Being Black And Republican Is Not A Thing

Black Republicanism is a real apho­rism, how­ev­er, in some ways, it seems as log­i­cal as walk­ing in an East-Westerly direc­tion, such is the inher­ent con­tra­dic­tion of it.

The strug­gle to under­stand the idea of Blacks align­ing them­selves with the Republican par­ty or sup­port­ing the par­ty’s agen­da is a real phe­nom­e­non. Nevertheless, it also begs the ques­tion why have some Blacks in oth­er parts of the world still see the Republican par­ty as an enti­ty wor­thy of their sup­port?

If some­one was to ask me what is it that most black peo­ple who sup­port the Republican par­ty have missed?.….…. I would read­i­ly respond that they missed the fact that the two polit­i­cal par­ties switched roles in the ear­ly 1960’s.
Conversely, If I was asked what is it which caus­es any black per­son to still sup­port the Republican Party, I would read­i­ly opine that the eman­ci­pa­tion procla­ma­tion signed by the then Republican pres­i­dent Abraham Lincoln still have some star­ry-eyed about the par­ty to this very day.

The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, may be looked at in its most sim­plis­tic form a‑la the unde­ni­able fact that 3.5 mil­lion enslaved African Americans in the des­ig­nat­ed areas of the South were moved from slave to a sense of pseu­do-free­dom.
Or we can scratch the sur­face and look at some hard facts as it relates to the mythol­o­gy sur­round­ing Lincoln’s valian­cy in sign­ing the Emancipation Proclamation. After three(3) years of a bloody civ­il war, Lincoln des­per­ate­ly need­ed bod­ies to fight his war.

The Emancipation Proclamation was lim­it­ed in many ways. It applied only to states that had seced­ed from the United States, leav­ing slav­ery untouched in the loy­al bor­der states. It also express­ly exempt­ed parts of the Confederacy (the Southern seces­sion­ist states) that had already come under Northern con­trol. Most impor­tant, the free­dom it promised depend­ed upon Union (United States) mil­i­tary vic­to­ry. Source[archives.gov]

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slav­ery in the nation, it cap­tured the hearts and imag­i­na­tion of mil­lions of Americans and fun­da­men­tal­ly trans­formed the char­ac­ter of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of fed­er­al troops expand­ed the domain of free­dom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the accep­tance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the lib­er­at­ed to become lib­er­a­tors. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black sol­diers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

According to [ Dr. Terry L. Jones of thep​iney​woods​.com] Lincoln became known as “The Great Emancipator,” but in real­i­ty, the Emancipation Proclamation’s promise of free­dom inten­tion­al­ly exclud­ed some 800,000 slaves-many of whom lived in Louisiana as well.
Some his­to­ri­ans have argued that Lincoln hat­ed Slavery, how­ev­er, in a pub­lic let­ter to the New York Tribune pub­lished just a month before he issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln declared “My para­mount objec­tive in this strug­gle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slav­ery. If I could save the Union with­out free­ing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by free­ing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by free­ing some and leav­ing oth­ers alone I would also do that.”
Yea, the Great Emancipator had no deep burn­ing desire in his gut to erad­i­cate the scourge of slav­ery, for him what­ev­er he would do about it had to jus­ti­fy his own end.


Emancipation, how­ev­er, was a com­pli­cat­ed mat­ter because most Northerners were fight­ing to restore the Union and had no inter­est in free­ing the slaves. To win the war, it was absolute­ly vital that Lincoln keep the slave-hold­ing Border States on his side, not to men­tion the thou­sands of slave-own­ing Southerners who had opposed seces­sion and were pro­vid­ing impor­tant sup­port to the Union.

Lincoln knew that if he attempt­ed to free all of the slaves, loy­al slave own­ers in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, and in the Union-con­trolled areas of the Confederacy, might well join the Rebels to pro­tect their valu­able slave prop­er­ty. To pre­vent that from hap­pen­ing, the Emancipation Proclamation care­ful­ly avoid­ed free­ing the slaves held by most Unionists.



Lincoln real­ized that slav­ery helped the Confederacy wage its war for inde­pen­dence. Slaves per­formed most of the labor in the South con­struct­ing Rebel mil­i­tary for­ti­fi­ca­tions, work­ing in muni­tions fac­to­ries, and har­vest­ing the food that fed the Confederate army. Every slave who worked in such a man­ner freed up a white man to serve in the army. Source [ Dr. Terry L. Jones]

Probably, the most impor­tant issue of the conun­drum Lincoln faced was the need to adopt­ing eman­ci­pa­tion as an offi­cial war goal also would make it less like­ly that the anti-slav­ery Europeans would inter­vene on the side of the Confederacy.
Lincoln was sin­gu­lar­ly focused on main­tain­ing the Union. If the French entered the war to pro­tect their ter­ri­to­ry of Louisana America as we know it today may well have been only a dream.

The cal­cu­lat­ed nature of the procla­ma­tion was not lost on peo­ple at the time, accord­ing to Professor Jones, one British news­pa­per not­ed, “The prin­ci­ple assert­ed is not that a human being can­not just­ly own anoth­er, but that he can­not own him unless he is loy­al to the United States.“


Even so, the {eman­ci­pa­tion procla­ma­tion} meant that the enslaved African-America pop­u­la­tion toil­ing end­less­ly in degrad­ing servi­tude could have some­thing to look for­ward to, a start­ing point on what would become a seem­ing­ly end­less sojourn to self-auton­o­my and cit­i­zen­ship.
Little did they know that even though the eman­ci­pa­tion procla­ma­tion would to some degree, remove the lit­er­al chains from their ankles, dark forces were already hard at work cre­at­ing an equal­ly brutish sys­tem known as [Jim Crow], which all but made the new­ly lib­er­at­ed blacks slaves again to the very mas­ters from whom they were just freed.

Like two trav­el­ers cross­ing paths in the dark the Republican par­ty which for what its worth, was the par­ty of eman­ci­pa­tion became the polit­i­cal par­ty to which white men ran after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the his­toric Civil Rights Act in a nation­al­ly tele­vised cer­e­mo­ny at the White House.
The Democratic Party was now the par­ty that looked out for the rights of blacks and whites were piss­ing mad.
For the aver­age white man, the negro had no right they should respect.

President Lyndon Johnson has been rumored to have said “We have lost the South for a gen­er­a­tion,” Johnson told an aide after he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
Dr. Steven J. Allen of cap​i​tal​re​search​.org push­es back against the asser­tion that Johnson ever made those com­ments.
Allen’s argu­ments are root­ed in the con­cept that if LBJ had made those com­ments, he would have been wrong. The Goldwater surge in the South„ he argues fad­ed quick­ly. With a hand­ful of excep­tions, Republican gains in the region in 1964 van­ished by 1966. Decades passed with Democrats still in firm con­trol of the South. 
In seek­ing to label those with whom he dis­agrees, like the Reverend Al Sharpton whom he tar­nish­es pejo­ra­tive­ly a ‘racist preach­er”, Allen for­got that President Johnson could have made the state­ment and be wrong, could have made the state­ment and be right even­tu­al­ly, and that there was no mutu­al exclu­siv­i­ty between com­pet­ing events.

Dr. Steven J. Allen, in seek­ing to estab­lish that the state­ment attrib­uted to President Johnson was a myth, inher­ent­ly failed to speak to the irrefutable fact that for decades after the sign­ing of the civ­il rights act, to the present day, the entire south has been a bas­tion of Republicanism.
An almost impen­e­tra­ble gar­ri­son which has hard­ly seen a Democrat car­ry a south­ern state, out­side Florida except for Carter who won his home state of Georgia, Bill Clinton who car­ried Arkansas and Al Gore win­ning Tennessee.

The laugh­able truth being ignored by Allen is that, whether Johnson said “we lost the south for gen­er­a­tions” or not is man­i­fest­ly unim­por­tant.
The Democratic par­ty even­tu­al­ly lost the south and parts beyond even­tu­al­ly. As a con­sol­i­da­tion of pur­pose devel­oped to re-lit­i­gate, if not retool for a new war under the mantra the south will rise again.


It prob­a­bly makes more sense to lay out the gross atroc­i­ties which the Republican Party has vis­it­ed on peo­ple of col­or since the par­ty took over the per­se­cu­tion of black peo­ple from the south­ern Democrats.
 Voter sup­pres­sion. Police bru­tal­i­ty. Blatant Racism and the list goes on and on. However, no Republican ini­tia­tive has been more detri­men­tal to African-Americans than the Nixon so-called war on drugs, con­tin­ued through Ford, Reagan and Bush.
In the peri­od since the war on drugs was launched the American prison pop­u­la­tion has sky­rock­et­ed to over two mil­lion. Many of those caught in the drag­net have been low-lev­el non­vi­o­lent drug offend­ers who just hap­pen to be black.

Even as Republican poli­cies have packed the pris­ons with non­vi­o­lent drug offend­ers, and result­ed in the depor­ta­tion of count­less oth­ers, state leg­is­la­tures con­trolled by Republicans have passed laws that make it impos­si­ble for offend­ers who have done time in prison to vote after they have paid their debt to soci­ety.
This has ren­dered a huge seg­ment of the male black pop­u­la­tion not just felons but made them unem­ploy­able and with­out the abil­i­ty to chose their lead­ers.
In many cas­es, they are denied basic ben­e­fits such as food stamps for the rest of their lives, that includes preg­nant women, peo­ple in drug treat­ment or recov­ery, and peo­ple suf­fer­ing from HIV/​AIDS sim­ply because they were once caught with drugs.
These racist dra­con­ian poli­cies ensure the recidi­vism of blacks and ensure that pris­ons remain filled with black bodies.

Speaking to this in her best sell­ing book [the new Jim Crow] Lawyer, Activist and Author Michelle Alexander said;” If shack­ling for­mer pris­on­ers with a life­time of debt and autho­riz­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion against them in employ­ment, hous­ing, edu­ca­tion, and pub­lic ben­e­fits is not enough to send the mes­sage that they are not want­ed and not even con­sid­ered full cit­i­zens, then strip­ping vot­ing rights from those labeled crim­i­nals sure­ly gets the point across.

I will prob­a­bly not change a sin­gle mind of the black peo­ple who vote Republican.
That was not my inten­tion, what I set out to do in this piece was to estab­lish a fac­tu­al foun­da­tion that puts to rest the friv­o­lous argu­ments around black peo­ple’s sup­port for a polit­i­cal par­ty which lit­er­al­ly hates them and has sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly worked toward their destruc­tion.
Black Republicanism is an oxy­moron that only makes sense if you are trav­el­ing in an east-west­er­ly direction.