"G-Man" by Beverly Gage (2022)

With its 59 pages of Notes covering each if its 58 chapters, and a 20 page Bibliography, this carefully researched biography of J. Edgar Hoover may be the best yet. It is the Winner of the 2023 Pulitzer Prize in Biography, as well as the Winner of the 2022 National Book Critics Circle Award. 

The actual biographical portion spans over 750 pages and after a brief portion devoted to his years as a child, it dives into a decade by decade narrative of one of the most unusual lives of the 20th century. Both his presence and its impact are still felt today. 

From the years leading up to the First World War, the first Red Scare and the resultant Palmer Raids,  through the years of Prohibition and the Teapot Dome Scandal this is a book which  keeps on giving.

Sifting through every source available to the author, Ms. Gage has penned a biography which will surprise you in many ways. It overturns many assumptions made by previous authors on such issues as Hoover's stance on subjects from Japanese Internment Camps; he was against it; to his views on treating Jim Crow and Civil Rights in the same way he viewed Communism. In many ways this book is an eye opener.

And yet, when it comes to his refusal to accept the existence of a nationwide Organized Crime Syndicate, to his rocky relationship with the Kennedy's and his subsequent stonewalling of the Warren Commission, there are few surprises.

The most eye opening portions of this book, for me, involved the way President Johnson was able to get him to view the Civil Rights Struggle in the same way he had come to view Organized Crime and the Labor Racketeers as two sides of the same coin. They were all law breakers. 

His biggest errors are not ignored either. The Cointrel program, in which he justified the Agency's spying on the Civil Rights and Anti-War Movements, are treated as exactly what they were, an Overreach and Abuse of Power which has set the tone of the FBI through to the current day. The book offers no excuses. But it does provide explanations of how it evolved from its initial legitimacy to the rocky and suspect political bureaucracy it has become. 

There is much to be gleaned from this painstakingly researched biography. I have barely scraped the surface in this review. As the longest serving Director if the Bureau, 48 years, this is the story of a man who left his mark on Anerica, for better or for worse. And as such, it is a book well worth the reading.

Original Sin and the US Constitution?

Nothing rankles me more than the Original Sin argument about the United States and the Constitution. That we were founded upon Slavery. Quite the opposite is true. We were founded as a nation based on the stated notion that protection for slavery would only last until 1807, and further, that there could be no Amendment to change that date or goal. Read it. Article 1 Section 9.

So, in the very first Article of the US Constitution there is not only an acknowledgment of the evils of slavery, which was part of the system handed down to us by Britain, there is also a stated date for the cessation of importation of more slaves. This was the only way to get the 13 colonies to agree on the Constitution. And, yes, after 1807 we did have the misguided Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. I say misguided because attempting to compromise with something like slavery is just that; at the very least.

But by 1861 it all came to a head, as it was bound to, and 685,000 Americans, North and South, died to finally end slavery. Was it instantaneously successful? Of course not. But, the point is that we kept hammering it until it took proper shape and today we live in a world which has more slaves than we, as a nation, ever held in bondage.

Is there still work to do? "In order to form a more perfect Union" there always will be. But Original Sin? Sorry, you'll have to peddle that line elsewhere.....

Settled Law and a Living Constitution

We are often told that we have a "living" constitution. I am a moderate and agree with this assessment. After all, if it were not so, we would still be living with a permanent decision in the Dred Scott case. Nobody is in favor of that.

A "living" constitution has given us most of the freedoms we enjoy today. Many of them are bundled within the 14th Amendment, which is somewhat akin to placing all your eggs in one basket. But that's another story......

This year there has been a sea change in our society surrounding the Roe v Wade decision, which was made under the auspices of the 14th Amendment. Several states, almost half at this point, have passed new restrictions on abortion, leading the Pro Choice crowd to talk of "settled law."

While I am pro choice, I am also a Constitutionlist and a believer in a "living" Constitution. After all, it was this belief in a "living" Constitution upon which Roe v Wade was predicated and upheld.

Settled Law implies that once the Supreme Court decides an issue, then it's settled. Court nominees have had to convince Congress that they believe Roe v Wade to be settled law. I do not believe in "settled" law.

So, how do I merge both beliefs, which may seem to be in opposition to one another? Let's explore this.....

A Living Constitution implies that changes made by Amendment will apply as the people change and society grows.

Some people will be saying that the changes to abortion law are all part of a "living Constitution", and there is merit in that argument.

Others will opine that "Settled" Law means there can be no changes made to law after a Supreme Court decision has been rendered. There is also some merit to that view.

To really decide this issue you have to look at which changes by Amendment have been successful and which have not. You don't have to look very far for the example. It was the Volstead Act, the 18th Amendment in 1920. It was a failure and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.

Here then, is the dilemma we face.

If we believe in settled law then we should still have slavery under Dred Scott, or Separate but Equal. Since "settled" law is not possible with an amendable Constitution, we don't have those things anymore.

So, we would have to say we don't believe in settled law. We believe in a "living" Constitution which changes with the needs of the people. (Notice I say "needs" and not "wants.")

People wanted Prohibition, just as they once approved of slavery. We are not populists. So, the "living" Constitution is capable of changing its mind, just as it did with the Volstead Act.

This may seem as being in agreement with a reversal of Roe v Wade under the 14th Amendment, but it wouldn't be true.

The big difference in all of this argument, and the point which most often goes unsaid, is that "settled" law has only always applied to our being granted more rights under the law.

The one time they tried to use the Bill of Rights, which is comprised of all 27 Amendments, to tell us what we could not do, was a failure and needed to be reversed.

Abortion is a right granted, not removed. As such, "settled" law is not contradictory to our "living" Constitution. It is compatible with it.

"One Righteous Man" by Arthur Browne (2015)

This book is a by product of Langston Hughes unpublished biography of Samuel Battle, New York City's first African-American policeman. Hughes was working on a number of projects at the time he accepted this assignment to co-author Samuel Battle's autobiography in the late 1940's.

The author, Arthur Browne, gives all credit to Mr. Hughes where applicable. He has also created a multi layered story of the history of racism in the ranks of Civil Servants in the last days of the 19th Century as well as into the 20th.

Racism wasn't confined to the South as you may have been taught in school. It was rampant in the North as well. Sometimes more oblique ways perhaps, but at other times it was as brutal as the lynchings were.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of reading this was  authors skillful weaving of the history of those times along with Samuel Battle's own story.  It gives great depth to the the narrative. It helps the reader in understanding the systemic racism Mr. Battle was forced to tackle in order to be what he aspired to be. It is also a great history of  one particular street in Harlem which was like a "Doctor's Row", in that many of the most educated  and affluent of the ciiy's African-Americans lived there. 

Today there is a small plaza dedicated to him outside City Hall. But, in reality, no plaza could ever be large enough to hold the spirit of Samuel Battle. This is the story of that man. It is also the story of his vision and how he achieved it.

I Always Wondered Why.....

I always wondered why the Weekly Reader; that cool little newspaper we used to get in elementary school; was sometimes confusing to me as a kid. I mean, there was the time when the Weekly Reader was loudly lambasting South Africa for Apartheid at the same time as we were experiencing the events of Selma, Alabama here in the United States. 

But the Weekly Reader had nothing to say about that. Accordingly, I raised my hand and asked what the difference was between South Africa and Alabama. I was told to be quiet and sit down. So I’ve always wondered about that little newspaper.

Well, decades later while reading about the Bush family in Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets” I came upon the astonishing fact that Allen Dulles; head of the CIA; was on the Board of Directors of the paper, acting as a sort of ghost editor in determining what stories got printed; or not. Kind of makes you want to rethink some of the things you’ve been told…

Who is a Citizen Under the Constitution?

The current contretemps concerning who is a Citizen under our Constitution seems to be revolving around the term “anchor baby”, which is a way of referring to a child born on U.S. soil automatically being a citizen. Although that has long been our accepted policy, the Constitution is not crystal clear on this issue.

Since this topic is destined to dominate the news for a couple of days, at least, I thought it might be helpful to post the 2 places in the Constitution where Citizenship is mentioned. The first is from Article 1; while the second is from the 14^th Amendment, which seems to have become the “eye of the storm.”

I have synopsized the meaning of each quote from the Constitution in an effort to give them some historical context.

Article 1, Section 4:8 states “Congress shall have the Power to……Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

This implies that Congress would be responsible for setting up a bureau to deal with the specifics of Immigration and Naturalization. Today we call that organization Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as it is more commonly referred. At the time it was written many of our leading citizens; including some of the leading politicians of the time; were not born here; hence the need to define the term Citizen.

The 14^th Amendment states in Section 1; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.

The point of contention here seems to rest not in the opening phrase that all persons born here are Citizens, but rather in the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The phrase was included as a way of addressing the issue of “Indians not taxed” in the 2^nd Section of the Amendment.

I hope that this information will prove helpful to the reader as the controversy rolls forward.

"The Constitution" by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen (2015)

Finally; a book about the Constitution which doesn’t have an agenda! I had almost given up hope. The only complaint I could possibly have with this highly informative and unbiased look at our Nation’s most sacred document is the same as with most books about the Constitution; they don’t include a copy for reference. Since the authors refer to Articles and Amendments on just about every page, it would have been convenient. Fortunately I have several copies strategically located throughout the house and 2 more in the car. Beyond that oversight, this book is a refreshing look at the Constitution; absent of any political bent.

The authors begin at the beginning; a very good place to start; and then take us chronologically through the history of the document itself and it’s remarkable life through over 2 centuries of tumult, chaos and division. The resiliency which the Founding Fathers built into this document is clearly on view; and easily understood in the treatment afforded it by this book.

Different readers will favor different parts of this work; but all readers will take away new insights and understandings from reading it. So nuanced is the Constitution that; in many ways just as with the Talmud;  you can read something several times over, only to have the apparent meaning change with each successive reading. Add in over 2 centuries of social change and you have quite a range of interpretations!

From the beginnings of Marbury v Madison; all the way through the latest controversial Supreme Court rulings; this book, and these authors, have presented us with a gift for these tumultuous times. To avail yourself of the wonderful fruits this gift offers, you need only open the first page.

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.

"Go Set a Watchman" by Harper Lee (2015)

I have been waiting for this book since 1966 when I first read “To Kill a Mockingbird”. I was 12 years old and found the book in the school library. The title intrigued me, and the book became a lifelong friend. I had not yet seen the movie and had only just taken my first trip down south with my family. The South was still the south of Jim Crow; though in its dying day at the time.

Here is the short version: Scout comes home and finds the idyllic town changed; it is charged with a racism she never saw in her sepia toned memory. The dichotomy of the Southerner at the time of this novel was that of Christian values versus Anglo-Saxon supremacy. You can throw in the Civil War if you’d like, though I doubt it would make much difference. This was a dying culture which; after almost 100 years; was still advocating gradualism at a time when the people affected were demanding change “now”.

Scout discovers her father is human and has a need of being able to control that change in society which; though inevitable; could be delayed under the guise of Christianity and Gradualism, much to Scout’s dismay. The conflict which ensues takes her back through some of her own memories; as well as new discoveries. Just as she is about to leave Maycomb for good her Uncle Jack has a final confrontation with her in which he sets her straight on the history and experience of Civil Rights as he sees it. He is surprisingly adept at turning Scout’s mind around about leaving the South forever. He feels that to truly change the place she needs to come home and lead by example.

The dialogue in some spots is over emoted; but the messages on both sides of the issue are clearly stated. And the dilemma of the Southerner of Scout’s generation is laid bare; were the sepia toned memories just that? Or were things really better for everyone concerned when the lines of demarcation were more clearly defined? And, finally, is there really a middle ground to this issue at all?

Well worth the wait and thanks to Sue for buying this for me at lunchtime on Tuesday when it was released. Now, my more detailed analysis;

I have been waiting for this book since 1966 when I first read “To Kill a Mockingbird”. I was 12 years old and found the book in the school library. The title intrigued me, and the book became a lifelong friend. I had not yet seen the movie and had only just taken my first trip down south with my family. The South was still the south of Jim Crow; though in its dying day at the time.

Marja Mills book “The Mockingbirds Next Door” is almost a pre-requisite if you are to get the full benefit of this book. That book, written with the help and consent of Ms. Lee and her older sister Alice, chronicled the real life of the 2 sisters who lived in a modest house; eschewing many modern conveniences, and choosing mostly to communicate by fax machine, even with their neighbors and closest friends. An understanding of the iconic author’s day to day life in her later years will go a long way towards understanding the full scope of this book. In addition you will see Scout as Jean Louise; and vice versa.

To begin with the reader must be familiar with the title’s origin in Scripture. It appears in Isaiah 21:6 which reads “For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth.”

There is an article on Alabama.com by Wayne Flynt, a friend of Harper Lee and the Baptist minister who appears in Marja Mills book; his take on the title, from his view as a Baptist minister; is that “Go Set a Watchman’ means, ‘Somebody needs to be the moral compass of this town. ‘Isaiah was a prophet. God had set him as a watchman over Israel. It’s really God speaking to the Hebrews, saying what you need to do is set a watchman, to set you straight, to keep you on the right path. What more elegant title could there be?”

The intent of the title is to set the tone of the 1950’s against the more sepia like era of the 1930’s, when everybody had a defined place in the local social structure. The upheaval of the Civil Rights movement threatened to knock many Christians off the true path; hence the reminder to set a watchman against that occurrence. Now that we understand that we can deal with the book itself.

When Jean Finch returns home from New York City to the small town of Maycomb she is almost immediately aware of a sea change in the attitudes of the white residents towards the town’s Negro population. She is taken aback by this; after all she was raised, like so many others of her generation; by a “colored” woman whom she had always considered to be a surrogate mother. Her own mother passed away before she was old enough to remember. Indeed it was the reliable Calpurnia who ushered the confused Jean Louise into womanhood; making up for the lack of a mother to impart that information which is so necessary for a daughter to know.

To further confuse; make that infuriate her; is that both her intended fiancée Hank, and her father, Atticus; whom she idolizes; have both become involved with the White Citizen’s Council in a quest to thwart the advance of the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement in their town. Scout is appalled at what she sees while looking on at a meeting of the group in the very courthouse where Atticus had so eloquently defended Tom Robinson for a crime he did not commit in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” She cannot reconcile the man she knew then with the man she sees before her now.

Complicating the situation is the drunken driving accident by one of the Calpurnia’s children; which kills a white man. Mr. Finch has been asked to defend him. His partner Hank; the prospective son-in law; refuses the case in Atticus’ name, but Atticus takes the case anyway. His motive, however, is suspect to Jean Louise when she hears him state that if he doesn’t take it and plead guilty, then some NAACP attorneys will show up to defend him, bringing change; and possibly even violence; to the town. He is also an adherent of White Supremacy, which makes his daughter despise him even more.

It is interesting to note that Jean Louise; early on in the book; faces the dichotomy which is inherent in most Southerners of her era; a total distrust of everything from Washington, D.C. In Jean Louise’s case this distrust begins early on in the narrative; before she learns of her father’s racist attitudes.

She remembers the patch of earth by the school where she used to play a game called “Tip Top”. That area was paved over by a WPA project and resulted in so many skinned knees that the children were forced to play elsewhere. This, she says, was her first taste of that resistance to change. To put it more plainly; she is saying that not only had the federal government changed the rules; but also the game. This metaphor comes back to haunt her later on when she is forced to deal with her Uncle Jack who just may be the real hero of this story.

But it is how her father and the citizens of Maycomb handle that change is what drives her distaste for them. Even reliable Calpurnia, who raised Jean Louise and her brother Jem, has changed. She now admits to having hated the system under which she so faithfully served the Finch’s; calling into question whether that love which Jean Louise perceived was real.  And if it wasn’t; then the question arises, what is real and what is not? What is right and what is wrong? Remember, this was supposed to be a relaxing summer trip home…

As she comes close to the verge of leaving Maycomb for good it is her beloved Uncle Jack; lost in his own world of reverie; who saves the day and makes her understand that we are all bigots in our own ways. He also makes her realize that the only way to change Maycomb for the better might be if she came home to live there, leading by quiet example rather than urging sudden change from afar. (Uncle Jack also imparts a secret to Jean Louise which will surprise the reader; I know it did me!)

This book was written before “To Kill a Mockingbird” and in some ways is its polar opposite. The sepia toned Maycomb of that book is a child’s view of life in the Jim Crow south. “Go Set a Watchman” is a mature; though sometimes jarring; look at the realities beyond the rosy pictures we all tend to paint of our own, sometimes flawed lives.

For the review of the Marja Mills book "The Mockingbird Next Door" see the following link;

http://robertwilliamsofbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-mockingbird-next-door-by-marja.html

"Selma" with David Oyelowo and Ava DuVernay (2014)

I barely finished watching this film. I grew up in a household where Martin Luther King was as revered as JFK. He was seen as the the primary hope for the future of those who were then termed "Negro" Americans. Selma and the events which took place on the Edmund Pettus Bridge were seen as righteous and necessary steps in the fight for integration. It is a primary event which was a turning point in the the struggle for Civil Rights. 

I'm not going to review this movie. It's too important to too many people for me to knock it. I will only say that I was deeply disappointed in the treatment of then President Lyndon Johnson, who; although hardly a favorite of my generation due to the War in Vietnam; was nonetheless a shrewd and effective partner for the Civil Rights Movement and the Right to Vote. Here's why;

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed it did not address the Voting Rights aspect adequately. The choice was to get a Bill passed acknowledging the Civil Rights problem and demanding equality under the law. The strategy was that since the Southern states would not vote a law into effect that included the Voting Rights provision before the Presidential election, then the smartest way to go about effecting that change was to pass the overall bill first; and then take it to court for the Voting Rights aspect. 

Of course this meant that the 1964 Presidential election would be up and gone by the time the voting issue was dealt with, but the reality was that; either way; African-Americans were going to have to sit that one out. If the 1964 bill had failed to pass then the next election African-Americans could hope to vote in would be 1968. The risk was in "overreaching" and failing.

The bill that passed offered the best way to ensure that they would get to vote by the 1968 Presidential election. Johnson had been a member of Congress and the Senate for almost 20 years before becoming President and knew how to work Congress and get what he wanted. By the time Selma rolled around Johnson was working Congress with his usual mixture of charm and threats to get the Voting Rights Act passed. The conflict in Selma was a necessary step to that end. 

Here is the President's speech after the murder of Viola Liuzzo on March 26, 1965. Pay attention from 2 minutes and 26 seconds into the recording for the meat of this thing. Here is the President of the United States labeling the KKK as terrorists and hoodlums. He lets them know in no uncertain terms that the times they are a changing. 

And for a little bit more information about Violo Liuzzo I have included this short but very informative little video about her, lest she get lost in history.

.

"Taking on Teddy Roosevelt" by Harry Lembeck (2015)

There is a widespread belief which holds that the 1948 defection of the so called “Dixiecrats” who left the Democratic Party over Harry Truman’s desegregation of the Armed Forces sparked the defection of African-Americans from the Republican Party of Lincoln to the Democratic Party of today.  And there is some truth to that. But the real migration began about 50 years before that and involves Theodore Roosevelt, Booker T. Washington, and a riot in Texas which may not have been what it appeared to be.

In August 1906 the 25^th Colored Infantry Division was stationed at Fort Browning in Brownsville, Texas. They had replace the all-white 24^th which had served it’s time and was rotating back east. The townsfolk were more than a bit leery of having armed colored troops stationed just outside of town.

After several racially motivated incidents, several men; supposedly from the fort; went on a shooting spree, wounding some of the townsfolk and damaging most of the buildings which had refused to serve them. The events that followed underscored the deep racial divisions which split America in the days after the Civil War and still divide us in many ways.

   

President Theodore Roosevelt, who had served as William McKinley’s Vice President, was seen as a “gradualist” in the matter of race relations. He talked a great game about equality as he set the Great White Fleet off to show the flag, but here at home the President allied himself with Booker T. Washington; the African-American educator who founded the Tuskegee Institute to train Negroes in the Industrial Arts. 

In some ways Tuskegee was a trade school; rather than a true college of higher learning. He believed; and the President agreed with him; that Negroes were better suited for factory work and menial labor rather than any of the professions. They believed that it would take time to achieve the educational levels for Negroes to rise in society. One has to wonder whether or not anyone ever bothered to ask Booker T. how he had made the transition so quickly, and why he felt that his contemporaries could not.

The author explores the attitudes of the times in relation to the expectations of the African-American concerning armed blacks in the military. Although the “colored” troops had performed well in the Civil War; and the legendary Buffalo Soldiers; to whom the soldiers of the beleaguered 25th Colored Regiment were related by history; the people in Brownsville Texas were clearly not comfortable in having these troops present. It was only a matter of time until something happened.

The author explores the writings of some of the most illustrious African-American writers of the day; pitting the writings of W.E. DuBois against the politics; and policies; of Booker T. Washington and President Roosevelt. While DuBois was initially in agreement with the “gradualism” approach to equality, he ultimately saw the flaws in this arrangement. Who would decide when African-Americans were ready for advancement? Shouldn’t that question be decided by the African-Americans themselves; rather than be left with the very government which had allowed them to be enslaved for over 80 years after Independence had been declared?

This is a sweeping book encompassing both the incident at Fort Browning itself; as well as the political implications for the entire nation at the time. It would be well to remember that the history in these pages informs the debate on race relations in America today every bit as much as the news in today’s paper.

"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 USS Mason - Fighting Jim Crow

Most of America fought two different enemies in World War Two. That was hard enough. But the men of the USS Mason- DE 529, a Destroyer Escort, had the added burden of fighting a third enemy, Jim Crow.

At the outbreak of World War Two the Armed Forces were segregated, just like half the country was. This would not change until after the war was won, but during the war there were some courageous efforts on the part of some, to integrate America's fighting force. The story of the USS Mason is the story of one of those efforts.

Built in the Boston Navy Yard and launched in 1943, she was commissioned in March of 1944 under the command of Lt. Commander William Blackford, a white officer. He would command the Mason with a handful of white officers and an all-black crew.

After a successful shakedown cruise off Bermuda in the spring of 1944 the Mason headed into action. They escorted a convoy from Charleston, SC to the Azores, arriving on July 6th. The ship then put into Belfast; Northern  Ireland, for Liberty ashore. The crew was astonished at how well they were received by the locals. Even in England they were denied access to many facilities, but the Irish, albeit neutral in the war, welcomed these men as "Yanks" rather than "Tan Yankees" as they were referred to by the British.

But her greatest story was yet to come. On September 19th, 1944 the USS Mason left New York City with Convoy NY 119. They were to protect her from the German U-boats which had been sinking ships as close as 10 miles off the coast of the United States.

This convoy was done during one of the worst months of severe weather that the North Atlantic would experience in the 2oth Century. In less than a month the weather had claimed 16 of the convoys vessels. The only way to prevent more loss was to send the smaller, faster ships ahead with an escort. The USS Mason was the ship chosen for this duty.

Attempting to lead the ships into Bishop Rock, England the ship was beaten by severe weather that actually split her deck and collapsed main beams. The Mason was a step away from sinking.

Calls for assistance were ignored and the crew of the Mason were left to their own devices to stay afloat. And stay afloat she did. Within 2 hours the ship was repaired and leading the convoy safely into port. She then turned around again and returned to the remaining ships. The two British ships assigned to help in this endeavor turned back, leaving the Mason to struggle alone to bring the convoy in. It would take three more days, and nights, in harrowing weather to accomplish this task.

The ship and its crew were recommended for Unit and Individual Commendations for these efforts by their Captain, Lt. Commander Blackford, as well as Convoy Commander Alfred Lind. The crew would not learn of these nominations for almost 50 years, during research for the book "Proudly We Served."

As a result of the book the crew was awarded the Citations in 2003. Former President Bill Clinton would present the awards on the deck of the latest USS Mason in New York City.

A movie was made of this story with Ossie Davis as Signalman First Class Lorenzo DuFau. The movie was riveting, especially the storm scenes. The story is told from Mr. DuFau's perspective when his grandkids wake him up late at night with some loud music. He tells them the story in a flashback that encompasses not only the story of the Mason, but of the segregated makeup of our nation, even as we were fighting to liberate the world at large.

The Mason story has been told in other books about the war, but never so vividly as in the book and movie. And for a real quick look at what these guys did you can drop in on them at their web site www.ussmason.org/

That this crew, made up of city kids and farm boys, some of whom had never seen an ocean, banded together in facing the Germans, as well as the forces of the sea, and won, make this one of the greater sea stories ever told. That they did it while under the thumb of Jim Crow is simply incredible.

"Black and White" by Richard Williams (2014)

I only took this book out of the library because I was interested in Richard Williams’ early life growing up in Shreveport, Louisiana in the 1950’s. He was born there in 1942 and by his teen aged years was a justifiably angry young black man with very little hope for a secure future. At least that’s the way it would’ve worked out if not for two things; a strong mother and a commitment to break away from the expected outcome of his life.

On that level the book delivered beautifully, living up to my every expectation. But the real surprise of this book was that it was able to hold my attention all the way through his daughters winning their celebrated championships.

But the meat of this book is in the fact that Mr. Williams; no relation to me; had the idea of creating the award winning sisters before they were even born. He was married at the time to the woman he loved and was raising 3 step children with her. Life was perfect. Many people do not realize that Mr. Williams was already a very successful businessman before his daughters became champions. He owned a cleaning service, a car wash and some real estate. Before he was 30 he had amassed around $800,000 before giving it all away.

Watching TV one day with his adopted daughters he saw a young woman winning $20,000 for a tennis match. He was instantly seized with the vision of raising 2 girls to become champion players. His adopted children were too old at the time to train adequately. So he proposed the idea of having 2 more daughters to his wife. Whether she believed in the idea, or was just enthusiastic about “trying” we will never know for sure.

 

Shortly after the girls were born, about a year and a half apart, Mr. Williams moved his family from a comfortable home in Long Beach to the crack infested neighborhood of Compton in Los Angeles. He wanted his daughters to be strong and independent, and to that end he showed them the prostitutes, the drug slingers, the gangs hanging on the corners; all in an effort to show them what they should aspire not to be.

He literally fought the street gangs to regain control of the local park tennis courts; which were on the “turf” of the gangs. He lost 10 teeth and had countless ribs cracked; and he even chased them down with a shotgun before finally winning.

In short; this is a book which will surprise you. If you think you know enough about Venus and Serena Williams from reading the headlines and the magazines; think again. Until you have gotten to know their father, you haven’t even scratched the surface.

"Freedom Riders" - A PBS Film (2011)

This post is in remembrance of former Assistant Attorney General John Doar, who passed away in New York City this past week. He was 92 years old. Many will be familiar with him from the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1960’s, where he was on the front lines facing the violence of segregation on its deathbed. He was dispatched to Montgomery, Alabama in 1961 along with John Seigenthaler, to protect the Freedom Riders.

The Freedom Riders were a group of young, idealistic students who wanted to dramatically demonstrate to the world that it was not possible to travel from one state to another without the risk of violence if you were African-American. This demonstration came at the same time as the Lunch Counter sit-ins which took place in many of the segregated cities were occurring.

John Doar’s role in the movement came about in a kind of left handed way. The Kennedy Administration was about to have its first summit with the Soviets and the specter of violent protests calling attention to the lack of freedom for African-Americans was the last thing they needed to be packing along with their bags when they went abroad.

This was the beginning of Mr. Doar’s 7 years of service as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, where he was frequently on the front lines of the Movement, where he became highly regarded as both a committed and somewhat fearless man. He was present at the admission of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi, confronting Ross Barnett and providing Meredith with protection. He was also the lead investigator in the 1964 case of the 3 missing Civil Rights workers; Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner; as later depicted in the film “Mississippi Burning.”

He prosecuted Collie Leroy Wilkins for federal civil rights violations in the murder of Viola Liuzzo. This was extraordinary as the jury was all white and the trial took place in 1963 in the segregated state of Alabama. Later that same year he confronted and calmed an angry mob after the assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers, murdered outside his home. The following account of the rioting which took place in the wake of that murder demonstrated Mr. Doar's faith in non-violence as a weapon.

The full story is at  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/trialheroes/doaressay.html

"Into the no-man’s land between the police and the rioters walked John Doar.  The crowd stopped for a moment, stunned as though they were watching a ghost. Then bottles, bricks, and other missiles began crashing around him. Doar called to the crowd.  “You’re not going to win anything with bottles and bricks,” he said.  He could hardly be heard above the roar of the crowd, which began to encircle him. A man with a tire iron lifted it and took aim at Doar’s head. 

An angry black woman yelled in his face, “We get our rumps shot up!”  She asked with sarcastic disgust, “Are we gonna wait for the Justice Department?” Doar pleaded, “Aw, give us a break.” Then he shouted again, “Hold it! Is there someone here who can speak for you people?”  One black youth emerged from the demonstrators and joined Doar in the street.  “This man is right,” the youth said, pointing at Doar.  

“My name is John Doar—D-O-A-R,” the official called again and again.  “I’m from the Justice Department, and anybody around here knows I stand for what is right.”  He walked toward the mob, shouting—begging—for the crowd to disperse. “Medgar Evers wouldn’t want it this way,” he called.

In an alley, a CORE worker grabbed a teenager with a rifle who was taking aim at Doar. “Hold hands with me and help us move these people along,” Doar said to some nearby protesters.  A few people linked hands and they slowly began to push the mob back from the police line. A massacre was averted.  Barricades were removed and a motorized streetsweeper began whisking up the broken glass and other hurled debris."

During the March on Montgomery in early 1965 he was in the front of the 3^rd; and successful; attempt to reach the state capitol, walking “point” one block ahead of the marchers. He was Assistant Attorney General to Robert Kennedy at the time.

This film captures all of the drama and fear that were part of the Freedom Riders campaign. Utilizing one Greyhound Bus and one from Trailways, these brave activists; recruited by the Congress for Racial Equality, or CORE; set out to highlight the segregation that was commonplace in the cities throughout the Southern states.

On May 4, 1961, the first group; consisting  of 13 African-American and white civil rights activists left Washington, D.C., in an attempt to integrate the rest rooms and waiting rooms at bus stations along the way on the journey South. African-American Freedom Riders tried to use “whites-only” restrooms and lunch counters, and white participants attempted to use the “Colored Only” facilities.

What many people do not realize is that the Freedom Rides were meant as a replication of the 1947 Journey of Reconciliation, designed to test the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Virginia. That decision held that segregated bus seating in Interstate Commerce was unconstitutional. This did not apply to the individual states and it would be another 9 years until Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a local bus in Alabama.

The violence began as soon as the first bus hit Rock Hill, S.C. on May 12. The next day they were again attacked in Atlanta, Georgia where some of the riders boarded a Trailways Bus. By the time the Freedom Riders hit the state of Alabama the violence was so out of control that the bus could not even stop at the terminal. With an angry mob slashing tires and breaking windows the bus left with a contingent of angry whites chasing it.

When the tires finally gave out the bus pulled over and the white driver fled. The mob then threw in gasoline bombs in an attempt to smoke the passengers out. When they emerged they were beaten under the watchful eyes of the Alabama State Police. The images of the burnt bus made the front page of newspapers worldwide.

Throughout the summer the Freedom Rides continued until the Interstate Commerce Commission issued new regulations barring discrimination in accommodations at bus stops acroos the country. Thjis had the same effect as the 1946 Supreme Court Ruling, and it would be another 4 years before the Civil Rights Act would be finally passed and enshrined as law.

This film captures all of the drama and violence which invaded our living rooms via the nightly news, and eventually changed the way we looked at ourselves in terms of being a truly free country. And while all of this was happening here, the struggle in South Africa was portrayed as something different and more evil, while in reality there was no real difference at all.

This is an important film for these times, when some people are calling for a repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legal protections which were won by the hard work of many people at grave risk to themselves. The fact that there are people trying to roll back those protections is ample proof in itself that these laws are still very necessary. Watching this film is one of the things you can do to honor the memory of the late John Doar.

Alabama Voter's Literacy Test - 1965

Lately there have been a lot of people; both Liberal and Conservative; who have called for the return of “literacy tests” to become eligible to Vote. This is in addition to the Conservative movement to roll back the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The photograph above was taken just after LBJ signed that bill into law in August 1965.  Among the people in the photograph are MLK and Rosa Parks.

Most people that call for the return of literacy tests are speaking in jest; more like exasperation at the views of the people who hold different political views than they themselves have. But, just for fun, I’d like everyone to take this 1965 Alabama test and see how they would score. Keep in mind that your level of education is far greater than that of the average African-American who would have been required to take this test in the 1960’s. And remember, in Alabama at the time education was a privilege and not a right for the people required to take this test.

The next time you hear someone talk about how “there ought to be a test for voting” whip this out and see how they would fare. You have about 15 minutes to complete the test and one wrong answer is a failing grade. You will be surprised at how little you think you know.

1. Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

 _____Public Education

 _____Employment

 _____Trial by Jury

 _____Voting

 2. The federal census of population is taken every five years.

 _____True _____False

 3. If a person is indicted for a crime, name two rights which he has. ______________________ ________________________

 4. A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date? _________________________________________________

 5. A President elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date? ______________________________________________________________________

 6. Which definition applies to the word "amendment?"

 _____Proposed change, as in a Constitution

 _____Make of peace between nationals at war

 _____A part of the government

 7. A person appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court is appointed for a term of __________.

 8. When the Constitution was approved by the original colonies, how many states had to ratify it in order for it to be in effect? _________________________________________

 9. Does enumeration affect the income tax levied on citizens in various states? __________

 10. A person opposed to swearing in an oath may say, instead: I (solemnly) ______________________________________________________________

 11. To serve as President of the United States, a person must have attained:

 _____25 years of age

 _____35 years of age

 _____40 years of age

 _____45 years of age

 12. What words are required by law to be on all coins and paper currency of the U.S.? ________________________________________________________________________

 13. The Supreme Court is the chief lawmaking body of the state.

 _____True _____False

 14. If a law passed by a state is contrary to provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which law prevails? ________________________________________________________________________

 15. If a vacancy occurs in the U.S. Senate, the state must hold an election, but meanwhile the place may be filled by a temporary appointment made by ________________________________________________________________________.

 16. A U.S. senator is elected for a term of _____ years.

 17. Appropriation of money for the armed services can be only for a period limited to _____ years.

 18. The chief executive and the administrative offices make up the ___________________ branch of government.

 19. Who passes laws dealing with piracy? ________________________________________________________________________

 20. The number of representatives which a state is entitled to have in the House of Representatives is based on _________________________________________________

 21. The Constitution protects an individual against punishments which are _______________ and _______________________.

 22. When a jury has heard and rendered a verdict in a case, and the judgment on the verdict has become final, the defendant cannot again be brought to trial for the same cause.

 _____True _____False

 23. Name two levels of government which can levy taxes: ________________________________________________________________________

 24. Communism is the type of government in: _____U.S.

 _____Russia

 _____England

 25. Cases tried before a court of law are two types, civil and _________________________.

 26. By a majority vote of the members of Congress, the Congress can change provisions of the Constitution of the U.S.

 _____True _____False

 27. For security, each state has a right to form a _________________________________.

 28. The electoral vote for President is counted in the presence of two bodies. Name them: _____________________________________________________________________

 29. If no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral vote, who decides who will become President? ___________________________________________________

 30. Of the original 13 states, the one with the largest representation in the first Congress was ______________________________________________________________________.

 31. Of which branch of government is the Speaker of the House a part? _____Executive

 _____Legislative

 _____Judicial

 32. Capital punishment is the giving of a death sentence.

 _____True _____False

 33. In case the President is unable to perform the duties of his office, who assumes them? ___________________________________________________________________

 34. "Involuntary servitude" is permitted in the U.S. upon conviction of a crime.

 _____True _____False

 35. If a state is a party to a case, the Constitution provides that original jurisdiction shall be in ______________________________________________________________________.

 36. Congress passes laws regulating cases which are included in those over which the U.S. Supreme Court has ____________________________________________ jurisdiction.

 37. Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

 _____Public Housing

 _____Education

 _____Voting

 _____Trial by Jury

 38. The Legislatures of the states decide how presidential electors may be chosen.

 _____True _____False

 39. If it were proposed to join Alabama and Mississippi to form one state, what groups would have to vote approval in order for this to be done? ________________________________________________________________________

 40. The Vice President presides over ____________________________________________.

 41. The Constitution limits the size of the District of Columbia to ______________________________________________________________________.

 42. The only laws which can be passed to apply to an area in a federal arsenal are those passed by ___________________________________________ provided consent for the purchase of the land is given by the _________________________________________.

 43. In which document or writing is the "Bill of Rights" found? ______________________.

 44. Of which branch of government is a Supreme Court justice a part?

 _____Executive

 _____Legislative

 _____Judicial

 45. If no person receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Vice President is chosen by the

 Senate. _____True _____False

 46. Name two things which the states are forbidden to do by the U.S. Constitution. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

 47. If election of the President becomes the duty of the U.S. House of Representatives and it fails to act, who becomes President and when? _______________________________________________________________________

 48. How many votes must a person receive in order to become President if the election is decided by the U.S. House of Representatives? _______________________________

 49. How many states were required to approve the original Constitution in order for it to be in effect? ______________________________________________________________

 50. Check the offenses which, if you are convicted of them, disqualify you for voting:

 _____Murder

 _____Issuing worthless checks

 _____Petty larceny

 _____Manufacturing whiskey

 51. The Congress decides in what manner states elect presidential electors.

 _____True _____False

 52. Name two of the purposes of the U.S. Constitution. _________________________________________________________________________

 53. Congress is composed of __________________________________________________.

 54. All legislative powers granted in the U.S. Constitution may legally be used only by ______________________________________________________________________.

 55. The population census is required to be made very _____ years.

 56. Impeachments of U.S. officials are tried by ___________________________________.

 57. If an effort to impeach the President of the U.S. is made, who presides at the trial? _____________________________________________________________________

 58. On the impeachment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., who tries the case? ________________________________________________________________

 59. Money is coined by order of:

 _____U.S. Congress

 _____The President's Cabinet

 _____State Legislatures

 60. Persons elected to cast a state's vote for U.S. President and Vice President are called presidential _________________________________________________________.

 61. Name one power which is exclusively legislative and is mentioned in one of the parts of the U.S. Constitution above______________________________________________.

 62. If a person flees from justice into another state, who has authority to ask for his return? _____________________________________________________________________

 63. Whose duty is it to keep Congress informed of the state of the union? _____________________________________________________________________

 64. If the two houses of Congress cannot agree on adjournment, who sets the time? _____________________________________________________________________

 65. When presidential electors meet to cast ballots for President, must all electors in a state vote for the same person for President or can they vote for different persons if they so choose? _____________________________________________________________________

 66. After the presidential electors have voted, to whom do they send the count of their votes? _____________________________________________________________________

 67. The power to declare war is vested in ________________________________________.

 68. Any power and rights not given to the U.S. or prohibited to the states by the U.S. Constitution are specified as belonging to whom? ______________________________

Here are the answers;

1. Trial by Jury only

 2. False (every 10 years)

 3. Habeas Corpus (immediate presentation of charges); lawyer; speedy trial.

 4. January 3

 5. January 20

 6. Proposed change, as in a Constitution

 7. Life (with good behavior)

 8. Nine

 9. Yes

 10. Affirm

 11. 35

 12. In God We Trust

 13. False

 14. U.S. Constitution

 15. The governor

 16. Six

 17. Two

 18. Executive

 19. Congress

 20. Population (as determined by census) less untaxed Indians

 21. Cruel and unusual

 22. True

 23. State and local

 24. Russia

 25. Criminal

 26. False

 27. Militia

 28. House of Representatives, Senate

 29. House of Representatives

 30. Virginia

 31. Legislative

 32. True

 33. The Vice President

 34. True

 35. The Supreme Court

 36. Co-appellate

 37. Trial by Jury

 38. True

 39. Congress and the legislatures of both states

 40. The Senate

 41. 10 miles square

 42. Congress; state legislatures

 43. Constitution

 44. Judicial

 45. True

 46. Coin money; make treaties

 47. The Vice President, until the House acts

 48. 26

 49. 9

 50. Murder

 51. False

 52. (Preamble statements) "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 53. House of Representatives and Senate

 54. Congress

 55. 10

 56. The Senate

 57. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

 58. The Senate

 59. The U.S. Congress

 60. Electors

 61. Pass laws, coin money, declare war

 62. The Governor

 63. The President

 64. The President

 65. They can vote for different people

 66. Vice President (President of the Senate)

 67. Congress 

 68. The states; the people

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.