This historical trend has led me to investigate some things that modern society simply embraces as fact without inquiring whether these so called “facts” are actually true.  A wise man once told me that just because something is factual doesn’t make it “Truth.”  We live in an era where facts are established by groups of people (often academicians) arriving at a consensus, regardless of what the truth is concerning that particular matter.  In light of this reality let’s delve into an historical look at the American political party system and the African-American community’s involvement.

September 12, 2011 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against the Democratic National Committee (DNC), National Democratic Party, and President Barack Obama in his capacity as the head of the Democratic Party (click here for a copy of the legal brief ).[1]  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are not seeking any form of monetary compensation.  The remedy sought by the plaintiffs is a simple apology by the Democratic Party for the racism it has inflicted upon Americans of African decent throughout the history of the American Republic.  The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as the “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role it played in slavery, Jim Crow and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011.

Suing President Obama and the Democratic Party for racism would sound more like a joke if the Plaintiffs were anyone other than Rev. Wayne Perryman, a respected black minister and community activist, and his colleagues.  Perryman, an author, lecturer and a former newspaper publisher and radio talk show host who has received a multitude of honors and awards for his work and community service, was recently recognized by Chairman Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP for his latest research on racism and politics.[2]  The case (No. C11-1503) cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s national platforms regarding their support for slavery, excerpts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.[3]  At first glance, many of you may think that this must be a mistake.  Surely, the lawsuit should be filed against the Republican Party, the Grand Ole Party (GOP), because the Democratic Party is “the champion for the African American community.”  This has to be the case because the Democratic Party routinely enjoys 95% – 99% of the African American community’s vote, reflected recently in the 2008 presidential election where America’s first black president was elected.[4]  This reaction is one born by modern “facts,” but is it necessarily the “Truth?”

Many are familiar with the Bible story of David’s triumphant victory over Goliath, but the Bible also includes the stories of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his failures with his son Absalom.  If only David and his failures were mentioned that would not be David’s complete story.  Conversely, if only David and his successes were listed, neither would that be the complete story.  It takes all sides of a story to see the full, accurate picture.  So the Bible (and early writers in black history) illustrates the principle that the good, the bad, and the ugly must be presented in order to transmit the full story, or the “Truth.”

The history of black Americans begins in 1619 with the arrival of the first slaves in America.  But the political history of black Americans begins much later, in 1787 – the year in which the American political system was constructed – the year the Constitution was written.  Today, many critics assert that the United States Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and to prove this, they point to the Three-Fifths Clause, claiming that the Constitution says that blacks are only three-fifths of a person.[5]  One of the earliest black Americans to investigate this claim was the famous abolitionist Fredrick Douglass.  A lot has been said about Mr. Douglass, but it seems very pertinent parts of his story have been omitted from popular “factual” historical accounts of his life.  Mr. Douglass was born into slavery and remained a slave until he escaped to New York in 1838.  Three years after his escape, he delivered an anti-slavery speech in Massachusetts.  He was promptly hired to work for the Massachusetts anti-slavery society, and he also served as a preacher of the Christian Gospel at Zion Methodist Church.[6]  During Douglass’ first years of freedom he studied at the feet of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who taught him that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document.[7]  Douglass accepted this claim, and his early speeches and writings reflected that belief.

However, Douglass later began to research the subject 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 pro-slavery but an anti-slavery document.[8]  He explained:

“I was, on the anti-slavery question,… fully committed to the doctrine touching the pro-slavery character of the Constitution….  I advocated it with pen and tongue, according to the best of my ability…. Upon a 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 anti-slavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence as the supreme law of the land.  Here was a radical change in my opinions….  Brought directly, when I escaped from slavery, into contact with a class of abolitionists regarding the Constitution as a slaveholding instrument,… it is not strange that I assumed the Constitution to be just what their interpretation made it…. 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.”[9]

Douglass therefore concluded:

“The Constitution is a glorious liberty document.  Read its preamble, consider its purposes.  Is slavery among them?  Is it at the gateway?  Or is it in the temple?  It is neither….  If the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it?….  Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it.  On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”[10]

But, if the Constitution is not pro-slavery, how do you address the Three-Fifths Clause?  Had Douglass not read that clause?  Yes, he had and through his studies he came to understand that that clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of an individual.  The Constitution established that for every 30,000 inhabitants in a State, that State would receive one representative to Congress.[11]  The Southern States saw this as an opportunity to strengthen slavery since slaves accounted for much of the southern population (e.g. almost half the inhabitants of South Carolina were slaves[12]).  Therefore, slave owners could simply count their slaves as regular inhabitants, and by doing so could greatly increase the number of their pro-slavery representatives to Congress.

Of course, the anti-slavery founders from the North strenuously objected to this plan.  After all, slave owners didn’t consider their slaves to be persons but only property; these slave owners were therefore using their “property” to increase the power of the slave States in Congress.  The anti-slavery leaders wanted free blacks counted, but not slaves if counting slaves would increase the power of slave-owners.  They understood that fewer pro-slavery representatives to Congress meant slavery could be eradicated from the nation sooner.  This led to a final compromise that only sixty percent of slaves (three-fifths) 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 slaveholding States could get an additional representative to Congress, thus greatly reducing the number of representatives to Congress from States with extraordinarily large slave populations.  As a result, the Three-Fifths clause had nothing to do with the worth of any individual.  In fact, Free Blacks in the North and South often were extended full citizenship rights and regularly voted – both in the North and the South at this time.[13]  Blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office.[14]  This is why Frederick Douglass concluded, after studying the matter for himself, that the United States Constitution was an ardent anti-slavery document.

In the early years of the Republic, the federal Congress 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 (which did not include already formed states but applied to federal territory where states were not yet formed); [15] in 1794 the exportation of slaves from any State was banned;[16] and in 1808, the importation of slaves into any State was also banned.  Thus, in 1808, Congress effectively abolished the slave trade.[17]  You read that correctly, Congress abolished the American slave trade in 1808.  To be fair, slavery itself was not completely abolished, but these congressional acts show the nation was clearly moving towards complete abolition.[18]  A famous sermon commemorating the abolition of “the slave trade” by Congress in 1808 was given by Rev. Absalom Jones, the first black bishop of the Episcopal Church in America.[19]

It was called a “Thanksgiving Sermon” because Rev. Jones was thanking God for the abolition of the legal right to buy and sell slaves between the States in America (it was not a sermon celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday).  We have this sermon preserved in writing because preachers of the day wrote all of their sermons out by hand.  Whenever there was a sermon of particular note and power, copies of it were printed for circulation.  Because of the expense involved only the most poignant sermons were printed and copied.  Clearly, Rev. Jones’ sermon on the abolition of the slave trade in America was significant enough for print.

Rev. Jones’ slave trade abolition sermon was delivered in the famous St. Thomas Church.  St. Thomas’ Church – the first black church in Philadelphia – was built in 1792 under the leadership of three famous Americans.  One was Rev. Absalom Jones; another was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and co-founder (along with Benjamin Franklin) of the first abolition society in America;[20] and the third was Rev. Richard Allen, a famous black minister who regularly preached at a large white mega-church before he started the famous Bethel Church and birthed the AME denomination.  I highlight these facts simply to show that black Americans and ministers of the Gospel were vital contributors to the American Revolution and to the stabilization of America as an independent nation.  In fact, the British lamented the “Black Robe Regiment,” the courageous and patriotic Christian ministers of the founding era were the cause of American independence (which they of course called rebellion).[21]  The description “Black Robe Regiment” was a backhanded reference to the robes the clergyman of the day wore.  In fact, modern historians have documented that there is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence that had not been first discussed at length by the New England clergy before 1763.[22]  Today, it is inconceivable that the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence could be termed as nothing more than a list of sermon topics that had been preached from the pulpit in the two decades leading up to the American Revolution, but such was the case.

Very few today know that Congress abolished slave trading in 1808, or that Rev. Jones delivered such a compelling sermon.  It is also little known that although Great Britain had prohibited the abolition of slavery in the Colonies before the Revolution,[23] as independent States they were free to end slavery – as occurred in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York.[24]  At that time, the country was advancing along a great course, but a major reversal was about to occur.  By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and a new party, the Democratic Party, had become the majority in Congress.[25]  With this new party in charge, a change in congressional policy emerged.

Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 prohibited slavery in a federal territory.  In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise[26] and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.  Several States were subsequently admitted to the American Republic as slave States; and for the first time since the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy.  Yet, the only way for the Democratic Congress to promote slavery was to ignore the principles in the founding documents.  As Founding Father and President John Quincy Adams explained: “The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.  He denies that all men are created equal.  He denies that they have inalienable rights.”[27]

Several other pro-slavery laws were passed by the Democrats in Congress, including the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law.[28]  Some are familiar with the fact that a Fugitive Slave Law existed in America as depicted in Alex Haley’s movie series “Roots,” but what is unknown is that it (and other laws like it) was created, passed, and supported overwhelmingly by the Democratic Party.  That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.  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.  Because the Fugitive Slave Law became little more than a law to sanction kidnapping, whenever a slave-hunter entered a State such as Massachusetts (which had previously abolished slavery on the state level), broadsides were printed to warn black Americans about this threat to their freedom. (e.g. see below: “Proclamation! To all the good people of Massachusetts!  Be it known that there are now three slave hunters or kidnappers in Boston looking for their prey”).[29]

The anti-slavery States took steps to ensure that every black American in the North could take cover so they would not be kidnapped and taken to slavery in the Democratic controlled South.  The impact of the evil Fugitive Slave Law resulted in nearly 20,000 blacks in the North fleeing the United States to seek refuge in Canada.[30]  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 out of the U.S. into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.

In 1854 the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act.[31]  Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory.  But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, 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 was permitted.  This law led to what was called “bleeding Kansas,” where pro-slavery forces came pouring into that previously slave-free territory and began fighting violent battles against the anti-slavery inhabitants of the territory.[32]  The violent battles in the Kansas-Nebraska territory over slavery stoked the fires that precipitated the Civil War.  The term “Kansas-Nebraska Territory” does not describe the area of Kansas and Nebraska as they are known today.  In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska territory included what is now part of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota in addition to Kansas and Nebraska.[33]

Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May 1854 a number of anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists – formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.[34]  What was the name of that party?  They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.[35]

Most today are taught and believe America is currently and has always been a democracy.  But, that is absolutely false.  The founders had ample opportunity to deliberate what type of government they wanted to establish in America and unequivocally rejected the notion of a democracy, referring to it as mobocracy.  Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, said, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.”[36]  Benjamin Rush wrote, “A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[37]  John Adams, 2^nd President of the United States, said “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”[38]  Noah Webster stated, “In democracy… there are commonly tumults and disorders….  Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government.  It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”[39]  John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, urged “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state; it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”[40]  Lastly, Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the U.S. Constitution, said, “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! Savage and wild.  Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”[41]  If you’ve ever wondered why our pledge of allegiance includes the words “… and to the Republic for which it stands” instead of “…and to the democracy…” you now know it’s because our founders expressly and explicitly refused to form a democracy.  America is and was established as a Republic.  But, why is that not taught today?  Why don’t we know commonly that America is a Republic?  What is the difference between a Republic and a pure democracy?  Once you find the answer to the last question you will be well on your way to answer the questions that precede it.  But that is a discussion for another time.  Maybe I will take it up with another blog entry.  But I digress…

One of the founders of that new “Republican Party” was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner, who had taken the seat of the great Senator, Daniel Webster.  Senator Sumner had a record of promoting civil rights; in fact, he championed the desegregation of public schools in Boston[42] and argued on that issue before the State Supreme Court.[43]   In 1856, Sumner gave a two-day-long speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate against slavery.  Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the floor of the House, across the Capitol building Rotunda, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the Senate floor, knocked him unconscious and beat him almost to death.[44]  According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them.[45]

It was three-and-a-half years before Sumner recovered his health sufficiently to return to the Senate – and, not surprisingly, the first speech he delivered on his return to the Senate was again against slavery.[46]  Compare that piece of history to the incident January 8, 2011 where Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords at a political event in Arizona.  As tragic as her injuries were Representative Giffords was somehow able to muster the strength to return to Congress to vote on the debt ceiling deal in August 2011, some 8 months or so after being shot.  Now, assume for a moment that Jared Loughner was not simply a deranged maniac, but a Senator who marched across the Capitol Rotunda to shoot Representative Giffords for her stance on illegal immigration.  Can you imagine the response?  What do you think would happen to “Senator Loughner” in that scenario…?  What do you think happened to Democrat Representative Preston Brooks after his vicious attack on Sumner…?  He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.[47]

In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan.  In that election the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform.  It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks provided bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.[48]  The Democratic platform of that year took an opposite position, strongly defending slavery and warning: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.”[49]  Amazingly, though Democrats argued abolition would be dangerous and ruin “the happiness of the people” the Republicans lost that election.

The next year, 1857, a Democratically controlled United States Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision,[50] ruling that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.  The actual court opinion announced that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”[51]  In the 1860 presidential election, Republican Abraham Lincoln ran against Democratic 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 announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal rights for black Americans.[52]  On the other hand, the Democrats in their 1860 platform supported both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision.[53]  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.[54]

The 1860 presidential election split the Democratic Party.  Both Northern and Southern Democratic factions supported slavery; but only the Southern Democrats were willing to split the United States to form their own nation over the issue while Northern Democrats refused to do so.  Northern Democrats voted for Stephen Douglas for president while Southern Democrats voted for John C. Breckenridge.  This split in the Democratic Party vote allowed Republican Abraham Lincoln to be elected with only 40% of the popular vote, but 59% of the Electoral College vote.[55]  Republicans also won a majority in the U.S. House and Senate in that election, thus giving Republicans control of the lawmaking process for the first time.

Given the bold anti-slavery and pro-civil rights positions set forth by Republicans in their platforms, it was obvious to Democrats what was soon to occur: the Republican positions concerning slavery and civil rights were about to become a reality.  What was the Democrats’ response?  Southern Democrats left Congress and took their States with them, forming a nation that described itself as the “slaveholding Confederate States of America.[56]  While Northern Democrats did not support this secession, they still supported slavery and opposed civil rights for black Americans.  The main difference between northern and southern Democrats at that time was their view on secession, not slavery.[57]

Who exactly were the leaders of that new nation of slaveholding states?  Democratic U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi resigned from the Senate to become President of this new slaveholding nation, and Democratic Representative Alexander Stephens of Georgia resigned from the House to become its Vice-President.  The citizens of this new slaveholding nation became known as “Rebels” since they were rebelling against the United States.  This is why the “Confederacy,” as it is often referred to in contemporary society, flew a “Rebel” flag as its national emblem.  The Rebel Flag is the symbol chosen by the “Rebels” to represent the nation they created in order to continue the ridiculously wicked institution of slavery.

That is not to say that every southern Rebel was a slaveholder or that every Southerner supported slavery, for such definitely was not the case.[58]  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 percent of Southerners owned slaves.[59]  Such numbers are misleading, for while only 5 percent of Southerners may have owned slaves, 19 percent of Southerners lived in households that owned slaves.[60]  Furthermore, in several southern States – such as South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and others – almost half of the population were slaves.[61]  This means that in many of the southern States, almost two thirds of Southerners either were slaves, lived in slave households, or owned slaves; and much of the remaining one-third of Southerners made their living by supplying materials or services to the slave homes or plantations.  Therefore, the assertion that only 5 percent of Southerners may have owned slaves does not diminish the fact that slavery was the dominant industry in the southern States.  Additionally, despite modern attempts to excuse the South through misleading claims that the conflict did not involve slavery, the secession documents of the States that left the Union – as well as the official documents of the new nation itself – prove otherwise. [62]  Consequently, since – according to official documents of the South – slavery was the primary distinction between the North and the South, Rebels therefore were fighting for the existence of a slaveholding nation.

While “States Rights” (i.e. 10^th Amendment) had been the cry of the southern States before the Civil War, that right had been related primarily 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 concerned the right of those States to make their own decisions about whether or not to recognize civil rights for black Americans.  The phrase “States Rights” as related to southern States primarily became a euphemism first for holding blacks in slavery and then for subjecting them to Black Codes, segregation, and institutional discrimination.

With Republicans firmly in control of the federal government as a result of the 1860 elections, they quickly began implementing significant changes.  In 1862, they abolished slavery in Washington D.C.,[63] and in 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, freeing all slaves in the southern States in rebellion.[64]  In 1864, following the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, several civil rights laws – and laws to facilitate civil rights – were passed by Republicans.[65]  One was a bill establishing the Freedmen’s Bureau[66] and another equalized pay for soldiers in the military, whether white or black.[67]  The Fugitive Slave Law was also repealed that year[68] – over the almost unanimous opposition of the northern Democrats still in Congress[69] (remember the southern Democrats had seceded from Congress and the nation at this point).

While Republicans 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 an 1861 speech entitled: “African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy.”[70]

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:

“The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically.  It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that – somehow or other, in the order of Providence – the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away.”[71]

So what did Vice-President Stephens and the new Confederate nation think about these anti-slavery ideas of the Founding Fathers?

“Those ideas, however, 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 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 Negro is not equal to the white man.  That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition.  This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”[72] (emphasis added)

There was indeed a clear difference between the philosophy of Republicans and 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: “[A]lmost nine hundred ninety-nine out of every thousand of the decent people of South Carolina belong to the Democratic Party;… the Republican Party is composed entirely of the colored people.”[73] (emphasis added)

Understanding that something was needed that was more far-reaching than just the Emancipation Proclamation or the various civil rights laws, the 1864 Republican platform therefore called for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery completely.[74]  Work started in Congress almost immediately on that amendment.  In 1865 the Civil War finally came to an end with the nation of slaveholding States defeated.  While there were numerous celebrations by black Americans and others at the end of the Civil War, even before that war had come to an end, a vote had been held in Congress on the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery – the 13^th Amendment.[75]

At the time of the vote, there were 118 Republicans in Congress and 82 northern Democrats.  Of the 118 Republicans, all 118 voted to abolish slavery; of the 82 Democrats, only 19 voted to end slavery.[76]  Only 23 percent of Democrats voted to end slavery when provided the opportunity and that is 23 percent of northern Democrats.

Following the passage of the 13^th Amendment an invitation was extended to have the first African American ever to speak in the halls of Congress.  Who was that person?  It was Reverend Henry Highland Garnett.  He was invited by the chaplain to the U.S. House of Representatives, Wm. H. Channing, and the Republican members of the House to memorialize the 13^th Amendment’s passage with a sermon.[77]  (While it may seem strange today to hear that sermon was preached in the Capitol, it was not all that 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.[78]  By 1867, the largest church in Washington, D.C., was the one at the U.S. Capitol – 2,000 people a week met there for church.[79]  So it was not at all unusual to have sermons and religious services in the Capitol.)  Reverend Garnet preached his sermon in the United States House of Representatives February 12, 1865 and it was powerful.  It was ultimately copied, printed, and circulated just as had been done with Rev. Absalom Jones’ 1808 “Abolition of the African Slave Trade” sermon.

Rev. Garnet began his sermon by recalling his personal experiences with slavery.[80]  He continued on from there to review prominent historical leaders of both church and state who strongly opposed slavery:

“Augustine, Constantine, Ignatius, Polycarp, Maximus, and the most illustrious lights of the ancient church denounced the sin of slaveholding.  Thomas Jefferson said – at a period of his life when his judgment matured and his experience was ripe – “There is preparing, I hope, under the auspices of heaven, a way for a total emancipation.”  The sainted Washington said, near the close of his mortal career and when the light of eternity was beaming upon him, “It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country shall be abolished by law.  I know of but one way by which this can be done, and that is by legislative action; and so far as my vote can go, it shall not be wanting.”  Patrick Henry said, “We should transmit to posterity our abhorrence of slavery.”  So also though [this] Congress….  The other day, when the Light of Liberty streamed through this marble pile [building], and the hearts of the noble band of patriotic statesmen leaped for joy, and 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, and Giddings, and 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 the august assembly.  Though unseen by mortal eyes, doubtless they joined the angelic choir, and said, “Amen!”[81]

The Rev. Garnet then concluded by imploring the states to ratify the 13^th Amendment stating:

“Let the verdict of death which has been brought in against slavery by Congress be affirmed and executed by the people.  Let the gigantic monster perish, Yes, perish now, and perish forever!…  Let slavery die.  It has had a long and fair trial; God himself has pleaded against it.  Its death warrant is signed by God and man.  Do not commute its sentence.  Give it no respite [reprieve], but let it be ignominiously executed [put to death with shame and horror].  Honorable Senators and Representatives!  Illustrious rulers of this great nation!  I cannot refrain this day from invoking upon you, in God’s name, the blessings of millions who were ready to perish but to whom a new and better life has been opened by your humanity, justice, and patriotism.  You have said, “let the Constitution of the country be so amended that slavery and involuntary servitude shall no longer exist in the United States, except in punishment for a crime.”  Surely, an act so sublime could not escape Divine notice; and doubtless, the deed has been recorded in the archives of Heaven!….  Favored men – and honored of God as His instruments – speedily finish the work which He has given you to do.  Emancipate!  Enfranchise!  Educate! And give the blessings of the Gospel to every American citizen!”[82]

Because of the 13^th Amendment and the end of slavery, black Americans – particularly in the South – could now enjoy their first real taste of civil rights… their first genuine opportunity for political participation.  Within a year, blacks were registering to vote and were forming political parties across the South.  For example, at a rally in Houston, Texas, July 4, 1867, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the Republican Party of Texas;[83] and black Americans also started other southern Republican parties as well.[84]

In the years immediately following the Civil War, the former Rebels (who had been almost exclusively Democrats[85]) were not allowed to vote in their States until they took an oath of loyalty.[86]  In that oath, they swore first, an oath of allegiance to the United States, and second, an oath to respect the civil rights of black Americans.[87]  If a Rebel did not swear this oath, he could not vote – and many Democrats could not vote because they refused to take the oath, or because they could not pass other federal requirements.[88]  Therefore, for a few years Republicans (which was now comprised of many black Americans) became the political majority in most of the southern States.  Those Republican legislatures moved quickly to protect voting rights for African Americans, prohibit segregation, establish public education, and to open public transportation, State police, schools, and other institutions to black Americans.[89]

Not only were southern legislatures at that time Republican (at least for a few years) but nearly every southern legislature included many black legislators.  Yes, southern state legislatures were populated by very many black Americans as elected officials during Reconstruction.  In fact, the first 42 blacks elected to the state legislature in Texas were Republicans.[90]  And in Louisiana, the first 95 black representatives and the first 32 black senators were Republicans.[91]  Similarly, in Alabama, the first 103 blacks elected to the state legislature were Republicans;[92] in Mississippi, the first 112;[93] in South Carolina the first 190;[94] in Virginia, the first 46;[95] in Florida, the first 30; and the same in North Carolina;[96] and in Georgia, 41 blacks were elected to the state legislature – all as Republicans.[97]

Of course, Democrats were not pleased with this progress and therefore took decisive action.  For example, in Georgia, where the state legislature was still in the hands of the Democrats, they ruled that while blacks might have the right to be elected, they did not have the right to serve in office;[98] Democrats therefore expelled 31 elected blacks from the Georgia legislature, thus keeping the majority in the hands of the Democrats.[99]

The gains of blacks through the Republican Party were so great that Democrats started fighting back not only as they had in Georgia, through manipulation of the laws and election results, but literally – as in Louisiana.  Remember black Americans made huge advances in Louisiana with the election of 127 black legislators and even a black Lieutenant Governor, P.B.S. Pinchback, who later served as Governor.[100]

To stop the progress, in 1866 Democrats – in conjunction with city police and the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans – physically attacked the Republican Convention in that city, killing 40 blacks, 20 whites, and wounding 150 others.[101]  Democrats later (in 1875) rushed the floor of the Louisiana Legislature to seize power – by force – away from the elected black Republicans, but federal troops arrived to restore peace and return African Americans to their lawfully elected positions.[102]  Similar violent and often deadly attacks by Democrats against Republicans also occurred in other States.[103]

While much early Democratic opposition occurred on a State by State or local basis, in 1866 Democrats formed a group that became national.  Its declared purpose was to break down the Republican government and pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.  What was the name of that group?  The Ku Klux Klan.[104]

Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party.[105]  In fact, a thirteen volume set of congressional investigations from 1872[106] conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.[107]  Contributing to the evidence was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that “they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform party – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party.”[108]  The Ku Klux Klan terrorized both blacks and whites, as their goal was to prevent black equality.  Thus, anyone who opposed their cause, regardless of color, was their enemy.  Between 1881 and 1964 4,743 people were lynched – 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites.[109]  As the Klan and other white supremacists continued their public acts of domestic terrorism, the Democrats reacquired power in the south.  As black Americans, and their allies, reduced political participation due to increasing fear for their lives and the safety of their loved ones, southern Democratic power exploded.  They used their reacquired power to create Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, and institutionalize segregation in the south on the state and local levels.  Though their attempt to create a slaveholding nation by force failed; the southern Democrats ultimately were able to achieve region wide “legal” subjugation of blacks through force and intimidation.  They couldn’t defeat the United States of America to accomplish their goal so they instead turned their attention on blacks in America to achieve a secondary goal.  The 14^th and 15^th Amendments were passed to counter the racist practices of Democrats in the south.

The historical reality simply is that without the past efforts of the “radical” Republicans (as they were called) and the abolitionists, passage of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would not have been possible nor would passage of the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties.  (In fact, when the 14^th Amendment came for a vote in 1868, 94 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted for passage of that civil rights Amendment, but the congressional records reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14^th Amendment.[110])  There is so much more history confirming this truth, but here is a brief summary of the policies and programs Republicans pursued, which the Democrats adamantly opposed:

1.  The Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 to abolish slavery.

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 to give Negroes citizenship and protect freed men from Black Codes and other repressive legislation.

3.  The First Reconstruction Act of 1867 to provide more efficient Government of the Rebel-or Democrat-controlled States.

4.  The Fourteenth Amendment of 1868 to make all persons born in the United States citizens.  Part of this Amendment specifically states, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

5.  The Fifteenth Amendment of 1870 to give the right to vote to every citizen.

6.  The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to stop Klan terrorists from terrorizing black voters, Republicans, whites who helped blacks, and Abolitionists.

7.  The Civil Rights Act of 1875 to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights and to prohibit racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.

8.  Freedmen’s Bureau was a social program established by Republicans to feed, protect, and educate the former slaves.

9.  The 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act were signed into law by President Eisenhower who also established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1958, a commission that was rejected by Truman during his administration.

10. The 1964 Civil Rights Act which key Republicans pushed through while key Southern Democrats, like Al Gore Sr., openly opposed.  More Republicans (in percentages) voted for this law than Democrats.

This history perhaps provides some insight as to why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.  It also shows why Frederick Douglass was a Republican.  This also describes why the first black United States Senators and Representatives, duly elected from Southern States during Reconstruction, were also Republican.

The little known truth is that being black was virtually synonymous with being Republican from the time the 13^th Amendment was passed in 1865 up until the early part of the twentieth century.  This is so because blacks historically understood that the Democrats were the pro-slavery, pro-lynching, racist party of the Ku Klux Klan.  There were Democrats who began to support policies favoring blacks in the early/mid-twentieth century, but this was often done by brave individual Democrats contrary to the wishes of their party as a whole.  Placed against the backdrop of history the legacy of the Democratic Party is racist.

Having discussed national political history from the U.S. Constitution up to the Reconstruction era my heart screams WHY WAS THIS HISTORY HIDDEN?!?!?!?  I never learned any of this information in school, at any level.  I bet many of you were unaware of it too.  The Republican Party doesn’t mention it.  Why is that the case?  The Democratic Party certainly doesn’t mention it.  I can at least understand why they don’t want to talk about it.

By no means do I intend this article to be construed as a defense or advocacy for the Republican Party.  In many ways our country would be best served by a mass exodus from both parties considering how consolidation of political power in two parties has impacted our nation.  My goal, however, is to place modern culture within its proper historical context.  In the last post we discussed the fact that culture is not some generic, intangible concept.  Culture consists of the desires, beliefs, opinions, values, and ideals of the people within a given region.  American culture is determined by what we Americans think, what we want, and what we do.  In light of that, do you think modern American culture would be affected if the history provided above was made common knowledge?  Would you think differently?  Would your perception of America be affected?  Would you think differently about government and politics?  Would you vote now if you don’t normally?  Would you vote the same way you have in the past?  Would you do anything differently?  Would your friends think differently?  Would your family think differently?  If you, your family, or your friends’ would think differently could American culture be different?  If I can write (or re-write) your history I can control your present and direct your future.

Many people with whom I interact maintain beliefs and opinions that are completely void of facts.  Conclusions are frequently generated spontaneously, according to emotion and perception, without the sluggish burden of information.  I almost used the word “reason” in the previous sentence but chose otherwise because the 21^st century decision making process usually avoids contemplative, logic-based reasoning.  Before, you jump to any conclusions about what this blog will be let me tell you a little about myself.  I am a husband, father, non-denominational Christian minister, criminal trial attorney, and now… yes… a blogger.  As a result, I hope to contribute a unique perspective through my writings.  Additionally, I pray that my contribution to the discussion will be significant.

Like many others would view themselves, I consider myself to be a logical, tempered, well-reasoning individual.  Unlike many however, I see Christianity as compatible with and complementary to logic and reason.  I know some will gasp at that last sentence in disbelief, but I truly believe Christianity, reason, and logic share a common nucleus.  Thus, I will use this blog to address matters of education, history, science, economics, international affairs, worldviews, theology, American politics, and the Bible in an effort to facilitate a discussion of cultural apologetics.  Apologetics is the ability to articulate what you believe, defend what you believe, while providing the basis or foundation for that belief.  Many have discussed the topics listed above, but most examine them individually.  I will endeavor to show how these areas overlap and interact with one another.

As stated previously, my concern arises from what I perceive to be a downward cultural slide.  The questions that plague me incessantly are: How did we get to this point in society?  Where did it start?  Is it really that bad?  Can we reverse the slide?  If so, how?  The question that always follows the other questions is: What can I do about it?  I am certain there are many out there who have had these same questions.  Hopefully, we can attack them together and get answers.

Through this blog I will share my opinion, but I will seek to convey my opinion with factual support.  Also, due to the biased nature of the mainstream news media, I will discuss current events with a perspective that will often differ from popular coverage, in fact and in opinion.  I’ve learned that popular stories aren’t always true or complete.  In that vein, I hope the blog will be a resource for others who may not have the time to research some of the information that I will use here.  I plan to post an article or entry (don’t quite know what to call it yet) weekly or bi-weekly so be sure to check-in to see what’s cooking here.  Please feel free to comment on the blog entries.  But, I ask that you refrain from offensive, abusive, and profane language.  I will exercise my authority to delete inappropriate comments.

The next discussion will entail a historical look at the American political party system and the African-American community’s involvement.  Until then…