Select Page

The part of Black history that gets overlooked

The part of Black history that gets overlooked

In celebration of Black History Month, I will be contributing occasional commentaries in an informal series of essays.  I will be filling in some of the notable gaps in the current expressions of black history.  I have often jested that Black History Month should be reduced to two weeks since only half the history gets told.

During Black History Month, our educational systems will be flooded with portrayals of various elements of the history of black Americans.  There will also be all kinds of documentaries, public service announcements, newspaper features and magazine cover articles.  Virtually all them will appropriately describe the horrors of slavery and racial oppression against black Americans.

There will be gruesome descriptions and images of horrific injustices and inhumanity afflicted on slaves – and later on those oppressed under violent racial prejudice during the era of segregation.  There will be examples of racial oppression to this day. 

The information will be filled with “what,” “when” and “where,” but the “who” will be missing.  

Who were the people who relied on slavery and defended it to the point of Civil War?  Who were the folks that imposed the brutal and deadly segregation and institutional racism on tens of millions of blacks for more than 100 years after the Civil War?  And most importantly, what was the institutional structure than enabled and empowered this reign of terror on Africans, who would later become African Americans?  You will not hear the answers to those questions in the politically biased and sanitized modern versions of black history be presented in schools and in the public media.

So, who are those unidentified people?  What is their base of power?  The answers are simple.  Throughout history, they were Democrats, and their base of power was … the Democratic Party.

Among the most egregious examples of revisionist history and whitewashing the past (no pun intended) has been the virtual elimination of the role of the Democratic Party – by name.

A couple years ago, it was the movie “Selma” – which told the story of Martin Luther King’s march from the Edmund Pettus Bridge to the Alabama state capitol in Richmond.  It was an outstanding movie.  It resulted in one of my few agreements with Al Sharpton – that David Oyelowo, portraying King, should have been at least nominated in the Best Actor category, if not the winner.  

In the movie, there were all the bad actors – from Governor George Wallace on down.  There were references to the Ku Klux Klan.  Depictions of police brutality.  Lots of names.  Lots of racist organizations and operations.  But nowhere in the movie did you hear the word “democrat.”  That strategic deletion transcends most of the history we will see and hear during Black History Month.  It is neither an accidental nor insignificant omission.

Often when I make references to the role of the Democratic Party in racial oppression, I am told that is old news … ancient history.   Well … this if Black HISTORY Month, so that diversion does not apply.  And even if it did, the oppression goes on today in virtually every one of America’s Democrat-controlled cities.

In future Black History Month commentaries, I may also draw upon sections of my magnum opus – a manuscript being readied for publication on the long history of Democratic Party oppression of black America.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Taylor

    White history is ignored. I’m just saying equal rights for white people.

    • Frank stetson

      If whites had equal rights, Blacks would better off. That’s all many are asking for, a level playing field.

  2. bob m

    Except, Larry, the Civil War was more about States’ Rights than Slavery.

    Want proof? Why did Lincoln wait til halfway through the war to do the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863? And only then when the North wasn’t doing all that well and the Proclamation opened up a behind the lines front for the Confedracy (as intended)? The war started April 12, 1861 and continued thru April 9, 1865!

    Look, I’m not saying the ending of slavery wasn’t noble – but it was not the main causa bella. Get it right.

    • frank stetson

      Not in my view. It was slavery that got whitewashed with State’s rights. More important, it was the slave economy as the Southern power brokers attempted to expand it to new Western territories and new States. Lincoln knew that expansion of this economy would spell the end of abolition. If the power brokers would have accepted no expansion of slavery to new areas, the war would have been delayed, or never happened. But it was slavery, more important the slave economy that caused the war.

      Put that on the list too Larry :>)

      • larry Horist

        FRank … yes, slavery was tied to the southern economy, but it was much more because there was a pervasive view that Negoes were inferior humans. Why do you think we had Democrat segregation and violent oppression for 100 years after the Civil War. It was more than economics.

    • larry Horist

      Bob m … you need to study your history a bit more. The “proof” you offer is not proof at all. Read the articles of secession from the individual states. They all refer to slavery as the reason . Of course, slavery was argued as a state right … but that was not the purpose of secession and that is what led to the Civil War. It was a war over slavery. Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves at the onset because it would have pushed a couple more border states over to the Confederacy — states that were loyal to the union but had slaves. It was a good decision because two more states in the Confederacy and the North would not have won the War … arguably. Arguments over states rights have been a constant, but slaver was the issue that led to the Civil War. What triggered secession was the election of Lincoln … a staunch abolitionist.

      • Ben

        Maybe you need to brush up on your history, and not just the white washed kind. Here’s a great quote from Lincoln

        When he was asked during an electoral campaign whether he was advocating for “negro equality,” Lincoln put the matter to rest.

        “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” said Lincoln to applause.

        He added, finally, “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

        • Wylie

          Lincoln was a smart man

        • larry Horist

          Ben … You are obviously not a student of Lincoln. It is true that during campaigns — especially for Congress, etc. Lincoln said what the crowd of those days wanted to hear.. You have taken a couple snippets out of volumes of speeches, letters, notes, etc. I have more than 100 books on Lincoln … and a ten volume set of virtually every word he uttered or wrote. But do not feel bad. There are many folks who have been fooled by the revisionist history of Lincoln. What makes Lincoln incredible is not the simplified romantic polished narratives we learned as children, but the complexity of the man. He had a moral compass that was contrary to the zeitgeist of the times. HIs greatness was not in his imperfections and his necessary pragmatism, but in his enormous ability to use a moral foundation to make great changes with malice toward none. How he used pragmatism to achieve the greater moral victories. Your snippet is an insult to Lincoln … and to your own knowledge. There is a great mosaic before you, and you can only see a chipped tile because that is as far as you vision has taken you..

          • Ben

            Damn, Lincoln sounds down right progressive according to your accounts. Here I thought he was a Republican.

        • larry Horist

          Ben … Again you are historically uninformed. Lincoln was a Republican … like all the Republicans of his day. Anti-Slavery. And Republicans for generations to follow. You will be surprised to learn that the great progressives of history were racists. FDR, Wilson, Justice Hugo Black …and look up a guy named “pitchfork” Ben Tillman — a senator a part of the progressive coalition. Hmmmm. I will save you the trouble. I will do a commentary on him and the progressives. Part of black history the Democrat’s want to cancel.

    • pineapplefish56

      You “Proof” is lacking FACTS!
      Your Objective: Historical Revisionism
      By banning all things Confederate, they are denying the history of the War Between the States, the war that freed the slaves.
      The next generation will never learn that 620,000 White People died to free Black Slaves, thus furthering the lies of so-called “White Privilege” and that “All Whites are Racist”. If that was true, then it is difficult to explain the fact that White People voluntarily went to war and died to bring about the end of Slavery.
      As the final verse of the “The Battle Hymn Of The Republic” says:
      “In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,
      With a glory in His bosom, that transfigures you and me:
      As He died to make men holy, LET US DIE TO MAKE MEN FREE,
      While God is marching on.”
      The Yankee Soldiers would have never made that song so popular among the troops, had the wording of that final verse been nothing but a lie!

      However, in Muslim countries, TODAY, there are 27,000,000 Black slaves, that no Leftist ever complains about!

      Democrats don’t want to take down Confederate monuments because they oppose racism. They want to take them down to cover up their own Party’s bad acts in the past in promoting slavery and racial segregation. They want to pretend that their Party is not responsible for the misery they caused so many generations of blacks…

      After the last Confederate Soldier died in 1957, CONGRESS Declared that ALL participants in the Civil War were US VETERANS, that LAW is still in effect!

      The race-baiter and Tax scofflaw Al Sharpton was on PBS demanding we destroy the Jefferson Memorial.

      • Ben


        You are right, the next generation is not going to know history because conservatives are making it illegal to teach real history and literally burning books. You know what history has taught us, right? Societies that burn books quickly move on to burning humans.

  3. frank stetson

    I agree that would be a good thing. It would also be a good thing to map the history of Democrats, Republicans, Federalists, Democratic Republicans, and Independents. And perhaps I would also add Libertarians and the Tea Party but perhaps the % take rate is too low or the organization is more ideology than party. Democrats and Republicans were only with us since the 1850’s, certainly not there for the beginnings of the slavery economy in America. Plus, Democrats and Republican members, constituencies, ideologies, and electorate have evolved massively over the years. Today, most racists are Republicans, but most Republicans are not racists. In 1850, that was true for Democrats instead.

    I think it would be grand to air out the party history starting in the 1850’s, or perhaps before, to the current day.

    Another topic I would love to understand more is the slave economy, what it meant, how it operated, but most important, how Westward expansion, and expansion of said slave economy to new Western States added fuel to the Civil War.

    There will be a lot on reconstruction period, but what I want to know is why it took Blacks so long to assimilate versus other immigrant nations. I, for example, have English ancestors basically on the Mayflower, Irish in 1860’s, Slovakians in 1910, and Italians in 1950. Each assimilated at a slightly different rate with lesser intervals as the dates more forward. It just seems that, on average, black slave assimilation took a few generations longer that each of my families experience. I wonder, historically speaking, why? Or the answer to the trope: “why can’t they act more like other immigrants and pull themselves up, it must be in the genes….”

    so there’s my two cents.

    • Kenneth

      Your two cents is bullshit. The democrats are the party that teaches blacks that they are too stupid to make it on their own and need the government to wipe their asses. And you morons that support planned parenthood are supporting an organization that started out setting up in and around minorities so that they could thin the herd. And for the leftist that oppose voter I D and claim that blacks are hindered from having ID , where did that come from? I see them driving, working, owning homes and businesses ect. And they have to have ID to avail themselves to the gimmee gimmee gifts that encourages dependence on the government. And why is Robert Byrd still the darling of the democrats? Beckley West Virginia still has a road named for him. A kkk recruiter and leader. So shut the hell up about racism. You don’t have a clue.

  4. larry Horist

    Frank … I assume you did not get top grades in American history. The GOP was formed in 1856, but the Dems are older. They claim roots with Jefferson. He led the Republican-Democratic Party. Jackson dropped “Republican” and was simply a Democrat. He served from 1829 — a quarter of a century before the GOP was formed. You efforts to create equivalency between Democrats and Republicans in terms of their bases at any time is just historical and demographically wrong.

    • Frank stetson

      I know you don’t mean it Larry, but you can come off as a real horses ass sometimes. No, I did just find in the study of history. And in this thread I said I suggest that we learn more about the history of these two parties and how they evolved over time. That was my way of saying that I really don’t know the history that you condemn me for not knowing or at least tell me I should’ve gone to school better.

      The fact is that democrat Republicans morphed into both l The modern democratic and republican parties. At least according to some historians, which incidentally, is where I got the information that I presented above.

      If you take issue with that information, and it appears that you do, then I think my original request to learn more about this history about these parties and how they evolved over time would be something that you would love to pursue as well.

      However, to assume that the democratic party that supported slavery as well as racism in the south is the same as the modern democratic party is probably not as straight a line as you would seem to want to draw.

    • Ben

      Conservatives were pro slavery.
      Progressives fought to end the institution.

      • pineapplefish56

        Where did you hear those LIES?

      • larry Horist

        Ben … You are demonstrating a bumper sticker level of discourse. Democrat’s were pro slavery and Republicans were abolitionists. Stick with the facts. Democrat were pro segregation and Republicans fought for civil rights. Chick out the congressional vote on the 1956, 1960, 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts. You are drinking the Kool-Aid. Who drafted the 1965 Voting Rights Act and introduced it into the Senate? His work got him the cover of Time Magazine. And if you look on the Democrat side of the aisle, you will not find him.

      • Doug

        LMAO. You really are stupid

  5. pineapplefish56

    Do a wikipedia search for:
    1924 Democratic Party National Convention…
    20,000 Democratic Klan supporters wearing white KKK robes…

    “America’s history of racism, the Democrat Party’s role in it would be a great place to start. Why not reveal that, from 1868 through 1948, the Democrat Party embraced political platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject? Or the fact that the 1924 Democrat Convention known as the “Klanbake” was held in Madison Square Garden, during which a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright, and a KKK celebration attended by 10,000 hooded Klansmen was held in New Jersey immediately afterwards?”

    1925: The Ku Klux Klan marches on Washington
    This year was the height of the Ku Klux Klan’s popularity and white supremacists used fear, terrorist attacks, and racial violence to oppress Black people in America. More than 50,000 KKK members showed up to the march, dressed in their white robes and pointed hats, rallying against racial equality.

    “Senator Robert Byrd and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, both former members of the Klan, wound up as Democrat-Leftist icons. Whether black or white, those on the Left have no problem clasping racists to their collective bosom, just so long as they’re Democrats.”
    From the Patriot Post:
    Shouldn’t more Americans know that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, banning slavery, guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves, and granting black Americans the right to vote, respectively? Or that Democrats provided the lion’s share of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including a filibuster led by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), a former KKK member, Kleagle (recruiter), and Exalted Cyclops.

  6. Ben

    As I suspected, your readers aren’t really thrilled with your article.

    Makes you wonder, does the PBP attract racists? Or is it the GOP and conservative movement that does?

    I would have guessed the party of Lincoln would have been much more receptive to this article. What happened?

    • larry Horist

      Ben … not sure what comments your are reading. You making up stuff in your mind again. You seem to have mythical comments. I re-read them and most seem to be supportive. NO?

  7. d harmon

    Ben, & larrey, Pause and read what You both write. Politision’s switch side faster then a tennis ball. Slavery was the best thing that ever happend to the Nigeo race.. All races faced slavery.. The Nigro’s in Aferica had thousan ‘s of years to envolive , but were to bussey fighting off thre Black tribes next to them, that sold them into slavery. There dieat was animal’s , what GOD grew for them , or there neighbor’s . Trere neighbor’s if they won sold them into slavery . Then came the american;s . yes the bought slave’s . most of them treated them very good , roof over ther head , food to eat, taught them to read, & right. Yes they had to work , but they were better off fron were they came from. Picking cotton balls , growing and other races, and other races , was tough. But most of the owner’s were good people . a lot of black’s were treated alot better then the Irish and other races.