Civil Rights Act of 1866? Not 1964?


Joseph H. Rainey – 1st Black Member of the lower House of Congress 1870-1879

I present the following article as a reminder to all, that the party of Racism has always been the Democrat Party; through all the smokescreen where they talk about some “Big Switch”; though you can’t find any evidence of any major party switch in history, but Democrats do love to trot out any micro-victory they can find along the way.

This short piece is about the first African-American in the Lower-House of Congress, and only the 2nd African-American Congress member overall, and what he had to say at the time just after the Civil War, on whom it was that stood against Black Americans.

Just a bit of history first:

Mr. Joseph Hayne Rainey – South Carolina Congress Member from December, 1870 to March, 1879

Mr. Rainey was born in Georgetown, South Carolina in 1832, to slaves Edward Sr. and Grace Rainey. Edward purchased freedom for himself, his wife and 2 sons, after doing enough side-work as an independent Barber.

Joseph found himself conscripted (forced) in 1861 into service for the Confederate Army, along with other free (oxymoron here) Blacks, but he and his family escaped to St. George’s, Bermuda, and returned to South Carolina in 1866 after the end of the Civil War.

While on St. George’s, Joseph reestablished his Barber business, and his wife owned her own dressmaking business; all on a tiny island with a majority White population.

Joseph was a delegate to South Carolina’s Republican Constitutional Convention in 1868, where the State prepared a new State Constitution during the Reconstruction Era, for rejoining the Union, following the Civil War.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first U.S. Federal Law to define citizenship and guarantee equal protection under the law. Originally passed the year before, the Bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but was passed again in 1866 to support the 13th amendment. Johnson again vetoed the Bill, but Congress got its 2/3 majority in both houses, to override the veto.

(Seems a bit of irony that a President Johnson was involved in the 1866; and the 1964 Civil Rights legislation)

Following, is an excerpt from a Floor-Speech Joseph Rainey gave in 1871, in response to a statement made by U.S. House Representative Samuel S. Cox of New York, with some at the expense of Joseph Rainey and other Black South Carolina Representatives.

(I do not own any rights to this excerpt)

Source:

Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1872), pp. 1442, 1443.

See how familiar some things appear:

“The remarks made by the gentleman from New York in relation to the colored people of South Carolina escaped my hearing, as I was in the rear of the Hall when they were made, and I did not know that any utterance of that kind had emanated from him. I have always entertained a high regard for the gentleman from New York, because I believed him to be a useful member of the House. He is a gentleman of talent and of fine education, and I have thought heretofore that he would certainly be charitable toward a race of people who have never enjoyed the same advantages that he has. If the colored people of South Carolina had been accorded the same advantages—if they had had the same wealth and surroundings which the gentleman from New York has had, they would have shown to this nation that their color was no obstacle to their holding positions of trust, political or otherwise. Not having had these advantages, we cannot at the present time compete with the favored race of this country; but perhaps if our lives are spared, and if the gentleman from New York and other gentlemen on that side of the House will only accord to us right and justice, we shall show to them that we can be useful, intelligent citizens of this country. But if they will continue to proscribe us, if they will continue to cultivate prejudice against us; if they will continue to decry the Negro and crush him under foot, then you cannot expect the Negro to rise while the Democrats are trampling upon him and his rights. We ask you, sir, to do by the Negro as you ought to do by him in justice.

If the Democrats are such staunch friends of the Negro, why is it that when propositions are offered here and elsewhere looking to the elevation of the colored race, and the extension of right and justice to them, do the Democrats array themselves in unbroken phalanx, and vote against every such measure? You, gentlemen of that side of the House, have voted against all the recent amendments of the Constitution, and the laws enforcing the same. Why did you do it? I answer, because those measures had a tendency to give to the poor Negro his just rights, and because they proposed to knock off his shackles and give him freedom of speech, freedom of action, and the opportunity of education, that he might elevate himself to the dignity of manhood.

Now you come to us and say that you are our best friends. We would that we could look upon you as such. We would that your votes as recorded in the Globe from day to day could only demonstrate it. But your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats are in opposition to them, and if they [the Democrats] could have sway our race would have no foothold here.

Now, sir, I have not time to vindicate fully the course of action of the colored people of South Carolina. We are certainly in the majority there; I admit that we are as two to one. Sir, I ask this House, I ask the country, I ask white men, I ask Democrats, I ask Republicans whether the Negroes have presumed to take improper advantage of the majority they hold in that State by disregarding the interest of the minority? They have not. Our convention which met in 1868, and in which the Negroes were in a large majority, did not pass any proscriptive or disfranchising acts, but adopted a liberal constitution, securing alike equal rights to all citizens, white and black, male and female, as far as possible. Mark you, we did not discriminate, although we had a majority. Our constitution towers up in its majesty with provisions for equal protection of all classes and citizens. Notwithstanding our majority there, we have never attempted to deprive any man in that State of the rights and immunities to which he is entitled under the Constitution of this Government. You cannot point me to a single act passed by our Legislature, at any time, which had a tendency to reflect upon or oppress any white citizen of South Carolina. You cannot show me one enactment by which the majority in our State have undertaken to crush the white men because the latter are in a minority.

I say to you, gentlemen of the Democratic party, that I want you to deal justly with the people composing my race. I am here representing a Republican constituency made up of white and colored men. I say to you deal with us justly; be charitable toward us. An opportunity will soon present itself when we can test whether you on that side of the House are the best friends of the oppressed and ill-treated Negro race. When the civil rights bill comes before you, when that bill comes up upon its merits asking you to give civil rights of the Negro, I will then see who are our best friends on that side of the House.

I will say to the gentleman from New York that I am sorry I am constrained to make these remarks. I wish to say to him that I do not mind what he may have said against the Negroes of South Carolina. Neither his friendship nor his enmity will change the sentiment of the loyal men of that State.

We are determined to stand by this Government. We are determined to use judiciously and wisely the prerogative conferred upon us by the Republican party. The democratic party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans so long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us”

Sounds like the good ole Democrats were already bribing and blackmailing Blacks.

I found this to be an interesting piece of history.

J.W.

www.rafonreport.com

We are Dismantling the Beast, one piece at a time.

God Bless You, and God Bless America

Liked it? Take a second to support Jerry on Patreon!

Avatar

Jerry is a concerned citizen of the great country of the United States of America. Being a student of world history, he recognizes the left-leaning markers that are increasingly becoming ever more present in society: from the violent protests and marches, to Republican Campaign trail attacks against right-wing supporters, to the destruction of civil war monuments, to the safe-spaces and attacks against Conservative speakers on college campuses, to the left-wing hate speech that plagues the internet. Jerry knows the destructive paths and history of leftist movements such as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. He has decided it’s time for real Patriots to rise up.


Joseph H. Rainey – 1st Black Member of the lower House of Congress 1870-1879

I present the following article as a reminder to all, that the party of Racism has always been the Democrat Party; through all the smokescreen where they talk about some “Big Switch”; though you can’t find any evidence of any major party switch in history, but Democrats do love to trot out any micro-victory they can find along the way.

This short piece is about the first African-American in the Lower-House of Congress, and only the 2nd African-American Congress member overall, and what he had to say at the time just after the Civil War, on whom it was that stood against Black Americans.

Just a bit of history first:

Mr. Joseph Hayne Rainey – South Carolina Congress Member from December, 1870 to March, 1879

Mr. Rainey was born in Georgetown, South Carolina in 1832, to slaves Edward Sr. and Grace Rainey. Edward purchased freedom for himself, his wife and 2 sons, after doing enough side-work as an independent Barber.

Joseph found himself conscripted (forced) in 1861 into service for the Confederate Army, along with other free (oxymoron here) Blacks, but he and his family escaped to St. George’s, Bermuda, and returned to South Carolina in 1866 after the end of the Civil War.

While on St. George’s, Joseph reestablished his Barber business, and his wife owned her own dressmaking business; all on a tiny island with a majority White population.

Joseph was a delegate to South Carolina’s Republican Constitutional Convention in 1868, where the State prepared a new State Constitution during the Reconstruction Era, for rejoining the Union, following the Civil War.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first U.S. Federal Law to define citizenship and guarantee equal protection under the law. Originally passed the year before, the Bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but was passed again in 1866 to support the 13th amendment. Johnson again vetoed the Bill, but Congress got its 2/3 majority in both houses, to override the veto.

(Seems a bit of irony that a President Johnson was involved in the 1866; and the 1964 Civil Rights legislation)

Following, is an excerpt from a Floor-Speech Joseph Rainey gave in 1871, in response to a statement made by U.S. House Representative Samuel S. Cox of New York, with some at the expense of Joseph Rainey and other Black South Carolina Representatives.

(I do not own any rights to this excerpt)

Source:

Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1872), pp. 1442, 1443.

See how familiar some things appear:

“The remarks made by the gentleman from New York in relation to the colored people of South Carolina escaped my hearing, as I was in the rear of the Hall when they were made, and I did not know that any utterance of that kind had emanated from him. I have always entertained a high regard for the gentleman from New York, because I believed him to be a useful member of the House. He is a gentleman of talent and of fine education, and I have thought heretofore that he would certainly be charitable toward a race of people who have never enjoyed the same advantages that he has. If the colored people of South Carolina had been accorded the same advantages—if they had had the same wealth and surroundings which the gentleman from New York has had, they would have shown to this nation that their color was no obstacle to their holding positions of trust, political or otherwise. Not having had these advantages, we cannot at the present time compete with the favored race of this country; but perhaps if our lives are spared, and if the gentleman from New York and other gentlemen on that side of the House will only accord to us right and justice, we shall show to them that we can be useful, intelligent citizens of this country. But if they will continue to proscribe us, if they will continue to cultivate prejudice against us; if they will continue to decry the Negro and crush him under foot, then you cannot expect the Negro to rise while the Democrats are trampling upon him and his rights. We ask you, sir, to do by the Negro as you ought to do by him in justice.

If the Democrats are such staunch friends of the Negro, why is it that when propositions are offered here and elsewhere looking to the elevation of the colored race, and the extension of right and justice to them, do the Democrats array themselves in unbroken phalanx, and vote against every such measure? You, gentlemen of that side of the House, have voted against all the recent amendments of the Constitution, and the laws enforcing the same. Why did you do it? I answer, because those measures had a tendency to give to the poor Negro his just rights, and because they proposed to knock off his shackles and give him freedom of speech, freedom of action, and the opportunity of education, that he might elevate himself to the dignity of manhood.

Now you come to us and say that you are our best friends. We would that we could look upon you as such. We would that your votes as recorded in the Globe from day to day could only demonstrate it. But your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats are in opposition to them, and if they [the Democrats] could have sway our race would have no foothold here.

Now, sir, I have not time to vindicate fully the course of action of the colored people of South Carolina. We are certainly in the majority there; I admit that we are as two to one. Sir, I ask this House, I ask the country, I ask white men, I ask Democrats, I ask Republicans whether the Negroes have presumed to take improper advantage of the majority they hold in that State by disregarding the interest of the minority? They have not. Our convention which met in 1868, and in which the Negroes were in a large majority, did not pass any proscriptive or disfranchising acts, but adopted a liberal constitution, securing alike equal rights to all citizens, white and black, male and female, as far as possible. Mark you, we did not discriminate, although we had a majority. Our constitution towers up in its majesty with provisions for equal protection of all classes and citizens. Notwithstanding our majority there, we have never attempted to deprive any man in that State of the rights and immunities to which he is entitled under the Constitution of this Government. You cannot point me to a single act passed by our Legislature, at any time, which had a tendency to reflect upon or oppress any white citizen of South Carolina. You cannot show me one enactment by which the majority in our State have undertaken to crush the white men because the latter are in a minority.

I say to you, gentlemen of the Democratic party, that I want you to deal justly with the people composing my race. I am here representing a Republican constituency made up of white and colored men. I say to you deal with us justly; be charitable toward us. An opportunity will soon present itself when we can test whether you on that side of the House are the best friends of the oppressed and ill-treated Negro race. When the civil rights bill comes before you, when that bill comes up upon its merits asking you to give civil rights of the Negro, I will then see who are our best friends on that side of the House.

I will say to the gentleman from New York that I am sorry I am constrained to make these remarks. I wish to say to him that I do not mind what he may have said against the Negroes of South Carolina. Neither his friendship nor his enmity will change the sentiment of the loyal men of that State.

We are determined to stand by this Government. We are determined to use judiciously and wisely the prerogative conferred upon us by the Republican party. The democratic party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans so long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us”

Sounds like the good ole Democrats were already bribing and blackmailing Blacks.

I found this to be an interesting piece of history.

J.W.

www.rafonreport.com

We are Dismantling the Beast, one piece at a time.

God Bless You, and God Bless America

Liked it? Take a second to support Jerry on Patreon!

Avatar

Jerry is a concerned citizen of the great country of the United States of America. Being a student of world history, he recognizes the left-leaning markers that are increasingly becoming ever more present in society: from the violent protests and marches, to Republican Campaign trail attacks against right-wing supporters, to the destruction of civil war monuments, to the safe-spaces and attacks against Conservative speakers on college campuses, to the left-wing hate speech that plagues the internet. Jerry knows the destructive paths and history of leftist movements such as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. He has decided it’s time for real Patriots to rise up.

Leave a Reply