Black History Month (Part 2): FDR and civil rights
President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs are often looked back upon fondly by Black Americans. That was not true of the Black leaders who had to deal with them at the time.
Here are excerpts from my book “Who Put Black Americans in that PLACE? The Long Sad History of the Democratic Party’s Oppression of Black Americans … to this day.”
The Roosevelt Civil Rights Legacy
“Though the debate rages about the effectiveness of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies in bringing America out of the Great Depression, the record is clear that economic recovery never benefited the Negro community—and was never designed to do so. Despite his promises, Roosevelt never integrated the armed forces. His appointments of Blacks were largely symbolic and into positions that had little real influence.
Statistics well establish that Negroes faired much more poorly from the Roosevelt policies than did White America. What is less understood is that it was not an unanticipated outcome but a matter of intent. Between his racist New Deal programs and his strategy of generational welfare dependency, Roosevelt did more to block Black access to integration and upward mobility than any post-Civil War president.
The New (Raw) Deal for Negroes
Despite Roosevelt’s later popularity among Black Americans, most civil rights leaders of the New Deal era opposed Roosevelt’s programs. Civil rights advocate and author William Pickens stated that “the New Deal’s legislative innovations for relief and recovery … either provided little or no assistance for Negroes or worked to their disadvantage.”
The online Equal Justice Initiative, which highlights the major events affecting minorities since colonial times, says this about the New Deal:
Throughout the 1930s, white Southern Democrats secured amendments excluding the majority of blacks from the benefits and protections of New Deal legislation that built the central pillars of the modern middle class. The Southern congressmen struck agricultural and domestic workers from the law establishing Social Security, barring over 60 percent of the black workforce overall, 85 percent of black women, and almost 75 percent of the Southern black workforce from receiving Social Security benefits. This included retirement benefits, welfare, and unemployment payments.
The Southern Democrats, capitalizing on their control of leadership positions in Congress and their effective veto power over almost any legislation, similarly barred farm workers and domestic workers from the protections of laws creating modern labor unions, and setting minimum wage and maximum hours. The Southern legislators secured provisions requiring local administration of the GI Bill, small business loans, home mortgage assistance, educational grants, and nearly all forms of federal financial aid that built our modern middle class and the assets that can be passed from generation to generation. Southern Democrats also prevented Congress from including any anti-discrimination language in social welfare programs, such as hospital construction grants, school lunches, and community health services. As explained by Representative James Mark Wilcox from Florida, “You cannot put the Negro and the White man on the same basis and get away with it.
As a result of this concerted effort by White Southern politicians, the unprecedented comprehensive government program represented by the New Deal disproportionately benefitted Whites and largely excluded Black people. The impact of this racially motivated, discriminatory legislating continues to profoundly impact the nation today. According to the Pew Research Center, White households possess roughly 20 times as much wealth as Black households, and more than a third of Black people have zero or negative wealth, compared to just 15 percent of Whites.
The Equal Justice Initiative report focuses on White southern Democrats, but it fails to reflect the complicity of Roosevelt and the national Democratic Party. For the American Negro community, the New Deal was not a policy of beneficence but might be better called a New Deal in hypocrisy.
While Roosevelt’s programs, with their alphabet soup acronyms, are highly praised by latter-day liberals and most modern-day Black leaders, the true history has been largely trumped by political propaganda that has infected academia, media, publishing, and entertainment.
In a 2003 Cato Institute article entitled “How FDR’s New Deal Harmed Millions of poor People,” author by Jim Powell wrote:
The price of Southern Democratic support for New Deal reforms was the exclusion of blacks from federal benefits and protections. Only in this way could Southern Democrats both support the reforms, which benefitted white industrial employees principally, without threatening the political economy of the racist South.”
While southern Blacks were denied the right to vote, access to jobs and the financial benefit of various New Deal programs, those in the North were being put on general welfare dependency as the alternative to constitutional civil rights, integration, and upward mobility.
Using government money for votes was evident in the advice of the Indiana Democrat V. G. Coplen, who advised FDR’s campaign manager, James Farley, to “use these projects to make votes for the Democratic Party.”
The online Digital History provided a summarized history of Roosevelt’s key New Deal programs:
Most New Deal programs discriminated against blacks. The NRA, for example, not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods, and the CCC maintained segregated camps. Furthermore, the Social Security Act excluded those job categories blacks traditionally filled.”
One of the primary crafters of the New Deal legislation was Alabama Senator Hugo Black. This was before Roosevelt put him on the Supreme Court and was recast as one of the Icons of liberal Democrats.
“Justice Hugo Black and the KKK
In 1937, in his first opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court, FDR nominated Alabama Democrat senator Hugo Black. While modern political pop culture has cast Black as an enlightened progressive jurist, he, like many progressives of that era, was far from a civil rights advocate. He was an outspoken White supremacist and racist.
At the time of his appointment, Black was a proud and active member of the Robert E. Lee chapter of the Ku Klux Klan—a fact well known to Roosevelt. Black’s nomination was opposed by numerous Negro groups, including the Black members of the National Medical Association. Their resolution stated that Black’s appointment was ‘noxious to the entire country as well as the Black race.’
As an attorney, Black built his public reputation as a defender of Klan members accused of murdering Negroes. He would pack juries with fellow Klansmen and use secret Klan hand signals to connect with jurors.
His all-White juries would routinely convict Black defendants. The same juries would acquit White defendants no matter the volume of evidence. In one case, they acquitted E. R. Stephenson, against whom the evidence clearly showed that he was guilty of murdering a Catholic priest, Father James E. Coyle, who aggressively promoted integration.
In his 1926 campaign for United States Senate, Black took his campaign to every Klavern in Alabama, preaching against both Negroes and Catholics. His finance chairman was the exalted cyclops of the Lee Klan.
Upon winning his nomination, Black referred to Klan support in his speech: ‘I realize that I was elected by men who believe in the principles that I have sought to advocate, and which are the principles of this organization [the KKK].’
While in the Senate, the future Supreme Court Justice joined his southern Democrat colleagues in consistently opposing Republican anti-lynching bills. In 1935, Black launched a filibuster that led to the defeat of the Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill.
Upon defeat of the anti-lynching bill, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported how Black had grinned and shook hands with his fellow Democrats in their joyful victory in protecting racial lynching from federal justice.
On the Supreme Court, Black was part of a racist majority that consistently limited the scope of the civil rights acts. He supported Roosevelt’s clearly unconstitutional incarceration of Japanese Americans in concentration camps. He wrote a dissenting opinion in a case that reversed the conviction of Black freedom riders. He complained that rulings supporting the right of Blacks to assemble and protest as nothing more than giving special benefit to Negroes. ‘Unfortunately, there are some who think that Negroes should have special privileges under the law,’ he said.
As a Supreme Court Justice, Black was among the majority of Democrat justices who decided the contested Georgia gubernatorial election in favor of Democrat racist Lester Maddox over Republican Howard Calloway in 1966.
Despite this extensive provable history of hard-core racism and devotion to the KKK, Black is ironically a heroic figure within the Democratic Party.”
Black History Month (Part 3) will provide more detail on the specific racism of the New Deal programs.
So, there ‘tis.
White history month is long overdue
Seth…If you objectively look at teaching history in America, you would know that Black history was not taught to any meaningful degree until the mid 1900s. Since then we have taught more about Black history, but it has been twisted by partisan political propaganda and misinformation more or less by the left-wingers who control the education institutions. The history taught and amplified in the media is one-sided and in many cases false. That is why I wrote the book. To bring challenge and facts the lies and bring balance to the big picture. And those on the left attack the truth for obvious reasons. Their political future depends on the false propaganda.
Yeah, Larry will write about Martin Luther King during White History Month in honor to his study of FDR, our first black Presidentt during BHM. On Easter he celebrates the Turkey…..
Frank Danger ….More snarky comments and personal sarcastic insults. You stock in trade.
Let’s cover Black History Month by covering whites what done them wrong….. FDR….. is he Black?
Now, the Constitution allows slavery, does not end it, perhaps some weak language about disallowing expansion with pretty explicit language about returning slaves to owner. All men created equal my ass, and yes, MEN as the Constitution did not allow women to vote. And then there’s the 3/5th rule…..
The Founding Fathers were all white. There were the Federalists — my guys, and the Democratic Republicans, your guys, who often went by the brand, Republican. But all these white guy founders signed that racist document and the entire country did not begin to escape that Constitutionally until the 13th amendment adopting in 1865. For close to 100 years, we all supported this.
For BHM, Horist dives in depth into the scion of the Democratic Party, a white guy, to promote Black History. That’s just perverse.
Yes, Larry, as you lament, those were, and these are “More snarky comments,” because you deserve no better and dish out a lot of snark yourself. As to your feeling of “personal sarcastic insults,” that’s on you babe. if you personally feel insulted by those tame comments, good. Personally, I say thin skin, But you should feel insulted when you celebrate Black History Month by celebrating a white racist, or so you claim.
I think you have other motives and I feel personally insulted at the mere thought. My party is even more insulted by your fake shout-out to Black History.
Holy shit Frank. You really do hate your country. All you do is criticize and bitch. We really don’t need race baiting assholes like you. You mentioned that the founders were white. So what? You ignorant piece of shit. I don’t fucking apologize for being white.
Seth, fair enough, but what proof do you offer that I “really do hate your country” by merely shedding light on who the founders were in comparison to Horist’s biased view of who FDR is ……apparently in homage to Black History Month and black history. Did I get the facts wrong? And I don’t always criticize and bitch and certainly are doing neither here.
Race baiting? Really — you feel like bait? How odd. Out of the blue you stated:”I don’t fucking apologize for being white.” I don’t think you need any bait, really.
And no, thank you for begging the question, I do not think the founders to be any more racist than I think FDR is racist. They all made accommodations to get things done. And I feel FDR could have, should have, stepped up and did the right thing more often than he did. The Founders — I think a little less so as I think they did what had to be done, at that time, and did it in a way that was pretty damned transparent. However, both the Founders and FDR, as well as you, I, and even Horist participate in institutional racism to this very day. The difference is that I see it all around, Horist only sees it in Democrats, and further, likes to tie today’s modern Democratic Party, and all the current Democrats under than umbrellas, all the way back to the first slave entering America. And yeah, given the founders, I take exception to that. Somehow Horist feels the only racism is in the cities and it magically stopped at the city line and does not exist in Republican strongholds. I firmly do not think that to be true.
I don’t think I ever asked anyone to apologize for being white, black, or even stupid. I have asked, and ask you, to provide actual evidence to your fantastical claims about me when you spew these bogus opinions not grounded in any facts whatsoever.
But you are right about this: I spell my name —- danger. Can you feel it, sure seems like it, bask in it, enjoy the ride.
Our so called first black president was not even supposed to have been elected. He was born in Kenya to a Kenyan pappy and a white communist mammy. Yes, h produced a birth certificate for Hawaii but I could produce one for bumfuk Egypt
Tom … I did a lot of research on that issue, and it is clear that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is a lot more proof than the birth certificate. And there is no reason to believe it is forged. While it is true that his father was Kenyan, Barack was born in American of an American mother,
Those white southern democrats are now Republicans after Johnson’s desegregation efforts alienated them. Today’s Republicans are the old white southern democrats with strong southern Baptist bias against dancing. America was once a dancing country and a 20% federal excise tax was placed on the house gross of public dancehalls in support of war financing. That tax was reduced to 10% during Reagan’x term and it was responsible for closing all of them. Repeal of that tax law cannot happen because it would require a majority vote in Congress that is easily blocked by the southern members. Southern racism still exists and the effects of policies on welfare continue for generations.
Southern racism? You sound like Frank. I live in the DeepSouth and I don’t see racism. I’m not talking about overhearing a dumbass referring to blacks in derogatory terms. I’ve heard that word in northern states that I traveled through. The worst was New Jersey. Pennsylvania was a close second. But I believe that today’s people have more on their minds than people of color. Interracial marriages are much more common elsewhere. Just to mention an example. I’m not saying that racism is completely gone. It also exists by black folks.
Tom … You are spot on. Racism is no longer a feature of the American culture. It exists on the fringes … and systemically in the major Democrat run cities. The GOP did not rise on the back of racist Democrats int he south. They stuck with their party long after Nixon. I will have one of the Black History Month commentaries dealing with the so-called Nixon southern strategy. Facts to not uphold the claim that the GOP acquired the racist vote. Au contraire.
It’s because of weird stuff like: “Racism is no longer a feature of the American culture. It exists on the fringes,” a thought by people who already agree with the author’s lies, that this story spins. Here’s a compendium of hate crimes covering 2019 to 2024. Hundreds of them. And just a sampling, a smattering of what seems to be quite prevalent across our country, no matter what folks like Larry spew. Must be on the fringe in every State and across the entire Deep South. That’s a lot of fringes.
*https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crimes-case-examples*
In 2023 alone, there were about 14,000 victims; 52% of which were race based, 23% for religion, mostly Jews and Muslims, and 18% for sexual orientation. That’s an average of 280 per state or close to one a day in every state or 40 per day across the land. Fringe?
But the numbers bely the full psychological damage of racist acts like a mass shooting, does. Mass shootings are fringe events; more fringy than racist attacks, on the numbers. Mass shootings affect everyone, racism mostly the affected minorities. Mass shootings don’t kill that many people, they are on the fringes of gun deaths. Yet Mass Shooting affect he national psyche far greater as we begin to question whether to attend that concert, rally, or even take in a movie. As we heighten fears, begin looking over our shoulders, always having an escape plan, yeah, we are affected and have less freedoms. Now, imagine how racism affects the victimized race.
I worked the financial district during 9/11; no, I was not there that day. But being in the board rooms after 2001, with
Goldman folks as they raised Goldman Sachs building in Jersey City, a 42-story silver and glass, single spire on the water’s edge facing NYC and brightly shinning in the morning sun, like a single fickle finger of fate facing East, these people looked scarred. They did not want to go, and many already lived in NJ.
You hear about the guy who drove his car through protestors at a rally. Does that affect you going to anti-hate rallies? You hear about the guy jumping out of his car, yelling N*****, and attacking the victim’s car as the victim just takes off. Do you drive the same? Or the guy in Texas who kills one guy at the Muslim-owned car repair, tries to shoot three more and then attempts to drive over one as he runs away. Do you still frequent minority owned businesses that are targeted? It affects the psyche and we just don’t have a clue what it feels like to be in those shoes. You would think the author would though. Hard to believe his kids have not faced it.
I have used this measure since the 70’s to judge racism in America. Imagine you are a well-dressed black, Ray Bans, dockers and LL Beans, with a cred convertible Mercedes, the cool sporty one. Now, drive alone from NYC to LA. That’s your measure of racism in America and the fringes. I doubt you will get there without a taste at looking down the barrel at some mainstream racism. Perhaps no violence, but some words? That look? Sure, we are better today than yesterday, but still….. If racism is on the fringes, why did the Capitol Police hear hate speak, the n-word, and worse, on 1/6/2021 from mainstream Trump supporters?
Now, on your car trip, put a pretty, young, white women in the passenger seat…… Still feel safe from NYC to LA you think? Fuck, as a white guy, you are not even thinking about crap like this. No, at minimum, blacks, for basic survival, have to think and act differently because of things like this. Like be careful if running-while-black, or driving-while-black, thinking in a manner that whites just don’t comprehend. It’s called racism, it’s called fear, it’s called less liberty and less freedom than we whites have. There tis it.
As to the systemic racism in the cites; what makes these Red urban areas any different than Blue areas? What are the specific laws, actions, or programs that make this so? I contend they are basically the same, and if I am wrong, and Red areas are better, then why can’t they attract segregated, impoverished, blacks? Why do blacks continue to vote to live in these racist cities, as Horist portrays? What is Horist saying about them IF they don’t just up and move to Red areas?
“The GOP did not rise on the back of racist Democrats int he south.” No it did not. No one said it did. Horist is exaggerating for effect. But the Southern Republican party did rise on the back of racist Dixiecrats in the South. Read “How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South”
*https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south* It’s the History Channel. First, the Dixiecrats walked away from the Democratic party starting in 1948. They still voted Democratic, but they did not vote for Democrats in the primaries. In the late 60’s, they realized they were conservative, and began moving to the Republican party. It took the 70’s to complete the migration, so yeah, not all during the time of Nixon. To say so, or not, is spin. Wallace was a Democrat, the year was 1972. By Reagan, 1980, the migration was complete. Don’t believe? Then how does Larry answer where did all those Southern Republicans comes from? Big Northern migration? Mexican immigrants? OR did they live in the South all along and used to be Democrats, then some became Dixiecrats, and now most are Republicans, but still held their same views on race, good or bad.
Dems the facts, jack, History Channel do not lie, Larry spins.