Days of horror
Once in a very blue moon, someone will ask if there was any aspect of Oklahoma history I find troubling. Most of the time, I suspect, they’re looking for Dust Bowl and/or Grapes of Wrath commentary. That’s not what they get, though.
In this piece, I refer to “Oklahoma’s infamous Senate Bill One.” I might go so far as to say “heinous.” Steve Lackmeyer fills in the details:
The state had taken its own steps toward creating Jim Crow laws in 1907. Several attempts had been made prior to statehood to codify Jim Crow rules into the constitution. But opposition by President Theodore Roosevelt stymied such efforts, which including the writing up of about 50,000 words, exhaustive debate and committee discussions on the matter.
Roosevelt proclaimed statehood November 16, 1907. Lawmakers made segregation their first order of business when they convened at Guthrie’s City Hall from December 2, 1907 to May 26, 1908. Senate Bill 1 went through the overwhelmingly Democratic body, 37-2 in the Senate, 95-10 in the House — showing that the issue was bipartisan. The law required separate facilities for blacks in public transportation, public education and other public places and situations. In response riots erupted in Taft and other black communities.
Doug Loudenback has an extensive history of Jim Crow in the Sooner State.
What reminded me of this was this piece in the Gazette which explores the stories of emancipated slaves in Oklahoma, collected by the WPA in 1937. The one that stung was this one from Alice Alexander, born 1849 in Jackson Parish, Louisiana; she’d literally walked here, hoping for education. When the WPA came calling, she was 88 years old.
“We come to Oklahoma looking for de same thing then that darkies go North looking for now,” she said. “But we got disappointed. What little I learned I quit taking care of it and seeing after it and lost it all.”
So much promise we offered; so little we delivered.
Steve B »
25 February 2010 · 1:17 pm
It’s get flushed down the ol’ memory hole that the Democrats were behind most of the Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.
You know, that party of the downtrodden minorities.
Lisa Paul »
25 February 2010 · 2:32 pm
Wait, are we going to start holding political parties to what they did and were over a hundred and fifty years ago? If so, let’s revive condemnation of the Teapot Dome Scandal under Republican Harding. Don’t even get me started on the Whigs.
Parties change as their constituents change. The Democrats were also behind most of the country’s Civil Rights legislation. In fact, Lyndon Johnson once remarked that by backing Civil Rights he was losing the South for the Democratic Party for the next hundred years.
CGHill »
25 February 2010 · 5:04 pm
Not to mention the Know-Nothings, who, were they to rematerialize today, would likely become a viable third party. Maybe a second party.
Jeff Brokaw »
25 February 2010 · 5:10 pm
“darkies”??
Oh my. That is a hate crime.
And Lisa, you do have a point, but your argument conveniently ignores the fact that the Democrats also fought tooth-and-nail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most especially Sen. Al Gore (among others).
Even worse, the Northern, urban Dems that took over for the Jim-Crow-era Southern Dems implemented awful social welfare policies which helped to destroy the black urban family.
So it is pretty easy to build a case that shows the Democrats attitudes and policies towards blacks have always been quite destructive. Even when they were educated at Northern schools, didn’t have Southern accents, and didn’t use bull whips on unarmed black men.
Lisa Paul »
25 February 2010 · 5:36 pm
Yet, the Dems pushed it through and Lyndon Johnson’s prediction came to pass. The South left the Democratic party in droves turning decidedly Red for decades.
But in reality, although it happened on the Dems watch (so politically they get the credit) Civil Rights were probably more the result of fair-thinking people of all stripes. And the opponents were racists of all persuasions. Jim Crow was probably more a product of the times and their attitudes than they were the creed of any particular party.
My main point was that castigating a particular party for policies that started after Reconstruction as a response to the outcome of the Civil War is ridiculous. Like the Rio Grande, political parties change course depending on the times and the prevailing attitudes. Today’s Democratic Party is not your grandmother’s party any more than the Republican Party is the one Lincoln would necessarily recognize.