Three Black U.S. Senators Since Reconstruction—Who & Why So Few?

There have been three black United States Senators elected in post-reconstruction America.

( Here is a post on the three black post-reconstruction Governors.)

Just three. 

Here is who they are and here are some reasons as to why there have been so few.  

 

Ed Brooke was a Republican elected from Massachusetts  in 1966 and 1972.  He was defeated in 1978 by Paul Tsongas who went on to a notable career himself. Mr. Brooke was part of the moderate to liberal wing of the Republican party that does not so much exist anymore. The decline of moderate Republicanism is a big reason why Democrats are so strong in New England and New York state today.   

Here is a Time Magazine article from 1971 pondering if President Richard Nixon would consider replacing Vice President Spiro Agnew on the ticket with Senator Brooke.  

 Carol Moseley Braun is the only black woman to have served in the Senate. She represented Illinois. Ms. Moseley Braun defeated an incumbent Democrat Senator in a primary in 1992 and went on to win the General Election.

People had hopes for Carol Moseley Braun. For a variety of reasons, some maybe relating to her own mistakes and some maybe a product of unreasonable expectations, Ms. Moseley Braun lasted only one term. Some also cite racism as a problem she had to deal with.  This New York Times story from Ms. Moseley Braun’s 2004 run for President offers some perspective. 

If Ms. Moseley Braun had been able to hold on, Barack Obama would most likely not be in the Senate today. Mr. Obama now holds the seat once held by Ms. Moseley Braun. The Republican who defeated her in 1998, Peter Fitzgerald, did not run for reelection in 2004 against Mr. Obama in strongly Democratic Illinois.  

 

Barack Obama of Illinois was elected in 2004.

He is very much in the news today.  

Why only three black senators in post-Reconstruction America? 

 Here are some reasons for the low number —

1. Jim Crow and racism denied black people the right to vote and to run for office.

2. Even given the (not always uncontested) right of blacks to vote today, a large proportion of blacks in America live in the South where whites are not always inclined to vote for blacks. This is how George W. Bush easily carries Mississippi even though 30% of the people there are black.  

3. Many states have very few black people and so black candidates are less likely to emerge from these places. (However, as I’ll be discussing in an upcoming post, sometimes black candidates do better where there are fewer blacks. Ed Brooke’s Massachusetts was a very white state. And Massachusetts is the only state with a black governor in 2008. )   

4. The overwhelming majority of blacks are Democrats. As many Senators are Republicans, this limits the options.

5. Since most blacks are going to vote for Democrats no matter what, Democrats use this fact and do not push blacks to run for the highest offices. If someone is going to do something for you anyway, why not take advantage of them seems to be the line of thinking. 

6.  Since many black office holders have safe majority-minority districts or serve in majority-black cities, why take a chance on a tough statewide race?

7. Black politicians often have a terrible record of cultivating new people and young people for the tough battles ahead. It’s easy to sit in a safe seat and accumulate power while looking the other way at how the Democratic party uses blacks. It is more difficult to help people and fight for people in a more constructive way. 

(There have been a total of five black U.S. Senators. The other two, from the Reconstruction Era were Hiram Revels a Republican from Mississippi who served in 1870 and 1871, and another Mississippi Republican, Blanche Bruce, who served from 1875 until 1881. Both of these men were appointed by the state legislature as was done for much of American history. Here is information about the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, that provided for direct election of Senators. )

Texas Liberal is leading the way in political history blogging in 2008. Please click here for more political history posts on Texas Liberal.

Finding The Time And Discipline Needed To Figure Out What Is Important

The following is from Graham Greene’s The End Of The Affair. The starting point is a meeting between a private detective and a novelist. The Mr. Savage in this excerpt is the detective—

” ‘And if there’s anything more you could tell me that would be relevant?’  I remember Mr. Savage had said—a detective must find it as important as a novelist to amass his trivial materials before picking out the right clue. But how difficult that picking out is–the release of the real subject. The enormous pressure of the real world weighs down on us like a peine forte et dure…..How can I disinter the human character from the heavy scene—the daily newspaper, the daily meal, the traffic grinding toward Battersea, the gulls coming up from the Thames looking for bread, and the early summer of 1939 glinting on the park where the children sailed their boats—one of those bright condemned pre-war summers?”  ( Please see the bottom of the post for what peine forte et dure means and where Battersea is located.)

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have the time to sit and think— or maybe take a walk and think— and to be able to sift out what’s important from what’s not important or not as important? 

I recall the Japanese Tea Garden (picture below) in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco as a place where I felt I could think. But I’ve only been there once and may never go again.

The time and effort to think things through, must, when all is said and done, be summoned as act of personal discipline and good use of time.

( I’ve looked up what peine forte et dure means–It was a form of punishment for a defendant who refused to plead one way or another to a crime. Heavier and heavier stones would be placed on his chest until he either made a plea or died. Battersea is a section of London running along the River Thames—I had to look that up as well.)