INCREASE THE POWER OF
THE SLAVE STATES IN CONGRESS.
THE ANTISLAVERY LEADERS FULLY
WANTED FREE BLACKS COUNTED
BUT NOT SLAVES, IF COUNTING
SLAVES WOULD INCREASE
THE POWER OF SLAVE OWNERS.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FEWER
THE PROSLAVERY REPRESENTATIVES
TO CONGRESS, THE SOONER SLAVERY
COULD BE ERADICATED
FROM THE NATION.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, A SIGNER
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND A STRONG
OPPONENT OF SLAVERY,
THEREFORE ARGUED:
Gouverneur Morris: UPON WHAT
PRINCIPLE IS IT THAT SLAVES
SHALL BE COMPUTED
INTO THE REPRESENTATION?
ARE THEY MEN?
THEN MAKE THEM CITIZENS
AND LET THEM VOTE!
BUT THE ADMISSION OF SLAVES
INTO THE REPRESENTATION
COMES TO THIS:
THAT THE INHABITANT OF GEORGIA
AND SOUTH CAROLINA WHO GOES
TO THE COAST OF AFRICA
AND IN DEFIANCE OF THE MOST
SACRED LAWS OF HUMANITY,
TEARS HIS FELLOW CREATURES FROM
HIS DEAREST CONNECTIONS
AND DAMNS THEM TO THE MOST CRUEL
BONDAGE HE SHALL HAVE MORE VOTES
IN THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED
FOR PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS
OF MANKIND THAN THE CITIZEN
OF PENNSYLVANIA OR NEW JERSEY
WHO CONDEMNS THE PRACTICE
OF SLAVERY.
David: MORRIS OBJECTED TO
COUNTING SLAVES BECAUSE HE DID
NOT WANT TO REWARD SLAVE HOLDERS
AND INCREASE THEIR POWER.
ANOTHER ARDENT ANTISLAVERY
DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, LUTHER MARTIN,
SIMILARLY EXPLAINED:
Luther Martin: NO PRINCIPLE
CAN JUSTIFY TAKING SLAVES INTO
CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT A STATE
SHOULD HAVE IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; IT IS ABSURD TO
INCREASE THE POWER OF THE STATE
IN PROPORTION AS THAT STATE
VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM.
IT ENCOURAGES THE SLAVE TRADE
AND IT MAKES IT IN THE INTEREST
OF THE STATES TO CONTINUE IN
THAT VILE TRAFFIC AND IT WILL
PREVENT SLAVES FROM BEING
CONSIDERED EITHER MEN
OR CITIZENS.
David: SEVERAL OTHER FOUNDERS,
INCLUDING JAMES WILSON
AND ELBRIDGE GERRY,
EVEN USED THE SLAVE HOLDERS'
OWN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM.
FOR EXAMPLE,
LUTHER MARTIN PROPOSED:
Luther Martin: IF SLAVES
ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY, THEN
WHAT RENDERS THIS "PROPERTY"
DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER
TYPE OF "PROPERTY," THAT IS
WHY SHOULD SLAVES AS "PROPERTY,"
BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT RATHER
THAN HORSES, CATTLE, MULES,
OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF PROPERTY?
David: THESE ANTISLAVERY
FOUNDERS ARGUED THAT IF
THE SOUTH WAS GOING TO COUNT ITS
PROPERTY, THAT IS ITS SLAVES,
IN ORDER TO GET MORE PROSLAVERY
REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS,
THEN THE NORTH WOULD COUNT ITS
PROPERTY, THAT IS ITS HOUSES,
COWS, AND HORSES
TO GET MORE ANTISLAVERY
REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.
OF COURSE, THE SOUTH OBJECTED
JUST AS STRONGLY TO THIS
PROPOSAL AS THE NORTH HAD
OBJECTED TO COUNTING SLAVES.
THE FINAL COMPROMISE WAS THAT
ONLY 60% OF SLAVES, THAT IS,
3/5ths OF SLAVES WOULD BE
COUNTED TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER
OF SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVES
TO CONGRESS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD TAKE
50,000 SLAVES RATHER THAN JUST
30,000 BEFORE SLAVE-HOLDING
STATES COULD GET A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS,
THUS GREATLY REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES
TO CONGRESS FROM STATES
WITH EXTRAORDINARILY
LARGE SLAVE POPULATIONS.
THIS THEN, IS THE 3/5ths CLAUSE.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE WORTH OF ANY INDIVIDUAL.
IN FACT, FREE BLACKS IN THE
NORTH AND THE SOUTH, OFTEN WERE
EXTENDED THE FULL RIGHTS OF A
CITIZEN AND REGULARLY VOTED BOTH
IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.
THE 3/5ths CLAUSE HAD
TO DO ONLY WITH REPRESENTATION.
IT WAS AN ANTISLAVERY PROVISION,
DESIGNED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
PROSLAVERY REPRESENTATIVES
IN CONGRESS.
THIS IS WHY FREDERICK DOUGLASS,
UNLIKE MANY TODAY WHO HAVE
NEVER TAKEN TIME TO STUDY THE
CONSTITUTION, COULD EMPHATICALLY
DECLARE THAT THE CONSTITUTION--
ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION--
WAS ANTISLAVERY.
IN 1789, FOLLOWING
THE RATIFICATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION,
CONGRESS EXPANDED ITS FIGHT
TO END SLAVERY BY PASSING
THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE.
THAT LAW FORBADE SLAVERY IN ANY
OF THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES
THEN HELD.
AND FOR THIS REASON, OHIO,
INDIANA, ILLINOIS, IOWA,
MINNESOTA, MICHIGAN AND
WISCONSIN ALL EVENTUALLY CAME
INTO THE NATION AS FREE STATES.
ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, PROGRESS
WAS BEING MADE TOWARD ENDING
SLAVERY AND ACHIEVING FULL CIVIL
RIGHTS FOR BLACK AMERICANS.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT IN BLACK
POLITICAL HISTORY OCCURRED
THREE YEARS LATER.
IN 1792, ACCORDING TO
THE WEB SITE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS STARTED
BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEFINITELY
PLAYED A ROLE IN BLACK POLITICAL
HISTORY, A ROLE THAT WILL
BE EXAMINED SHORTLY.
SOME YEARS LATER IN 1808,
CONGRESS CONTINUED ITS FIGHT
AGAINST SLAVERY BY ABOLISHING
THE SLAVE TRADE.
A FAMOUS SERMON COMMEMORATING
THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE
WAS GIVEN BY
THE REVEREND ABSALOM JONES,
THE FIRST BLACK BISHOP OF THE
EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN AMERICA.
HIS SERMON WAS DELIVERED
IN THE FAMOUS ST.THOMAS' CHURCH.
VERY FEW TODAY KNOW THAT IN
1808, CONGRESS ABOLISHED
THE SLAVE TRADE
OR THAT BISHOP ABSALOM JONES
DELIVERED SUCH A COMPELLING
SERMON.
ALTHOUGH SLAVERY STILL HAD NOT
BEEN ABOLISHED IN ALL THE
STATES, THINGS DEFINITELY WERE
MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
YET A MAJOR REVERSAL
WAS ABOUT TO OCCUR.
BY 1820, MOST OF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS WERE DEAD
AND THOMAS JEFFERSON'S PARTY,
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
HAD BECOME THE MAJORITY PARTY
IN CONGRESS.
WITH THIS NEW PARTY IN CHARGE,
A CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL POLICY
EMERGED.
RECALL THAT THE 1789 LAW
PROHIBITED SLAVERY
IN A FEDERAL TERRITORY.
IN 1820, THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS
PASSED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE
AND REVERSED THE EARLIER POLICY,
PERMITTING SLAVERY IN ALMOST
HALF OF THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES.
SEVERAL STATES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY
ADMITTED AS SLAVE STATES,
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
AND THE CONSTITUTION, SLAVERY
WAS BEING OFFICIALLY PROMOTED
BY CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.
SEVERAL OTHER PROSLAVERY LAWS
WERE ALSO PASSED BY DEMOCRATS
IN CONGRESS INCLUDING
THE 1850 FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
THAT LAW REQUIRED NORTHERNERS TO
RETURN ESCAPED SLAVES BACK INTO
SLAVERY OR ELSE PAY HUGE FINES,
AND IN MANY INSTANCES,
THE LAW BECAME LITTLE MORE THAN
AN EXCUSE FOR SOUTHERN
SLAVE HUNTERS TO KIDNAP FREE
BLACKS IN THE NORTH AND CARRY
THEM INTO SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH.
FOR IF A BLACK WAS SIMPLY
ACCUSED OF BEING A SLAVE,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
HE ACTUALLY WAS OR NOT,
UNDER THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW,
HE WAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF
BOTH A JURY TRIAL AND THE RIGHT
OF HABEAS CORPUS DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THOSE RIGHTS
HAD BEEN EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
ALLOWED FREE BLACKS TO BE
CARRIED INTO SLAVERY,
THIS LAW WAS DISASTROUS
FOR BLACKS IN THE NORTH.
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
ATROCIOUS PROVISIONS
OF THIS DEMOCRATIC LAW, SOME
20,000 BLACKS IN THE NORTH
COMPLETELY LEFT
THE UNITED STATES
AND FLED TO CANADA.
IN FACT, THE UNDERGROUND
RAILROAD REACHED THE HEIGHT OF
ITS ACTIVITY DURING THIS PERIOD,
HELPING THOUSANDS OF SLAVES
ESCAPE FROM SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH
ALL THE WAY INTO CANADA SIMPLY
TO ESCAPE THE REACH OF THE
DEMOCRATS' FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
IN 1854, THE DEMOCRATIC
CONTROLLED CONGRESS PASSED
ANOTHER LAW STRENGTHENING
SLAVERY:
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT.
THUS ALLOWING SLAVERY TO BE
INTRODUCED INTO PARTS
OF THE NEW TERRITORY WHERE IT
PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN,
THEREBY INCREASING
THE NATIONAL AREA IN WHICH
SLAVERY WOULD BE PERMITTED.
BY THE WAY, IN 1854,
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA TERRITORY
INCLUDED NOT ONLY KANSAS
AND NEBRASKA, BUT ALSO WHAT
IS NOW PART OF COLORADO,
WYOMING, MONTANA, IDAHO,
NORTH DAKOTA AND SOUTH DAKOTA.
THEREFORE, BY EXTENDING SLAVERY
INTO PARTS OF
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA TERRITORY,
DEMOCRATS WERE PUSHING SLAVERY
WESTWARD ACROSS THE NATION
ESSENTIALLY FROM COAST TO COAST.
FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF THESE
PROSLAVERY LAWS IN CONGRESS IN
MAY OF 1854, A NUMBER OF
THE ANTISLAVERY DEMOCRATS
IN CONGRESS--ALONG WITH SOME
ANTISLAVERY MEMBERS FROM OTHER
POLITICAL PARTIES INCLUDING
THE WHIGS, FREE-SOILERS, AND
EMANCIPATIONISTS, THEY FORMED
A NEW POLITICAL PARTY TO FIGHT
SLAVERY AND SECURE EQUAL RIGHTS
FOR BLACK AMERICANS.
THE NAME OF THAT PARTY,
THEY CALLED IT:
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
THEY CALLED IT THAT BECAUSE
THEY WANTED TO RETURN TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM
AND EQUALITY FIRST SET FORTH IN
THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OF THE
REPUBLIC BEFORE THE PROSLAVERY
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
HAD PERVERTED
THOSE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES.
ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THAT
NEW PARTY WAS U.S. SENATOR
CHARLES SUMNER,
WHO HAD TAKEN THE SEAT OF
THE GREAT ANTISLAVERY SENATOR,
DANIEL WEBSTER.
SUMNER HAD A RECORD OF PROMOTING
CIVIL RIGHTS.
IN FACT, HE HAD CHAMPIONED
THE DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS IN BOSTON.
HERE IS HIS ARGUMENT
BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT
ON THAT ISSUE.
IN 1856, SUMNER GAVE A
TWO-DAY LONG SPEECH IN
THE U.S. SENATE AGAINST SLAVERY.
FOLLOWING THAT SPEECH,
DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE
PRESTON BROOKS
FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
CAME FROM THE HOUSE ACROSS
THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL
AND OVER TO THE SENATE, WHERE
HE LITERALLY CLUBBED DOWN SUMNER
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE,
KNOCKED HIM UNCONSCIOUS
AND BEAT HIM ALMOST TO DEATH.
ACCORDING TO THE SOURCES
OF THAT DAY, MANY DEMOCRATS
THOUGHT THAT SUMNER'S CLUBBING
WAS DESERVED
AND IT EVEN AMUSED THEM.
IT WAS THREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS
BEFORE SUMNER RECOVERED HIMSELF
SUFFICIENTLY TO RETURN TO THE
SENATE, AND NOT SURPRISINGLY,
THE FIRST SPEECH HE DELIVERED
ON HIS RETURN TO THE SENATE
WAS AGAIN AGAINST SLAVERY.
IN 1856, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
ENTERED ITS FIRST
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
IN THAT ELECTION,
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ISSUED
THIS, ITS FIRST PARTY PLATFORM.
IT WAS A SHORT DOCUMENT.
THERE WERE ONLY NINE PLANKS
ON THE PLATFORM,
BUT SIGNIFICANTLY SIX OF THE
NINE PLANKS SET FORTH BOLD
DECLARATIONS OF EQUALITY
AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR
AFRICAN AMERICANS BASED ON
THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM OF THAT
YEAR TOOK AN OPPOSITE POSITION
STRONGLY DEFENDING SLAVERY.
IN FACT IT WARNED:
AMAZINGLY, ACCORDING TO
DEMOCRATS IN 1856, ATTEMPTING TO
END SLAVERY WOULD RUIN
THE HAPPINESS OF THE PEOPLE.
DESPITE SUCH CLEAR DIFFERENCES,
THE REPUBLICANS LOST
THAT ELECTION.
THE NEXT YEAR, 1857,
A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED
SUPREME COURT DELIVERED THIS:
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION,
DECLARING BLACKS WERE NOT
PERSONS OR CITIZENS, BUT INSTEAD
WERE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE
HAD NO RIGHTS.
IN FACT, QUOTING FROM THIS
INFAMOUS DECISION, DEMOCRATS ON
THE COURT ANNOUNCED THAT BLACKS:
IN THE 1860
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,
REPUBLICAN ABRAHAM LINCOLN RAN
AGAINST DEMOCRAT U.S. SENATOR
STEPHEN DOUGLAS OF ILLINOIS.
BOTH PARTIES AGAIN ISSUED
PLATFORMS.
THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1860
BLASTED BOTH
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
AND THE DRED SCOTT DECISION,
AND IT ANNOUNCED ITS CONTINUED
INTENT TO END SLAVERY
AND SECURE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS
FOR BLACK AMERICANS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEMOCRATS
IN THEIR 1860 PLATFORM PRAISED:
IN FACT, DEMOCRATS EVEN HANDED
OUT COPIES OF THE DRED SCOTT
DECISION, ALONG WITH THEIR
PLATFORM TO AFFIRM THEIR BELIEF
THAT IT WAS PROPER TO HAVE
SLAVERY AND TO HOLD
AFRICAN AMERICANS IN BONDAGE.
IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT FOR OVER
A CENTURY-AND-A-HALF, DEMOCRATS
OFTEN HAVE TAKEN A POSITION THAT
SOME HUMAN LIFE IS DISPOSABLE
AS THEY DID
IN THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.
IN THAT INSTANCE, A BLACK
INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT A LIFE,
IT WAS "PROPERTY" AND YOU COULD
DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY
AS YOU WISHED.
TODAY, DEMOCRATS HAVE LARGELY
TAKEN THAT SAME POSITION ON
UNBORN HUMAN LIFE; THAT AN
UNBORN HUMAN IS REALLY JUST
DISPOSABLE PROPERTY TO DO WITH
AS ONE WISHES.
AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE
THE VICTIMS OF THIS DISPOSABLE
PROPERTY IDEOLOGY
A CENTURY AND-A-HALF AGO
AND STILL ARE TODAY.
CONSIDER: ALTHOUGH ONLY 12% OF
THE CURRENT POPULATION IS
AFRICAN AMERICAN, ALMOST 35% OF
ALL ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED
ON AFRICAN AMERICANS.
IN FACT, OVER THE LAST DECADE,
FOR EVERY 100 AFRICAN AMERICAN
LIVE BIRTHS,
THERE WERE 53 ABORTIONS
OF AFRICAN AMERICAN BABIES.
DEMOCRATS HAVE ENCOURAGED THIS.
IN FACT, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
ARE ALMOST RABIDLY PROABORTION
AND THEY CONSISTENTLY VOTE
AGAINST PROTECTIONS FOR
INNOCENT UNBORN HUMAN LIFE.
FOR OVER A CENTURY-AND-A HALF,
DEMOCRATS HAVE WRONGLY ARGUED
THAT SOME HUMAN LIFE IS MERELY
DISPOSABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND
BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SUFFERED
MOST UNDER THIS PHILOSOPHY.
IN THE 1860 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION, THERE WAS A SPLIT
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
THE NORTHERN DEMOCRATS
AND THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS.
BOTH FACTIONS SUPPORTED SLAVERY,
BUT WHILE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS
WERE WILLING TO SPLIT
THE UNITED STATES TO FORM THEIR
OWN NATION, NORTHERN DEMOCRATS
REFUSED TO DO SO.
NORTHERN DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR
STEPHEN DOUGLAS FOR PRESIDENT,
WHILE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS
VOTED FOR JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.
WITH THIS SPLIT IN
THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE,
REPUBLICAN ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WAS THEN ELECTED WITH ONLY 40%
OF THE POPULAR VOTE, BUT 59%
OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE.
REPUBLICANS ALSO WON A MAJORITY
IN THE U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE
IN THAT ELECTION, THUS GIVING
REPUBLICANS CONTROL OF
THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS
FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.
GIVEN THE BOLD ANTISLAVERY
AND PROCIVIL RIGHTS POSITIONS
SET FORTH BY REPUBLICANS
AND THEIR PLATFORMS,
IT WAS OBVIOUS TO DEMOCRATS
WHAT WAS ABOUT TO OCCUR.
THE ANTISLAVERY
AND PROCIVIL RIGHTS POSITION OF
THE REPUBLICANS WERE ABOUT
TO BECOME REALITY.
WHAT WAS THE DEMOCRATIC
RESPONSE?
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS LEFT CONGRESS
AND TOOK THEIR STATES WITH THEM,
FORMING A NATION THAT DESCRIBED
ITSELF AS:
WHILE NORTHERN DEMOCRATS DID NOT
SUPPORT SECESSION, THEY
NONETHELESS GENERALLY SUPPORTED
SLAVERY AND OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS
FOR BLACK AMERICANS.
IN SHORT, THE MAIN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN
DEMOCRATS AT THAT TIME,
WAS THEIR VIEW ON SECESSION,
NOT SLAVERY.
REGRETTABLY, MANY DEMOCRATS
ACTUALLY REJOICED OVER
LINCOLN'S ELECTION, FOR IT HAD
GIVEN THEM THE EXCUSE THEY HAD
WANTED TO SECEDE AND TO FORM
A SLAVE-HOLDING NATION.
THIS WAS ESPECIALLY TRUE
WITH THE KNIGHTS
OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE,
AN ORGANIZATION COMPOSED
OF DEMOCRATS.
BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR,
THE KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE
HAD WORKED TO ESTABLISH
A SEPARATE SLAVE NATION
THAT INCLUDED
THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES,
MEXICO,
AND PART OF CENTRAL AMERICA.
WHEN THE CIVIL WAR BROKE OUT,
THESE DEMOCRATS NARROWED THEIR
BROAD GOALS AND INSTEAD FOCUSED
THEIR EFFORTS ON MAKING THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
A SEPARATE SLAVE NATION.
WHO WERE THE LEADERS OF THAT NEW
NATION OF SLAVE-HOLDING STATES?
DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATOR,
JEFFERSON DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI
BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THIS
NEW SLAVE-HOLDING NATION,
AND DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE,
ALEXANDER STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA
BECAME ITS VICE-PRESIDENT;
THE CITIZENS OF THIS
NEW SLAVE-HOLDING NATION
BECAME KNOWN AS "REBELS."
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVERY
SOUTHERN REBEL WAS A SLAVEHOLDER
OR THAT EVERY SOUTHERNER
SUPPORTED SLAVERY, FOR SUCH
DEFINITELY WAS NOT THE CASE.
YET MANY MODERN DEFENDERS
OF THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY,
IN THEIR MISGUIDED EFFORTS
TO PROVE THAT SLAVERY WAS NOT
THE PRIMARY ISSUE DURING
THE CIVIL WAR, ASSERT THAT ONLY
5% OF SOUTHERNERS OWNED SLAVES.
SUCH NUMBERS ARE MISLEADING,
HOWEVER,
IN MANY OF THE SOUTHERN STATES,
ALMOST 2/3rds OF SOUTHERNERS
WERE SLAVES, LIVED IN SLAVE
HOUSEHOLDS OR OWNED SLAVES.
FURTHERMORE, MUCH OF THE
REMAINING 1/3rd OF SOUTHERNERS
MADE THEIR LIVING BY SUPPLYING
MATERIALS OR SERVICES TO
THE SLAVE HOMES OR PLANTATIONS.
THEREFORE, THE ASSERTION THAT
ONLY 5% OF SOUTHERNERS MAY HAVE
OWNED SLAVES, DOES NOT DIMINISH
THE FACT THAT SLAVERY WAS
THE DOMINANT INDUSTRY
IN THE SOUTHERN STATES.
ADDITIONALLY, ACCORDING
TO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF
THE SOUTH, SLAVERY WAS
THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.
REBELS WERE THEREFORE FIGHTING
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
A SLAVE-HOLDING NATION.
WHILE "STATES' RIGHTS" HAD BEEN
THE CRY OF THE SOUTHERN STATES
BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, THAT RIGHT
HAD PRIMARILY RELATED TO THE
RIGHT OF STATES TO MAKE THEIR
OWN DECISIONS ABOUT SLAVERY.
WHEN SLAVERY ENDED,
HOWEVER, THE CRY OF "STATES'
RIGHTS" WAS STILL HEARD
FROM THE FORMER
STATES OF THE CONFEDERACY,
BUT THIS TIME IT WAS ON THE
RIGHT OF THOSE STATES TO MAKE
THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT
WHETHER TO GIVE CIVIL RIGHTS
TO BLACK AMERICANS.
THE PHRASE "STATES' RIGHTS"
AS RELATED TO SOUTHERN STATES
PRIMARILY BECAME AN EUPHEMISM
FIRST FOR HOLDING BLACKS IN
SLAVERY AND THEN FOR SUBJECTING
THEM TO BLACK CODES,
SEGREGATION, AND DISCRIMINATION.
HOWEVER, RETURNING TO
THE ELECTION OF 1860, WITH
REPUBLICANS FIRMLY IN CONTROL
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY
QUICKLY BEGAN IMPLEMENTING
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
IN 1862, REPUBLICANS ABOLISHED
SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON D.C.
AND IN 1863, THE EMANCIPATION
PROCLAMATION WAS ISSUED, FREEING
ALL SLAVES IN THE SOUTHERN
STATES IN REBELLION.
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
WAS EAGERLY ANTICIPATED,
AND MANY BLACK AMERICANS
GATHERED IN GROUPS
AROUND CLOCKS OR WATCHES,
EAGERLY AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF
MIDNIGHT ON DECEMBER 31, 1862,
FOR THE PROCLAMATION WAS TO TAKE
EFFECT ON THE FIRST MOMENT OF
JANUARY 1, 1863.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS WAS IN
ATTENDANCE AT ONE SUCH MIDNIGHT
RALLY, WAITING FOR THE
PROCLAMATION TO BECOME OFFICIAL.
WHEN THAT MOMENT ARRIVED,
A CELEBRATION ERUPTED,
AND DOUGLASS EXCLAIMED:
Frederick Douglass: IT WAS ONE
OF THE MOST AFFECTING
AND THRILLING OCCASIONS
I EVER WITNESSED, AND A WORTHY
CELEBRATION OF THE FIRST STEP ON
THE PART OF THE NATION
IN ITS DEPARTURE
FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE AGES.
David: BY THE WAY,
THESE GATHERINGS WERE THE ORIGIN
OF THE MODERN-DAY WATCH-NIGHT
SERVICES HELD EVERY YEAR
AT THOUSANDS OF CHURCHES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THEY ARE NEW YEAR'S EVE MEETINGS
WHERE CHURCH-GOERS GATHER TO
GREET THE ENTRY OF THE NEW YEAR,
AND ITS GLORIOUS AND HOPEFUL
PROSPECTS, WITH TIMES OF PRAYER
AND THANKSGIVING TO GOD.
IN 1864, FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE
OF THE EMANCIPATION
PROCLAMATION, SEVERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND LAWS
PREPARING TO FACILITATE
CIVIL RIGHTS WERE PASSED.
ONE OF THEM WAS THIS BILL,
ESTABLISHING THE FREEDMEN'S
BUREAU; ANOTHER WAS THIS BILL,
EQUALIZING PAY FOR SOLDIERS
IN THE MILITARY,
WHETHER WHITE OR BLACK.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW WAS ALSO
REPEALED THAT YEAR OVER
THE ALMOST UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION
OF THE NORTHERN DEMOCRATS
STILL IN CONGRESS.
WHILE REPUBLICANS IN THE NORTH
WERE WORKING TO END SLAVERY
AND SECURE CIVIL RIGHTS,
THE NEW NATION OF SOUTHERN
DEMOCRATS WAS DETERMINED TO HEAD
IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
IN FACT, CONFEDERATE
VICE-PRESIDENT,
ALEXANDER STEPHENS,
THE DEMOCRAT FROM GEORGIA,
DELIVERED A SPEECH ENTITLED:
IN THAT SPEECH, STEPHENS FIRST
CORRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
THE FOUNDING FATHERS, EVEN THOSE
FROM THE SOUTH, HAD NEVER
INTENDED FOR SLAVERY TO REMAIN
IN AMERICA.
Alexander Stephens: THE
PREVAILING IDEAS ENTERTAINED BY
THOMAS JEFFERSON AND MOST OF THE
LEADING STATESMEN AT THE TIME OF
THE FOUNDATION OF
THE OLD CONSTITUTION, WERE THAT
THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE AFRICAN
WAS IN VIOLATION
OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.
BUT THE GENERAL OPINION OF
THE MEN OF THAT DAY WAS THAT,
SOMEHOW OR OTHER, IN THE ORDER
OF PROVIDENCE, THE INSTITUTION
WOULD BE TEMPORARY
AND PASS AWAY.
David: SO, WHAT DID
VICE-PRESIDENT STEPHENS
AND THE NEW CONFEDERATE NATION
THINK ABOUT THESE ANTISLAVERY
IDEAS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS?
Alexander: THE FOUNDERS' IDEAS
AGAINST SLAVERY WERE
FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.
THEY RESTED UPON THE ASSUMPTION
OF THE EQUALITY OF RACES.
THIS WAS AN ERROR, AND THE IDEA
OF A GOVERNMENT BUILT UPON IT.
OUR--OUR NEW GOVERNMENT, THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA,
IS FOUNDED UPON EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE IDEA.
ITS FOUNDATIONS ARE LAID;
ITS CORNERSTONE RESTS UPON
THE GREAT TRUTH THAT THE ***
IS NOT EQUAL TO THE WHITE MAN;
THAT SLAVERY, SUBORDINATION TO
THE SUPERIOR WHITE RACE IS THE
NATURAL AND MORAL CONDITION
OF THE ***.
THIS, OUR NEW CONFEDERATE
GOVERNMENT, IS THE FIRST IN THE
HISTORY OF THE WORLD BASED UPON
THIS GREAT PHYSICAL,
PHILOSOPHICAL AND MORAL TRUTH.
( Applause )
David: THERE WAS INDEED A CLEAR
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE REPUBLICANS
AND OF DEMOCRATS ON THE ISSUE
OF RACE AND RACIAL EQUALITY.
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN
WILLING TO FORM AN ENTIRE NATION
ON THE FOUNDATION
OF WHITE SUPREMACY, AND THERE
WAS NO DOUBT THAT THE SOUTH
WAS STRONGLY DEMOCRATIC.
AS A LEADING SOUTH CAROLINA
DEMOCRAT TESTIFIED DURING AN
1871 CONGRESSIONAL HEARING...
Congressman: FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS HEARING, SIR, COULD YOU
PROVIDE A BREAK-DOWN ALONG PARTY
LINES AS EXISTS IN YOUR STATE?
Democrat: ALMOST 999 OUT
OF 1,000 OF THE DECENT
PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
BELONG TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS COMPOSED
ENTIRELY OF THE COLORED PEOPLE.
David: WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1864,
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WERE STILL
FIGHTING AGAINST THE UNION;
THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATS
THAT YEAR WAS THE NORTHERN
DEMOCRAT, UNION GENERAL
GEORGE B. McCLELLAN.
McCLELLAN WAS ACTUALLY RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT AGAINST HIS OWN
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF,
BUT THERE WAS A CLEAR DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO.
IN FACT, ABRAHAM LINCOLN HAD
TWICE REPLACED McCLELLAN FOR
FAILING TO OBEY LINCOLN'S ORDERS
TO LAUNCH AGGRESSIVE ATTACKS
AGAINST THE CONFEDERACY.
GENERAL McCLELLAN'S PROSOUTHERN
SYMPATHETIC BEHAVIOR WAS IN
DIRECT CONTRAST WITH THAT OF
OTHER NORTHERN MILITARY LEADERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, FLETCHER WEBSTER,
SON OF THE ANTISLAVERY
STATESMAN DANIEL WEBSTER,
ORGANIZED
THE 12th MASSACHUSETTS,
A REGIMENT THAT ADOPTED
THE POPULAR ABOLITIONIST ANTHEM
"JOHN BROWN'S BODY"
AS ITS REGIMENTAL SONG.
IN FACT, HERE ARE SOME OF THE
1861 ORGANIZATIONAL RECORDS
OF THAT REGIMENT.
THAT UNIT SAW SOME OF
THE FIERCEST ACTION IN THE WAR,
AND FLETCHER WEBSTER,
LEADER OF THAT HARD-FIGHTING
ABOLITIONIST UNIT,
GAVE HIS OWN LIFE
IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SLAVERY,
BEING SHOT DOWN AT THE SECOND
BATTLE OF BULL RUN.
McCLELLAN, THEN, WAS CLEARLY OUT
OF STEP WITH MANY OTHER
UNION MILITARY LEADERS;
AND, NOT SURPRISINGLY,
THE ANTIBLACK TONE OF THIS
NORTHERN DEMOCRAT SHONE THROUGH
IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
FOR EXAMPLE, EXAMINE THIS
1864 CAMPAIGN PIECE
FOR GENERAL McCLELLAN.
WHY DOES HE URGE CITIZENS
TO VOTE FOR HIM?
BECAUSE AS HE EXPLAINS:
NOTICE ANOTHER
OF HIS COMPLAINTS:
ACCORDING TO McCLELLAN, SINCE
WHITE LIVES WERE BEING LOST,
AND SINCE REPUBLICANS WERE
SEEKING BOTH ABOLITION AND ***
EQUALITY, McCLELLAN ARGUES
THAT HE, AS A DEMOCRAT, SHOULD
BE ELECTED SO THAT HE COULD
HALT THOSE POLICIES.
REPUBLICANS ALSO TOOK CLEAR
POSITIONS IN THAT
1864 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
THE 1864 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM,
THEREFORE, CALLED FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
COMPLETELY ABOLISH SLAVERY
AND WORK WAS BEGUN IN CONGRESS
ALMOST IMMEDIATELY
ON THAT AMENDMENT.
THAT SAME YEAR,
PRESIDENT LINCOLN WON
RE-ELECTION TO A SECOND TERM.
IT WAS IN 1865 THAT THE
CIVIL WAR FINALLY CAME TO A
CLOSE; THE NATION OF
SLAVE-HOLDING STATES
HAD BEEN DEFEATED.
PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND THE BLACK
TROOPS OF THE 29th CONNECTICUT
REGIMENT VISITED RICHMOND,
THE FORMER CAPITAL OF THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
AN OFFICER IN THAT BLACK
REGIMENT RECORDED THE SCENE:
Officer: AS THE PRESIDENT PASSED
ALONG THE STREET, THE COLORED
PEOPLE WAVED THEIR
HANDKERCHIEFS, HATS AND BONNETS
AND EXPRESSED THEIR GRATITUDE
BY SHOUTING REPEATEDLY:
"THANK GOD FOR HIS GOODNESS!"
"WE HAVE SEEN HIS SALVATION!"
THE WHITE SOLDIERS CAUGHT THE
SOUND AND SWELLED IN NUMBERS
CHEERING AS THEY MARCHED ALONG.
ALL COULD SEE THE PRESIDENT,
HE WAS SO TALL.
ONE WOMAN SHOUTED,
"THANK YOU DEAR JESUS FOR THIS
SIGHT OF THE GREAT CONQUEROR."
NO WONDER TEARS CAME TO THE
PRESIDENT'S EYES WHEN HE LOOKED
ON THE POOR COLORED PEOPLE
WHO WERE ONCE SLAVES AND HEARD A
BLESSING UTTERED FROM THANKFUL
HEARTS AND THANKSGIVING TO GOD
AND JESUS.
THOUSANDS OF COLORED MEN IN
RICHMOND WOULD HAVE LAID
DOWN THEIR LIVES
FOR PRESIDENT LINCOLN.
David: BY THE WAY, IN THESE
ACCOUNTS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS,
THE STRONG CHRISTIAN FAITH OF
BLACK AMERICANS IS APPARENT.
THAT FAITH IS AS ACTIVE TODAY
AS IT EVER WAS, FOR A NUMBER
OF RECENT POLLS SHOW THAT:
RETURNING TO 1865, THERE WERE
NUMEROUS CELEBRATIONS
BY BLACK AMERICANS AND OTHERS
AT THE END OF CIVIL WAR,
BUT EVEN BEFORE THE WAR HAD COME
TO AN END, A VOTE HAD BEEN HELD
IN CONGRESS
ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO ABOLISH SLAVERY:
THE 13th AMENDMENT.
CONGRESS PASSED THAT AMENDMENT
AND THIS POSTER WAS QUICKLY
ISSUED TO HONOR THE 137 MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS WHO HAD VOTED
TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.
AT THE TIME OF THAT VOTE,
THERE WERE 118 REPUBLICANS
IN CONGRESS,
AND 82 NORTHERN DEMOCRATS.
OF THE 118 REPUBLICANS, ALL 118
VOTED TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.
HOWEVER, OF THE 82 DEMOCRATS,
ONLY 19 VOTED TO END SLAVERY--
ONLY 23% OF DEMOCRATS AND THESE
WERE THE NORTHERN DEMOCRATS.
WHEN THE VOTE HAD BEEN TAKEN IN
CONGRESS ON THE 13th AMENDMENT
TO ABOLISH SLAVERY,
THE CHAMBERS HAD BEEN PACKED
FROM WALL-TO-WALL
WITH EXPECTANT OBSERVERS.
WHEN THE NUMBERS WERE COUNTED
AND IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT
THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED,
A ROAR ERUPTED FROM
THE THOUSANDS IN THE CHAMBER.
HATS WERE THROWN AND VOICES WERE
RAISED IN EXUBERANT CHEERS.
CONGRESS HAD VOTED
TO END SLAVERY.
HOW SHOULD SOMETHING THAT
PROFOUND BE CELEBRATED?
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ASKED
THAT A SERMON BE PREACHED TO
COMMEMORATE THE EVENT.
AND WHOM DID THEY ASK
TO PREACH THE SERMON?
REVEREND HENRY HIGHLAND GARNET.
GARNET BECAME THE FIRST
AFRICAN AMERICAN TO SPEAK
IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS
AND HE DELIVERED THIS SERMON.
TODAY IT MAY SOUND STRANGE TO
HEAR THAT THERE WAS A SERMON
PREACHED IN THE CAPITOL, BUT IT
WAS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL THEN.
IN FACT, ON DECEMBER 4, 1800,
SHORTLY AFTER CONGRESS FIRST
MOVED INTO THE CAPITOL BUILDING,
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
THAT ON SUNDAYS,
THE CAPITOL BUILDING WOULD
BE USED FOR CHURCH SERVICES.
BY 1867, THE LARGEST CHURCH
IN WASHINGTON, D.C.,
WAS THE ONE THAT MET INSIDE
THE U.S. CAPITOL; 2,000 PEOPLE
A WEEK MET THERE FOR CHURCH.
SO IT WAS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL
TO HAVE SERMONS AND RELIGIOUS
SERVICES IN THE CAPITOL.
REVEREND GARNET PREACHED THIS
SERMON ON SUNDAY,
FEBRUARY 12, 1865,
AND IT WAS POWERFUL!
HE BEGAN THAT SERMON WITH A
RECOLLECTION OF HIS OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES:
Rev. Garnet: WHAT IS SLAVERY?
TOO WELL DO I KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I WAS BORN AMONG THE CHERISHED
INSTITUTIONS OF SLAVERY.
MY EARLIEST RECOLLECTION OF
PARENTS, FRIENDS AND THE HOME
OF MY CHILDHOOD ARE CLOUDED
WITH ITS WRONGS.
THE FIRST SIGHT THAT MET MY EYES
WAS MY CHRISTIAN MOTHER
ENSLAVED.
David: GARNET THEN REVIEWED
THE PROMINENT HISTORICAL LEADERS
OF BOTH CHURCH AND STATE WHO HAD
STRONGLY OPPOSED SLAVERY...
Rev. Garnet: THE OTHER DAY,
WHEN THE LIGHT OF LIBERTY
STREAMED THROUGH THIS MARBLE
BUILDING, AND THE HEARTS OF A
NOBLE BAND OF PATRIOTIC
STATESMEN LEAPED FOR JOY, IN
THIS OUR NATIONAL CAPITOL, SHOOK
FROM FOUNDATION TO DOME WITH
THE SHOUTS OF A RANSOMED PEOPLE,
THEN METHINKS THE SPIRITS OF
WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON,
THE JAYS, THE ADAMSES
AND FRANKLIN AND LAFAYETTE,
GIDDINGS, LOVEJOY AND THOSE OF
ALL THE MIGHTY AND GLORIOUS DEAD
REMEMBERED BY HISTORY
BECAUSE THEY WERE FAITHFUL
TO TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND LIBERTY,
WERE HOVERING OVER THIS AUGUST
ASSEMBLY.
THOUGH UNSEEN BY MORTAL EYES,
DOUBTLESS, THEY JOINED THE
ANGELIC CHOIR AND SAID, AMEN!
HALLELUJAH!
David: REVEREND GARNET THEN
CONCLUDED BY CALLING ON THE
STATES TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENT
PASSED BY CONGRESS.
Rev. Garnet: LET THE VERDICT OF
DEATH WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN
AGAINST SLAVERY BY THIS CONGRESS
BE AFFIRMED AND EXECUTED
BY THE PEOPLE!
LET THE GIGANTIC MONSTER PERISH,
YES, PERISH NOW
AND PERISH FOREVER.
LET SLAVERY DIE!
( Applause )
ITS DEATH WARRANT
IS SIGNED BY GOD AND MAN.
AND HONORABLE SENATORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES, ILLUSTRIOUS
RULERS OF THIS GREAT NATION,
YOUR ACT SO SUBLIME COULD NOT
ESCAPE DIVINE NOTICE,
THE DEED HAS BEEN RECORDED
IN THE ARCHIVES OF HEAVEN.
( Applause )
David: THIS WAS A MOMENTOUS
EVENT!
THE FIRST BLACK AMERICAN TO
SPEAK IN THE CAPITOL AND
HE DELIVERED A POWERFUL SERMON.
INTERESTINGLY, IN THE FRONT OF
THIS SERMON, IS A REVEALING
MESSAGE.
IT IS A MESSAGE OF THANKS PASSED
BY THE LEADERSHIP
OF REVEREND GARNET'S
15th STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
IN WASHINGTON D.C.
THE CHURCH TRUSTEES WERE SO
PLEASED WITH THE HONOR BESTOWED
ON THEIR PASTOR THAT THEY PASSED
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT IT
WAS THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE WHO'D ASKED
REVEREND GARNET TO SPEAK.
THE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE
DID NOT JOIN IN INVITING HIM
TO PREACH A SERMON.
YET THIS IS NOT SURPRISING,
GIVEN THE DEMONSTRATED ATTITUDE
OF DEMOCRATS TOWARD
BLACKS AT THAT TIME, AND IT'S
NOT SURPRISING, JUDGING
BY THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION
TO TRADITIONAL PUBLIC RELIGIOUS
EXPRESSIONS AND ACTIVITIES THAT
THEY STILL DEMONSTRATE,
EVEN IN THE MOST RECENT YEARS.
FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH
NEARLY 80% OF THE NATION
SUPPORTS VOLUNTARY SPOKEN PRAYER
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
ONLY 13% OF DEMOCRATS VOTED
FOR A RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT IT.
AND EVEN THOUGH
ALMOST 80% OF THE NATION
SUPPORTS PUBLIC DISPLAYS
OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS,
ONLY 21% OF DEMOCRATS VOTED
FOR A CONGRESSIONAL BILL
TO ALLOW THOSE DISPLAYS.
CONSIDER, TOO,
THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL TO REMOVE
IRS CONTROL FROM OVER
WHAT PASTORS CAN SAY.
A BILL THAT WOULD REINSTATE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO AMERICAN
PULPITS EXACTLY THE WAY IT HAD
BEEN BEFORE LYNDON BAINES
JOHNSON AMENDED THE IRS CODE
IN 1954 TO RESTRICT SPEECH
IN CHURCHES.
ONLY 5% OF DEMOCRATS VOTED TO
ALLOW FREE SPEECH FOR CHURCHES.
Children: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE
TO THE FLAG...
David: AND WHEN THERE WAS A VOTE
ON PROTECTING "UNDER GOD"
IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,
EVEN THOUGH 87% OF AMERICANS
SUPPORT THAT PHRASE, ONLY 17% OF
DEMOCRATS VOTED TO PROTECT IT.
AND ON THE ISSUE OF PRESERVING
MARRIAGE AS ORDAINED
IN THE SCRIPTURES,
72% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE,
BUT ONLY 15% OF DEMOCRATS IN
CONGRESS VOTED TO PROTECT IT.
THE DEMOCRATS SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE
A GOOD VOTING RECORD ON
TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS ISSUES.
CONSIDER ALSO,
HOW DEMOCRATS DEAL WITH THE
ISSUE OF FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS.
CURRENT STATISTICS PROVE THAT
FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS OFFER
THE BEST SOLUTIONS TO MANY OF
SOCIETY'S MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE ISSUE OF
DRUG-ABUSE, THE AVERAGE CURE
RATE FOR GOVERNMENTAL-TYPE
DRUG-ABUSE PROGRAMS
IS UNDER 10%; YET THE CURE RATE
FOR FAITH-BASED DRUG ABUSE
PROGRAMS, SUCH AS THOSE OFFERED
BY TEEN CHALLENGE, IS OVER 70%!
AND ON THE ISSUE OF PRISON
INCARCERATION, WHILE 67% OF
THOSE IN GOVERNMENT PRISONS
RETURN TO PRISON WITHIN
ONLY 2 YEARS, ONLY 8% RETURN
IF THEY HAVE BEEN
IN FAITH-BASED PRISON PROGRAMS.
IN SHORT, FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS
OFFER THE MOST EFFECTIVE
SOLUTIONS NOT ONLY FOR
DRUG-ABUSE AND CRIME,
BUT ALSO FOR POVERTY AND SO MANY
OTHER SOCIAL NEEDS.
BUT WHEN THE FAITH-BASED BILL
WAS PRESENTED IN CONGRESS,
ONLY 7% OF DEMOCRATS VOTED
TO ALLOW FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS.
DEMOCRATS TRY TO DIRECT
ATTENTION AWAY FROM THEIR
POSITION ON SO MANY OF THESE
RELIGIOUS ISSUES BY POINTING
TO THEIR STANDS ON POVERTY,
AND CLAIMING A RELIGIOUS AND
A MORAL MANDATE FOR THAT WORK.
HELPING THE POOR CLEARLY IS A
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL MANDATE,
BUT THE DEMOCRATIC PORTRAYAL
IS INACCURATE AND INSUFFICIENT
FOR TWO REASONS.
FIRST, THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF POVERTY,
AND HELP SO MANY MORE OF THE
POOR, IS THROUGH FAITH-BASED
PROGRAMS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO
THEIR VOTING RECORD,
MOST DEMOCRATS OPPOSE.
SECOND, WHILE DEMOCRATS POINT
TO THEIR FUNDING OF GOVERNMENTAL
BUREAUCRACY RELATED TO THE POOR
AS A POSITIVE STAND
ON A RELIGIOUS AND MORAL ISSUE,
THEY NEGLECT THE FACT
THAT THE SCRIPTURES PRIORITIZE
CERTAIN MORAL ISSUES.
CONSIDER THE FACT THAT GOD TOOK
HIS MORE THAN 600 LAWS AND
REDUCED THEM INTO
HIS TOP TEN COMMANDMENTS.
THE PROTECTION OF INNOCENT LIFE
DOES MAKE GOD'S TOP TEN;
IT'S NUMBER SIX.
BY THE WAY,
IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE,
THIS COMMANDMENT ACTUALLY SAYS:
"DO NOT ***"
RATHER THAN "DO NOT KILL;"
THAT IS, THIS BIBLICAL MANDATE
INVOLVES THE PROTECTION
OF INNOCENT LIFE,
NOT GUILTY LIFE; AND WHEN JESUS
REPEATED THIS COMMANDMENT
IN MATTHEW 5, AND THEN AGAIN
IN MATTHEW 19, HE USED THE WORD
"***" RATHER THAN "KILL,"
THUS VERIFYING ITS BIBLICAL
MEANING; ABORTION CLEARLY IS THE
TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE IN
VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH COMMAND.