Younger Dems today may not know, that in the 19th Century their political party was pro slavery, pro Confederacy, pro Jim Crow. and pro White Supremacy. The Reps were the good guys. Following the Civil War, when the Southern states regained the right to participate in Federal elections, they returned Dem confederates to the US Congress and state legislatures..
In 1876, Black voters tilted the presidential vote to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, infuriating the Southern Dems, who unsuccessfully contested Hayes election. Dems held majorities in both Houses and moved to ensure the Reps would not again benefit from the Black vote. Thus, before the 1880 presidential election, they added riders to appropriation bills, aimed at removing Federal polling place protection for Blacks. President Hayes repeatedly vetoed the bills with these riders.
The Rep. Minority leader in the House was James Garfield, a Union veteran and a courageous politician. He understood the Dem.’s strategy: if President Hayes continued to veto the appropriation bills and they were unable to override it, they would refuse to fund the government. The Dems. maintained they were simply trying to rid the country of a dictatorial government, to strengthen elections and restore the rights of states to manage their affairs as they wished. .
The Dems. misread their public support in the run-up to the 1880 presidential election and continued to press for the repeal of the post Civil War laws aimed at safeguarding African Americans and their right to vote. The Southern Dems. sole objective was to restore white supremacy in the former confederacy. They irritated many when they made a PR gaffe by repeatedly praising Jefferson Davis and comparing him to George Washington.
Meanwhile, Garfield’s and Hayes’ powerful, well publicized opposition to the Dems.’ racist actions, significantly raised both men’s standing among the electorate. As a consequence Garfield, now considered something of an American hero, was elected President. However, on July 2, 1881, Garfield was assassinated. He was succeeded by his vice president, Chester Arthur.
The 1880 loss to the Republicans, shocked the Democrats into an agonizing reappraisal of their platform and their leadership. They recognized that the Party’s white supremacy position and its advocacy was a fatal mistake and introduced their support for racial reconciliation. Similarly, they abandoned their Southern leadership and looked to Northern urban centers for fresh voters and new leaders. New York’s Grover Cleveland ran for election based on the Democrats’ new platform and won the presidency in 1885.
1879 vs. 2021: Similarities, but major Differences:
To avoid understandable confusion about the roles of the two American political parties in 1879 and 2020/21, a brief reminder. In 2020/21, the partisan roles are reversed, although the goals are much the same: reduce the number of Black voters.
The Democratic Party in 1879 attempted to force the Republican members of Congress to legislate the removal of Federal security for Black voters. Why? To threaten their safe access to the polls and thus discourage them from voting in 1880 (for Republicans). The goal of the Democrats was clear: to maintain the dominance of their white elites in the South.
The Republicans concluded they lost in 2020,not because of their policy platform, there was none. Rather, it was a logistical issue: too many Blacks and other people of color were able to vote Democratic. The solution: prevent large numbers of them from voting in the next two elections.
The means chosen to accomplish this is to enact election laws in states they control making it more difficult for people of color, to vote (for Democrats). The excuse for doing so is the spurious claim of a need to prevent near non existent voter fraud.
There were no legal challenges to the actions of Democrats in 1879, but Republicans in 2020 brought 60 cases asserting fraud in the 11/03 presidential election. All failed for lack of credible evidence. Democrats are using the courts to challenge the Constitutionality and legality of this Republican legislation, asserting their intent is to deny equal voting rights to African Americans. The case also argued these new state election laws violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The 6-3 conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, decided there was no racial discrimination, letting this state law stand. This finding raises serious questions among Democrats about the viability of similar legal actions, some already underway.
In 2020/21 the Republicans can reasonably count on the support of tens of millions of Americans in thrall to a former president and highly skilled demagogue, whom they believe is the rightful US chief executive.
In 1879, American politicians retained some regard for the commonweal. In 2020 and 21, not so much.
Will 21st Century Republicans Reprise Dems’ 19th Century Renovation?
Probably not.
Common sense and receptiveness to reality led the Democrats after losses in 1876 and 1880 to honestly analyze the election, identify their problems and draft a plan to resolve them. These 19th Century politicians reacted like politicians and recognized their brand and Southern orientation, were not attracting enough votes. Thus, they looked North and dropped racism, with excellent results in 1885.
In early July, 2021 there is little evidence the Republicans are interested in behaving like politicians in a representative democracy. If they were, they would deconstruct the 2020 election, learn why they lost the presidency by over 7 million popular votes and then substantially amend their campaign pitch to the electorate. Appealing to more voters, perhaps including African Americans, does not appear to be part of the plan forward.
Republicans, with some exceptions, appear to be in lock step to do whatever it takes to gain Congressional majorities in 2022 and the White House in 2024. Would this include violence? Unknown, but given the pattern of deadly tumult since 2017, culminating in the violent 1/06/21 insurrection and assault on the US Capitol, instigated by the former president, it cannot be ruled out.
Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of 4 books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.
Stephen Schaare says
Mr. Timberman, The issue of voting rights and race is a volatile and sensitive matter.
You make very broad and scurrilous claims that the 2021 Republican state legislators are determined to “reduce the number of black voters”. This is simply not true.
With such a sensitive issue, I believe you are “duty bound” to cite some evidence from the election laws. Please share with us a sentence, a clause or addendum from the Repub states to back up your claims.
In all likelihood I will be the only person to question you on this falsehood. You are not alone. Yes, Both Biden, Harris and MSNBC, CNN, make the same sweeping claims of voter suppression. Not a one has ever presented a shred of evidence.
This is your opportunity to set the record straight, and put an end to “the big lie”. Thank you for your time and consideration. Steve
Holly Geddes says
Mr. Timberman, thank you for an accurate history of the situation in the 1879 political situation. However, I have to agree with Mr. Schaare that your analysis of the current situation is quite off. Clearly you write from a Democratic perspective. The analysis of the voting is still on going so I will not comment except to say that Joe Biden is in the White House. There was a policy on the Republican side that major media never reported. Without the publicity, that policy was not enough. However, according to Pew Research, more people of color voted in 2020 than in any previous election. So, the supposed attempt to limit that vote simply failed. The states simply clarified voting by mail and other new voting techniques. As to the current legal consequences, again, I will wait for the results before I comment.
As to the Supreme Court, there have been times in its history when the balance was the reverse. But each justice is an individual and they have not always voted as their party affiliation indicated they “should”. They are each highly educated and vetted and I rely on their discretion.
The Republican Party is re-evaluating its position. Both parties are interested in winning in 2022 and 2024. That is obvious. We want people of color to join our celebration of the individual over the group identity. Just because you have straight blond hair you don’t have to vote Republican. Just because you have curly or straight black hair doesn’t mandate that you vote Democrat. Under Mr. Trump, the unemployment of all persons was lower than in any time in history. This was true for Black, Brown, White, and Mixed persons. I hope that is only one reason to vote Republican. This is especially true as inflation takes hold under the current administration.
Just as a footnote, the invasion of 1/6/2021 of the Peoples’ House was not only unfortunate but also despicable. However both the body count and financial difficulties caused by the “peaceful ;-]” riots in Portland, Minneapolis, et. al. has been far higher. Businesses owned by all peoples were destroyed. The evidence of discontent is clear in the number of folks who have moved to other states to leave these jurisdictions. Clearly, the Democrats have to get their own house in order.
Tom Timberman says
Mr Schaare,
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my recent article. And you are absolutely right that voting rights and race are volatile and sensitive matters and have been for several centuries, particularly following the Civil War. For over 70 years former confederate states used Jim Crow laws and regulations and violence to limit African American access to voting.
But, that’s just history. Today, a large number of states Republicans either totally control (governor + legislature) or partially (Just legislature) have already passed or are considering, laws restricting access to the ballot. The following is a partial list:
1. Arizona: Purge current of those who normally receive mail in ballots. The state senate has sponsored a still on-going voter recount.
2. Arkansas: Absentee ballots must be returned earlier and not on election day, as was the past practice.
3. Florida Added more ID requirements for those voting by mail and reduces the number of drop boxes and restricts hours they may be used.
4. Georgia: New ID requirements for those mailing in ballots; number of drop boxes sharply reduced and state secretary of state, traditionally in charge of elections, has been replaced by appointees of legislatures.
5. Iowa: Shortened period to request/return mail in ballots, significantly reduced number of drop boxes;shortened polling place hours and prohibits third parties from helping voters fill out, mail in or deliver absenttee ballots.
6. Kansas: Prohibits state judiciary or executive branches (counties) from changing election laws – only legislature. Limits on mail in voting.
7. Montana: Prohibits registering to vote on Election Day and students are no longer allowed to use student IDs to vote. Need 2nd ID.
8. Texas: Requires new ID and prohibits ban drive through voting and extended hours during early voting.
8. Wyoming: If individuals vote in person, must show acceptable ID; name on voters list no longer enough.
More recently, Georgia, Iowa and Florida have restricted election administrators’ authority so send absentee ballot applications to voters who have not specifically requested them
As you know, the rationale is much the same in all these states and builds on former President Trump’s claim that his reelection was stolen from him. Thus, thus stricter anti-fraud measures are necessary. Over 60 court actions by the Trump Campaign Committ4e were defeated because no credible evidence of fraud was offered. Moreover, none has been publicized by the states listed above.
Sorry, to ramble on, but this is a subject I’ve followed for a long time.
Tom
Stephen Schaare says
Dear Tom, Thank you. Your reply to my comment was the most helpful and kindest I have ever received. Your knowledge and scholarship on voting is clearly evident.
There are two aspects of voting on which I remain confused. I was under the impression that wide spread mail in (not absentee)voting started with the 2020 election due to Covid. Is this correct? I have always viewed mail in voting as especially vulnerable to “mischief ”
Are these new regulations by Repub state legislatures trying to restore voting to how it was prior to 2020?
Also, how would any or all of these new regulations especially restrict minorities? Would not all voters be affected equally regardless of race?
Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback. Steve
James Nick says
Newton’s third law of motion is formally stated as: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law of physics is indisputable and is why we can put a man on the moon. But this law clearly has broader applicability beyond physics and is just as indisputable.
Action: In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Reaction: Within hours of the ruling the GOP-dominated North Carolina legislature formulated and eventually passed voter suppression laws they understood would disproportionately impact Black voters.
Action: In October, 2020, during early voting in the run up to the general election last year, it was reported (1) that North Carolina was experiencing a surge in voting by mail.
Reaction: Republicans obtained a court order to make it easier to reject mailed ballots on technicalities as well as enforce other key elements of the North Carolina voter laws. The state is about 20% Black; 40% of the contested ballots were from Black voters.
Action: In the 2020 general election, Biden received 87%, 65%, and 61% of the Black, Latino, and Asian vote, respectively (2).
Reaction: As of June 21, 2021, 17 Red states have enacted 28 new laws that restrict access to the vote (3).
Mr Schaare asks “… how would any or all of these new regulations especially restrict minorities? Would not all voters be affected equally regardless of race?”
Here it is instructive to consider what happened in North Carolina. In August 2014, a federal judge upheld the Republican-backed state law but that decision was overturned on appeal in July, 2016. The language in the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (4) pretty much says it all…
“… This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina…
…As the evidence in the record makes clear, that is what happened here. After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”
There’s the answer to your question Mr Schaare. No, not all voters would be affected equally by these new regulations regardless of race. Using the words of the Court of Appeals, all these legislative actions are intended to disproportionately affect African Americans with almost surgical precision. It’s that simple. You can’t put lipstick on this pig. It’s naked, unapologetic, in-your-face racism.
As for Mr Schaare’s view that, in his opinion, mail in voting is especially vulnerable to “mischief ” Who cares? I happen to think civilians possessing military-grade weapons of mass destruction leads to “mischief” as well. So?
(1) https://time.com/5902729/black-voter-suppression-2020/
(2) https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
(3) https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
(4) https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/news-announcements/2016/07/29/opinion-of-the-court-in-no.-16-1468(l)-n.c.-state-conference-of-the-naacp-v.-patrick-mccrory
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Nick, Very vague stuff here. HOW do new laws suppress minority voters?
HOW? THAT is my question. How? What restriction? ” No people of color allowed? “You must be a chess grandmaster”? Please be specific. Thank you.
James Nick says
Hi Schaare. So you want some specifics about how voting laws suppress minority votes, eh? It’s simple. Just google the following search term… “how do voter laws specifically suppress minority voters” You will get an eyeful. There are too many sources to footnote but here’s a sampling of what you will find…
•In-person voting fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.
•Millions of Americans do not have one form of ID acceptable for voting in some states. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites. Even if IDs are offered for free, voters cannot easily obtain the underlying documents that are for a photo ID card. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.
•Texas law prohibits forms of photo ID that minority voters were disproportionately likely to use, such as student IDs and state employee IDs, but it does allow forms of identification disproportionately used by white people. Texas permits voters to use a handgun license to vote, but not a student ID from a state university. More than 80 percent of handgun licenses issued to Texans in 2018 went to white Texans, while more than half of the students in the University of Texas system are racial or ethnic minorities. Not to be missed here is that Texas also allows concealed weapons carry permits as acceptable forms of ID. Turns out concealed carry permits are also available to noncitizens (go ahead, google it!) completely undermining the rationale that the photo ID law was intended to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting.
•In North Dakota: a federal district court found that, when the state enacted its current ID law in 2017, 19 percent of Native Americans lacked qualifying ID compared to less than 12 percent of other potential voters.
•An example of the inherent discrimination of voter ID laws can be found in the implementation of Georgia’s “exact match” system. This program requires an individual’s voting status to be suspended if the name on their driver’s license or Social Security records does not exactly match the name they inputted on their voter registration form. Of the 51,000 individuals that this law affected in 2018, 80 percent of them were African American. There is evidence that the “exact match” law played a role in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, as African American candidate Stacey Abrams lost by approximately 55,000 votes.
•The appeals court in the North Carolina case found that restrictions on the number of days for early voting had a much larger effect on black voters”. The law eliminated one of two “souls to the polls” Sundays, when black churches provided rides to polling places
•Tennessee imposed new hurdles for third-party voter registration drives in response to a “large-scale effort to register black voters” ahead of the 2018 election. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-large-scale-effort-to-register-black-voters-led-to-a-crackdown-in-tennessee/2019/05/24/9f6cee1e-7284-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html
•It is far more difficult for members of minority communities to be able to locate polling places on Election Day. Only 5 percent of white survey respondents reported that they had trouble finding polling locations, compared to 15 percent of African American and 14 percent of Hispanic respondents. This finding squares with research indicating that frequent changes to polling-site locations hurt minority voters more.
•Another major issue is the access to translated voting materials, which greatly decreases minority voter turnout. In the last election in communities that spoke little English, translated voting ballots were found to be responsible for increasing voter turnout by 11 points in the 2004 presidential election.
•Nine percent of black respondents and 9 percent of Hispanic respondents indicated that, in the last election, they (or someone in their household) were told that they lacked the proper identification to vote. Just 3 percent of whites said the same. Ten percent of black respondents and 11 percent of Hispanic respondents reported that they were incorrectly told that they weren’t listed on voter rolls, as opposed to 5 percent of white respondents.
•In Wisconsin, a study found that the number of Democrats who didn’t vote because they lacked proper ID exceeded Trump’s margin of victory, and that the biggest decreases in turnout were in black neighborhoods, a clear signal that race-based voter suppression was in play. See https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/top-republican-official-says-trump-won-wisconsin-because-of-voter-id-law/
I could go on and on. The examples are endless. But you could probably trim that down to perhaps only one, maybe two, examples of how are minority votes are suppressed by red state voting laws if you modify my suggested search term by appending one or more of the following terms… “foxnews” or “one America news network” or “Brietbart” or perhaps better, the oxymoronic “the american thinker”.
R.T. Crandall says
HISTORICALLY INCORRECT AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST
It did not take long into this read to be overcome with disillusionment — I’m always game for a good piece of comparative history. As a compare-and-contrast exercise, which is what Mr. Timberman is attempting here, this does not reach the low water mark. It is historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. He tries to lure the reader with a promise of a historical analysis. What you get is a political smear piece — a generalized smear masquerading as historical analysis, and a very poorly written one at that. He uses rhetorical tools such as hero and villain in order to brand the two political parties, historically and in the present. Guess who is who? Very predictable and sophomoric.
It was interesting to read that the Dems had their conversion from pro-slavery to equal rights consciousness in the 19th century? Really? The facts of the matter are that the Republicans fought a war to abolish slavery, were the only party that would register the newly freed slaves to vote, The Jim Crow laws and the Bull Conners of this world were all Democrats and persistent well into the 1970’s! Mr. Timberman suffers from chronological confusion, among others. The school system was desegregated by a Republican President, the military fully integrated under a Republican President, and the landmark Civil Rights Legislation was passed only because of Republican support and by the then President Johnson’s ability to break the Democratic filibuster attempting to prevent its passage. I look forward to the day when the African-American community wakes up and realizes who the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is. That will be fun.
I was puzzled about who this author is. So I looked into it. He says he is the author of 4 books. Must have been self-published given the demonstrated language skills, but even so, I cannot find them or any record of them on Amazon. He states that he is a speaker on the international collegiate tour, but I couldn’t find any of that either. I did locate an article when he was running for an elected office here locally. His platform apparently was, an inspiring “he will learn what we all want by 2025”. He lost. Wonder why. Gives me faith.
Grenville B. Whitman says
“The Republican agenda right now is a combination of three things: Opposition to whatever President Joe Biden and the Democrats propose; support for whatever Fox News Channel’s product of the month happens to be; support for whatever incoherent and self-serving whims come out of Trump’s mouth.”
—Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg Opinion
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Grenville, You truly need to get past “Fox News” and the influence of a former President living in Florida and playing golf. Have you ever watched “Fox News”? Opposing Biden is the correct path. There, I said it.
Holly Geddes says
Quick. To the point. Correct. Thanks Stephen Schaare.
R.T.Crandall says
You’re not alone. Thank you for bringing it up.