Bruce Bartlett is again saying that because the Democratic party was the party of white supremacy therefore the GOP is better on race.
We have dealt with this issue directly before, and indirectly too.
This is officially an award-winning blog
Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."
20 comments
July 17, 2008 at 8:25 am
TF Smith
So “Lincoln ‘08″ is the best the GOP can do?
As a minor aside, Mr. Bartlett’s point that “segregation of the armed forces (was) established by Democrat Woodrow Wilson during World War I” is totally ahistorical; the US Army was segregated by regulation from (at least) the time of the Civil War to 1947; the organization of the “United States Colored Troops” in the Civil War makes that undeniable.
I don’t know if segregation was de facto or de jure in the antebellum Army; I’m sure someone here does.
July 17, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ben Alpers
Actually, TF Smith, I believe Bartlett’s argument is “Coolidge ‘08…He’s Better on Lynching Than Davis!”
What’s hilarious about the shell game that is the Republicans’ “we are the real party of civil rights” argument is that their phony baloney claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was somehow principally a Republican achievement flies smack into their own 1964 presidential candidate, who won most of his handful of electoral votes entirely on the basis of his opposition to African American civil rights.
So Coolidge it must be! In your heart you know he’s
rightdead!July 17, 2008 at 9:40 am
ari
Even funnier? Republican claims to be the party of civil rights while at the same time celebrating Strom Thurmond as a party leader. Irony!
July 17, 2008 at 9:57 am
silbey
“Jesse Helms: Not Really As Big A Racist As You Thought”
July 17, 2008 at 10:01 am
TF Smith
Wasn’t the late Sen. Thurmond well known for his outreach to African American women?
July 17, 2008 at 10:06 am
ari
I meant to write “Jesse Helms,” not “Strom Thurmond.” Oh well, six of one, half dozen of the other.
July 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Vance Maverick
six of one, half dozen of the other
God forbid.
July 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm
bitchphd
I love your posts on this stuff, Eric. Facts and depth combined with moral purpose and a sense of controlled civility are a heady combination.
July 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm
eric
Why, thank you, B. We do like our civility here.
July 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm
bitchphd
What I was trying to subtextually express is that it’s civility in the highest sense: driven by a sense of honorable dedication to the public sphere.
You know I argue against politeness for its own sake when it conflicts with the principle it’s meant to uphold. That’s because I’m haven’t mastered true civility the way you have, to my shame. But I admire the hell out of it when I see it done right.
July 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm
eric
the public sphere
Oh, that old thing. Didn’t you hear? It’s only a bourgeois construct.
July 17, 2008 at 9:03 pm
bitchphd
enabling fiction, I think you mean.
July 17, 2008 at 9:09 pm
eric
Aw, you were making me blush. I hadda say something.
July 17, 2008 at 9:51 pm
bitchphd
Heh. Here, have a kitten.
July 18, 2008 at 12:25 am
albiondia
Anyone know the answer to TF’s question? Were black troops accepted into the U.S. Army in the antebellum period? I’d imagine they might be present in militias in the Northeast, perhaps, but anyone know if there were efforts on the part of African-Americans to sign up for full military service?
July 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Charlieford
There were black units in the Continental Army, not just militias, but Washington had to lift a ban to allow them. (So says Wikipedia, from which I get all I know.) From 1792 to 1862, blacks were banned from the Army, but always made up a significant portion of sailors in the Navy. Go Navy. Btw, Bartlett probably meant to say that Wilson segregated federal buildings and offices, which is true. He’s still an idiot, however.
July 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm
washerdreyer
Anyone know anything about racial segregation/integration in the British Royal Navy? Aubrey/Maturin implies integrated, and had me wondering.
July 19, 2008 at 12:14 am
albiondia
I’m fairly sure the British Navy was pretty integrated, at least in the lower ranks: I know there are plenty of instances of black sailors of the British Navy being locked up under South Carolina state law during the course of the antebellum period. This riled the British public and, in particular, Palmerston, who was hardly pro-American at the best of times. Where this integration originated, I don’t know, and I’ve no idea if it’s a post-1833 development. So there’s plenty there I don’t know.
July 22, 2008 at 7:28 am
washerdreyer
Thanks.
July 22, 2008 at 10:17 am
silbey
but always made up a significant portion of sailors in the Navy. Go Navy
Which is kind of odd, because the Navy was, in many ways, the most racist of the services in the post-Civil War period.