The 14th Amendment

On February 8, 1861 the seven Southern States announced their secession from the Union they had pledged to join under the Constitution which included Article 1 Section 2; and a 3/5 of a person rule as far as slaves were concerned. This gave the more rural Southern states representation based on a population that included many slaves; whose votes went to their owners under the 3/5 provision. This was of course changed by the 14^th Amendment in 1869.

The South violated the Constitution in seceding from the Union by claiming a Right under the 10^th Amendment; which gives the States rights over certain issues; or powers; not relegated to the Federal Government. It sounds nice; but seceding violated Article 1 Section 4 which prohibits states from leaving the Union.

The 14^th Amendment was, however, enacted under strange circumstances as the South was just getting back on its feet and re-establishing their state legislatures. North Carolina and South Carolina were the last 2 states to ratify the 14^th Amendment, and only did so under duress. The 39^th Congress made it mandatory for the states to ratify the Amendment as a condition of rejoining the Union. There are parts of the South where Amendment 14 is openly despised, and there has even been talk of trying to abolish it by Amendment, in much the same way as Prohibition; the 18^th Amendment; was later repealed by the 21^st Amendment.

This may sound far-fetched, but it’s really not. The crux of the argument for repeal would be that the states have a right under Article 1, Section 4; which gives the states the right to proscribe the time, place and manner in which to hold elections. That argument would hold that the state legislatures of the South; particularly North Carolina and South Carolina; were mandated to approve the 14th Amendment as a condition to re-join the Union. But a closer inspection of the text reveals that though they have that right, Congress may change or alter that law except for the choosing of Senators. Still, it would be a messy battle with much at stake.

As time went on the 14^th Amendment became the “go to place” to fit in every perceived “right” which Americans wanted to include. Although I am in agreement with the issues at hand, I also think the 14^th Amendment has become so overburdened that should it ever be repealed or amended it would affect many areas of our society. The 14^th Amendment has become the easy path for expanding rights in all sorts of instances.

This sort of overburdening was not begun until after Women’s Suffrage; the 19^th Amendment; which could have been added to the 15^th Amendment giving the right to Vote to all men of any race. The problem with that would have been the ensuing call for universal suffrage at a time when black men were still routinely barred from voting in the Southern states. The implication of the 19^th Amendment was that it had nothing to do with the precedent set up by the 15h Amendment. In other words; blacks were still not going to be able to vote. This is one of the instances in which bundling like-minded legislation would have resulted in a positive change.

Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act both have their underpinnings in the 14^th Amendment, and these protections should have been tacked onto that Amendment; making it stronger.

But the 14th Amendment now holds the Miranda Decision; which should have been founded under the 5th Amendment; the right to have due process; which would include an attorney and the right to remain silent.

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are both rights which should have been held to exist under the 9^th Amendment; “the enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This may all seem to be unimportant; and perhaps it is just a “parlor game” which I like to play when I have nothing better to do. But think of it this way; you’re mailing all of your valuables to a new home. Do you put them all in one envelope, or do you break it up into several packages so that you don’t lose it all in one shot? To put it more simply; you just don’t put all your eggs in one basket. This is especially true when there are other baskets lying around, waiting to be used.

"The Birth of a Nation" by Dick Lehr (2014)

For years I wondered what the value was of having this film in the library. Then I got interested in film and realized the brilliance of the film process itself; given the times and technology. What a conundrum; a classic film with much to admire in technological marvels, but filled with flawed history and blatant racism. How do you even review a film like that?

Author Bert Lehr has gone beyond that with his all-encompassing book about the film and 2 men; both ahead of their times. D.W. Griffith was the director of the film; and Monroe Trotter was the African- American man who rallied his people; and a good portion of the nation; in denouncing the film. In addition, he has created a biography of the film itself and the rising pangs of former slaves to be treated like citizens. It is, in short, the story of an era.

The author begins with brief biographies of both men; drawing a contrast that is as remarkable as fiction. Griffith’s father was James Griffith, a staunch segregationist and veteran of the Civil War who had served with the Kentucky Calvary and fought at Charleston when the Union marched in.

Likewise, so was Trotter’s father a veteran of the Civil War; having served in an all-black regiment of the Union Army. He was one of the men who marched into Charleston as Griffith’s father fled. The irony of their two sons facing off over a film about that war, 50 years later, is remarkable.

After the film was finished; but before its release; it was screened for President Wilson in private at the White House. Wilson was a Southerner and thought the film was wonderful. Trotter saw it differently. He; along with Union veterans both black and white; organized boycotts and protests across the country, and denounced the film as racist.

Yet for all of the protestations about the glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, and the attendant lynching’s, the film has remained a staple of film history. Most of the times it is touted as a breakthrough film as far as technology goes. And there is much truth to that. But the darker side is that it remains a searing portrait of our country at a crossroads.

The bitter taste of Reconstruction was still very fresh on the minds and in the hearts of the southern people; just as the bitterness of slavery was still very much alive in the former slaves and their children. The Jim Crow era was in full swing. And D.W. Griffith made a film which glorified the era, as well as the swinging bodies which that era produced.

This book is all encompassing. It is two biographies in one. It is the history of the Reconstruction Era and also a look at the Jim Crow Days which ushered in a new century. Given the history of the divide, it is no surprise that the events of that century still affect us today.

"The Day Lincoln Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1955)

Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. My reading of this book, and the resultant review you see here, are both coincidental to the occasion. But it does lend more of a relevance to the narrative when reading it.

I chose this book from the “stacks” in the library precisely because it is an older book, and as such it was written in closer proximity to the event. The author was writing at a time when these events were less than a century past, and there were a few people still living that had been alive when it occurred. They may have just been children at the time, but they would have remembered the events and the stories told by their parents and relatives.

Over the years the stories have changed. Prior to about 1970 most accounts agreed that Booth uttered his famous “Sic Semper Tyrannus!” as he leapt to the stage from the private box where he had just shot the President and stabbed Major Rathbone. But the contemporary accounts of the time tell a different story. That is, the individual eyewitness accounts. But history on this night would be written by one man; Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War.

Booth said two things after shooting Lincoln. The first was “Sic Semper Tyrannus!”; which was the motto of the State of Virginia, and also “The South has been avenged!” It was after saying these two things that he hung from the ledge of the box and dropped to the stage, breaking his ankle when his foot caught on the bunting draping the President’s box. But, I have to admit, the leap is a great flourish and Booth would no doubt be proud of this added highlight; true or false.

In 1954 and 1955 Mr. Bishop spent 6 months retracing the steps of the assassin and his co-conspirators, traveling from Maine and Canada to Virginia, reading all the old newspaper articles he could find and visiting the locations which were involved.

One of the strangest aspects of his research was in finding that news of the Presidents assassination was on the street the day of the assassination; as far away as Maine and almost 10 hours before he was killed. Even at a time when telegraph was the quickest means of communication, this still does not explain how the reports were so accurate as to name the theater, when at the time the President was himself still unsure of his plans. Remember that Mrs. Surratt’s son John was just then shuttling papers back and forth between Canada and the Confederate government in Virginia.

But this book is not given over to conspiracy theories. Rather, it is more concerned with an hour by hour description of what each of the participants were doing from about 7 AM on Friday April 14, 1865 until the President succumbed to his wound at 22 minutes past 7 AM the following morning. It is of interest to note that had Booth not killed Lincoln on Good Friday the late President might not have gained such stature as a martyr. In a way Booth helped bestow that honor on the man he claimed to loathe.

Each chapter of the book explores not only the events of that hour, but also the prior history of how the events led there. This is as an exciting account of the night Lincoln was shot as you will find. Robert Redford’s film; “The Conspirators”; was a fine film, but it relied on the “smooth” version of events. There is something lacking in the film which Mr. Bishop has captured so well within these pages; the confusion of the night as Booth was getting away.

One example of the contemporary inaccuracies which found it's way into the movie is the scene in Secretary of State Seward's room. The room was in complete darkness. Due to extreme amount of noise made by Lewis Paine as he attempted to shoot, and finally stab the Secretary's son at the top of the stairs, his daughter had extinguished all the lights in the room at the time and even tried to hold the door back when Paine attempted to enter. As a matter of fact he wound up struggling in the dark with two persons, one of whom was the daughter. 

As the streets of Washington filled with throngs of people on foot; and some in carriages; Booth stuck fairly to the script he had planned to make his escape over the bridge at the Navy Yard. That bridge was closed to traffic at 9PM nightly; and so no one really thought that Booth had gone that way. After all, the sentries were there to stop anyone trying to leave or enter the city. But, with the war just about over; General Johnston’s troops had not yet surrendered; the sentries were lax and allowed two of the assassins to pass over the bridge and on toward Surrattsville and the Surratt Tavern where there were guns and binoculars awaiting them.

The book has a sense of immediacy about it which can only come from the careful pacing of the author, as he lets you in on each piece of information as it happens over the course of the night. And even though you know the story; indeed the author references the outcome in several places; the reader is still held captive to the narrative.

Jim Bishop wrote a syndicated column for about 6 years between 1957 and 1963. In 1964 he released ''A Day in the Life of President Kennedy,'' which he had just finished 10 days before the assassination in Dallas. The book had been approved by JFK without revisions. However, Jackie Kennedy asked for 60 minor changes after his death and prior to publication; all of which the author acceded to. 

Mr. Bishop later wrote “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”, which was first released in 1968. TV personality Bill O’Reilly has had a successful run of books about the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, and I’ve even read them. They add nothing to the stories and in some places are very reminiscent of the style which Jim Bishop used in writing his books on the same subjects; only several decades earlier than Mr. O’Reilly. That’s why I like to roam “the stacks” at the library. A lot of “new” things can be found there.

Federalists and Whigs - Irony in Politics

The irony in the history of our two major political parties is rich. Both parties actually stated out representing the opposite constituencies which they represent today. The history of this switch is largely blamed on the so called “Dixiecrats”; those Southern Democrats who in 1948; when Truman proposed a Civil Rights platform at the Convention; walked out, dividing the democratic Party forever and giving rise to a Republican faction which would someday become known as “Neo-Conservatism.”  That’s the short, contemporary side of things. But there is an interesting history which goes even further back.

Originally this country had a myriad of political parties; with the two largest being the Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists believed in a strong Federal government; Washington and Adams were both Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans believed in a Republic guided by the voice of democracy. Remember a “Republic” is the form of democracy which we live under, and not just the name of a political party. Likewise, representative democracy is the manner in which we conduct our affairs within that Republic.

So, there were two main parties back then; divided as to how much power the Federal government should have over the lives of its citizens. In other words; nothing has changed with the system itself; only the players are different and call their parties by different names while still representing the same old interests.

By the 1840’s the Whig Party; formerly known at the time as Democrats, who had been around since the Revolution and were the real Conservatives of the era; got their first President elected. That was William Henry Harrison. He only lasted 32 days, dying of a cold he caught during his inauguration ceremony. However, he was succeeded by John Tyler, a former Democrat. The Whigs held sway through the Presidency of Franklin Pierce, and were largely responsible for some of the worst decisions leading up to the Civil War.

Now here’s where things get really interesting. Lincoln was the first Republican President. His role in the Civil War is widely known; although sometimes misunderstood. His position on slavery changed many times before he became President, and even after his election. He is seen as the “deliverer” to the newly freed slaves and the Republican Party became the party of the African-American until at least the Depression. But Lincoln was also the man who wanted to deport all the slaves to Jamaica and Liberia as a solution to the “negro problem.”

At the same time the Democrats were doing all they could to avoid a war with the South; even advocating the retention of slavery in the Southern states. These were the same men who were opposed to the 13^th Amendment freeing the slaves.

So, what we had; in essence; was a Democratic Party which was not at all in tune with the push for human rights; but rather pro States Rights. And; conversely; a Republican Party which was perceived as being the “Deliverer of Freedom” to the slaves and by extension the “Party of the People.” This has, of course, has been turned on its head by what happened at the Democratic Convention of 1948, but there are interesting things to note between the time of Lincoln and then.

Interestingly Lincoln’s Vice President; Andrew Johnson; was a Democrat who had been elected to the office on the National Union-Republic ticket. At the time we were still not yet confined to only 2 viable parties.

From 1869-1885 we had only Republican Presidents; along the line of Lincoln. These were the years of Reconstruction followed by the Gilded Age. Reconstruction was a repressive occupation of the Southern states; which came to embitter North against South to this present day; while the later Gilded Age represented the advent of the rewards of industrialization and the greed which those rewards brought to the rich and powerful. The Republicans; at this point; became the party of big business. The Democrats came to embrace the working class and the rise of the Unions.

The Republican run ended briefly to accommodate the election of Grover Cleveland in 1885. He was a Democrat. From this time forward there would never be anything but Republicans and Democrats running against one another for the office of President. It would be well to remember that there had been; as noted here earlier; a Democrat-Republican Party. Indeed our 3^rd through 8^th Presidents were from that Party. And there were some pretty great Presidents in that group.

Aside from Cleveland’s return to office in 1893; after having been defeated by William Harrison in 1889, which is the only time a former President has been re-elected to office; the Republicans held sway until President Wilson; a Democrat; came to D.C. in 1913. The first thing he did was to segregate the nation’s Capital. That’s right, D.C. was not segregated until 1913 and then by a Democrat!

After Wilson the mantle of leadership went back to the Republicans for the disastrous social policies of Prohibition, the reckless economic policies of the Roaring Twenties and the resultant Great Depression. In 1933 FDR came to D.C. as the first Democrat since Wilson and began the social programs which so many Americans rely upon today to make ends meet. And this is where the division between the two parties as we know them today begins to take place.

The Democrats had to find a way out of the Depression which had happened during the years of Republican leadership; which let big business run themselves. The New Deal programs; such as the NRA, WPA and all the rest were the country’s first attempts at large scale social programs to alleviate the hunger, homelessness and lack of education and job training which came in the wake of those failed Republican policies. The Republicans now became cast as the enemy of the working man and the party of the rich. Right or wrong, these labels would stick.

The only ones getting short changed by all of this were the nations African-Americans. The Party of Lincoln was the party which most blacks identified with due to Abraham Lincoln. That’s understandable. Regardless of the finer points involved in the validity of the Emancipation Proclamation, he was the man in charge when they received their freedom. And the Democrats had opposed the 13^th Amendment. It seemed like a no-brainer.

But in between the two World Wars, African –Americans expected more and began shifting their allegiance to the Democratic Party, which promised at least the hope of change. They had served honorably in 2 World Wars defending freedoms for others which they themselves did not have here at home. The time to change that had come. So, the nail was set in place; it just needed one more firm whack to drive it home for good.

That final whack came in 1948 at the Democratic National Convention when Harry Truman; who had succeeded President Roosevelt upon his death in 1945; came out with a Civil Rights platform for African-Americans. The Southern Democrats walked out and formed their own party. They even ran their own candidate; and predictably embarrassed themselves. After the election was over the leaders became some of the leading Republican Senators for the remainder of the 20^th century, most notably leading the opposition to the Civil rights legislation of the 1960’s and giving birth to the so-called Conservative movement in 1964 with Barry Goldwater as the first “Conservative” candidate for President.

The Democrats became even more progressive than they had been. This enabled deep divisions to develop within the party. And although they were able to successfully elect the first African-American Pesident; Barak Obama; to office in 2008, the Democrats then lost control of both the Congress and Senate within his first term.

The only point to be made here; if any at all; is that party allegiance; based on history; is suspect at best. It’s also interesting to note how much worse the gridlock in Washington became after the rise of the 2 party system we have today; which consists of Democrats and Republicans. Especially since at one time they were one and the same. That bit of history serves to underscore just how little choice we have today in electing our representatives. They are both different sides of the same coin. This goes a long way in explaining why nothing ever really changes.

The Levine Museum of the New South - Without Sanctuary

Sue and I went to the Levine Museum of the New South; whatever that means; the other day, primarily to see the exhibit "Without Sanctuary", which is composed of photographs taken of lynching’s in the United States between 1882 and 1968. There were some 5,000 of them; and with 1,200 of the murders being distributed amongst various white groups such as Catholics, Jews and Hispanics; the visitor must take a momentary pause as they realize that no one group is/was ever safe from mindless hatred.

Another big surprise was that the 5,000 lynching’s were recorded in 44 of the 48 contiguous states; the only 4 dissenting states being Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. This was really a surprise to me, as I have always thought of these murders as being in the “pastoral south”, as Billie Holiday hauntingly sings in “Bitter Fruit”, which happened to be playing during the exhibit. I was very relieved to hear the song in that setting, as I had earlier remarked to both Sue, and a friend, that it would be most appropriate for the exhibit.

I don’t have to go into the viciousness of the topic of lynching, as I assume my “audience”; small though it may be; is way beyond that type of thinking, let alone action. There was a billboard provided for the people who chose to leave a comment. Most of them were along the lines of “God is great”, or, “Politicians kill people.” There were some that blamed the culture of the times; which to a certain extent may be true. I had to leave one of my own, which I felt really summed it up nicely. I wrote that in every era, and every nationality; be they Asian, as with the Japanese; or German, as with the Second World War; or Napoléon in his quest to conquer Europe and parts of Asia in the early 19th century; or even Caesar himself, with his holy Roman Empire; all the way to the tribal and cultural wars of the Middle East and Africa today; people are all capable, when properly manipulated; of the most horrendous horrors imaginable. It’s a sobering, and sad, reality, but history bears it out.

The exhibit was very informative; even to the armchair historian such as myself; and several facts were revealed to me regarding how widespread the practice of lynching was. And when that part of the exhibit was through, you get to walk through the “standing” exhibit of the Levine Center itself; which chronicles the emergence of the Charlotte region post-Civil War up until today. That’s me sitting at a mockup of the original Woolworth counter which was part of the early Civil Rights Movement here in Charlotte in 1960. Since I remember those events more clearly, this exhibit was extra special.

The cotton gins and the mills were represented in several exhibits which highlighted the plight of the mill worker in the earlier days of the 20th Century. The rise of the millworkers eventually caused the area to change from an agricultural to banking community, as the rising wages drove some of the mills out of business. The photographs of the millworkers; living in all but abject poverty; while toiling away for 60 hours a week; and always in hock to the “company”; were heart wrenching. These were people in their 30’s, who looked as if they were 60 years old.

This was a very educational and thought provoking exhibit. It asks you, as the patron, to examine the past, and judge the present and the future for yourselves. When confronted with the misery endured by others yesterday, it is often much easier to understand the present.