Tuesday, August 11, 2015

American Exceptionalism: Beautiful Myth vs. Historical Reality

Although the passionate belief that America as a country is morally superior and truly Exceptional is not confined to Republicans, it typically characterizes those who lean to the right, though some may self-identify as moderates or even as centrist Democrats. To illustrate the nature of Exceptionalism I have provided three quotes from nationally known conservatives. The first is from Mitt Romney; the second from Marco Rubio; and the third is from an article in the National Review by Ramesh Ponnuru. Similar opinions have been issued by hundreds of well-known conservative politicians and pundits and are widely available on the internet.

"We are a people who, in the language of our Declaration of Independence, hold certain truths to be self-evident: namely, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is our belief in the universality of these unalienable rights that leads us to our exceptional role on the world stage, that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom."[1]

"America is the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom rather than its own territory."[2]

"Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it . . ."[3]

From the extensive public record on Exceptionalism it appears that, for many conservatives, merely pointing to the existence of those core values in our history is sufficient proof of America’s exceptional nature. It’s as if conservatives are convinced that good intentions are all that are required to achieve the condition labelled Exceptional. Simply stating that “all men are created equal . . . with certain unalienable rights . . .”, that America is the “great champion of human dignity and human freedom,” and the U.S. is “an exemplar of freedom” seems for many to mean that that was the case and no one with a patriotic bone in her/his body would think of questioning it.

But some Americans take a more critical view of our history and wonder if Exceptionalism is nothing but a beautiful myth with which we comfort ourselves to avoid what is a much harsher reality. To shed light on that challenge, in this essay I examine specific elements from American history that many may have never learned, have ignored or are indifferent to, or have discarded as irrelevant as to who we are. My direct focus is on white/non-white issues rather than on land-based conflicts between Native Americans and whites. Readers desiring additional information on how the U.S. treated Native Americans might consult my post of February 5, 2015, titled: American Exceptionalism: An Evaluation.

The critical question I begin with is straightforward: How did our country act, considering the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution declares as self-evident truths that all persons are created as equal under the law and are possessed of inalienable rights, including among others freedom of speech and assembly, personal security, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The first part of the answer to that question should be evident since even before we become an independent country black Africans were enslaved in every colony and, after the Revolution, in every newly formed state. In addition, according to the U.S. Naturalization Law of 1790, only white men of good standing could become U.S. citizens. That law as applied to blacks stood until passage of the Civil Rights Law of 1866 but was still in effect after that for Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians until the mid-20th Century.

Thus, in historical reality, from our earliest founding as a country until the end of the Civil War, American core values of freedom, dignity, and equality were reserved for whites only, with non-whites treated as distinctly inferior and legally subordinate. But, what happened after the Civil War? Perhaps things changed dramatically for the better. A number of examples are presented below to illustrate that historical reality, starting with Reconstruction and working toward the present day.

Reconstruction Era, 1863-1877

Although the Civil War ended in 1865, Reconstruction almost immediately evolved into an extension of that war. It became a struggle between northern Radical Republicans and their allies who wanted to punish both Southern states for traitorous acts and Southern white supremacists committed to racial segregation as the foundation of their way of life.

President Andrew Johnson, a Southern War Democrat from Tennessee, was an open advocate of white supremacy and an opponent of extending civil and human rights to newly freed blacks. Johnson’s Reconstruction policies granted amnesty to former Southern rebel soldiers and permitted only white men to vote or to participate in the framing of the new state governments. He appointed provisional governors from the white Southern power elite and outlined steps for the creation of new state governments that would allow the election of representatives to the U.S. Congress. Johnson strongly supported state sovereignty and the right of each state to decide how to treat blacks.

It is critical to view Johnson’s conduct in context of the times. For example, by 1865 only a few New England states had granted Black American men the right to vote and, between 1865 and 1868, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin voters rejected proposals to enfranchise Black American men.[4]

Many Radical Republicans became outraged that the recently defeated but unrepentant Southern rebels would be returning their former Confederate leaders to national political power, that none of the Southern state conventions had granted freedmen the right to vote, and that every Southern state had immediately passed legislation (Black Codes) that tightly restricted the freedoms of former slaves. That anger seemed more than justified when Benjamin F. Perry, South Carolina’s provisional governor, declared at that State’s constitutional convention: “. . . this is a white man’s government.”

With President Johnson's support, Southerners focused on strengthening white supremacy to ensure that blacks were held in a debt peonage and socio-political vise that was slavery in every aspect but name. That system was enforced by threats and violence by armed white vigilantes that included home burning, rape, public whipping/beating, genital mutilation, lynching, and countless acts of physical violence that terrorized black communities in every Southern and Border State and that were encouraged and sanctioned by state and local governments.

After the 1866 election, angry Radical Republicans in Congress wrested control of Reconstruction from President Johnson, who had rejected the idea that blacks had the same rights of property and person as whites, passing the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 that divided the former Confederate states into five military districts, with the exception of Tennessee, which had already been re-admitted to the Union. To be re-admitted into the Union, each state was required to accept the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which granted citizenship and political rights to Black Americans.

Under Reconstruction’s military occupation and the oversight of the Freedmen’s Bureau, Black Americans received the right to vote, own property, and to hold political offices that had formerly been restricted to white Southern Democrats, a situation that was abhorred and opposed at every turn throughout the South. President Johnson vetoed all the Radical Republican initiatives but those vetoes were overridden in the Senate. In 1868, the Radical Republicans impeached President Johnson but the Senate failed to convict him by a single vote. Although the impeachment effort failed, Johnson’s power to influence the direction of Reconstruction was greatly compromised.

As early as the late-1860s, Southern and Border State Democrats had initiated the process of regaining political power by suppressing black voting through systematic acts of fraud, intimidation, and violence carried out by ruthless white sheriffs, local judges and election officials, and armed extralegal, all-white paramilitary groups variously known as the Ku Klux Klan, White Brotherhood, Redeemers, Sabre and Rifle Clubs, Knights of the White Camellia, White League, White Liners, and Red Shirts. By the early- to mid-1870s, organized white intimidation and violence against blacks was the norm in every Southern and Border State.

The stakes in controlling the political infrastructure of the South were extraordinarily high. In effect, passage of the 13th Amendment increased representation from Southern states in the U.S. House of Representatives because it made the infamous three-fifths slavery Compromise in the Constitution meaningless since those who had been slaves would thereafter be counted as whole persons in apportioning seats in the House. If Congress seated unrepentant Southerners, political power would immediately swing to the Democrats. To expect Republicans who had just won the Civil War to surrender national power to a region that had been defeated on the battlefield and to a population they viewed as traitors was totally unrealistic. With Reconstruction and passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Radical Republicans in Congress had focused all their efforts on changing the balance of power in the South and on effecting a political revolution that they thought necessary to ensure Black Americans would be able to achieve the full freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.

Radical Republicans not only failed to secure Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms for blacks through the Reconstruction effort but also inadvertently insured that the political order in the South that would control the lives of four to five million Black Americans for nearly a century would be based on white bigotry and supremacy. Many factors helped ensure Reconstruction’s failure, among them national economic problems like the Panic of 1873, the rise of a national conservative consensus, a general feeling that Reconstruction had failed to achieve worthwhile goals, the national resurgence of the Democratic Party, and a growing national climate that accepted bigotry and racism as normal. As painful memories of the Civil War faded, most Northerners lost interest in maintaining what turned out to be a difficult and prolonged struggle to ensure Black Americans would be granted the freedoms, dignity, and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. The insurmountable problem was that the South that emerged after Reconstruction was remarkably like the pre-war South in terms of its foundation on white bigotry and supremacy, with the exception that overt slavery of blacks was replaced by a system of debt peonage and social controls enforced through intimidation and violence sanctioned by every level of government and by every element of Southern white society.

By the mid-1870s, most moderate Republicans as well as Northern Democrats had begun classifying Southern blacks as simply another special interest group that they thought had to start standing on its own feet, despite slaves having been systematically denied freedom and education for more than 250 years and being totally unprepared to face hostile Southern legislatures and violent white Southerner bigots without the continuing support of the federal government. But by the late-1870s, all three branches of the federal government had effectively turned their backs on enforcement of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Black Americans and left them to their fate at the hands of Southern white supremacists.

Reconstruction ended as a result of President Grant’s withdrawal of federal troops from Florida and the infamous and under-the-table Compromise of 1877 that resulted in the fraudulent election of Rutherford B. Hayes as President. By that time, Southern Democrats had used intimidation and violence by armed white mobs and extralegal militia to seize control of all Southern and Border State legislatures. In 1890, Mississippi adopted a new constitution that disenfranchised nearly all black citizens through literacy tests, poll taxes, multiple ballot box laws, white-only primaries, grandfather clauses, and residency requirements, cutting black voter enrollment from approximately 147,000 to around 8,600.[5]  When those discriminatory provisions survived legal challenges to a U.S. Supreme Court that was blind, deaf, and dumb to civil rights violations against Black Americans, nine of the other Southern states adopted similar constitutions, disenfranchising the far greater majority of their Black American residents. Other specific examples include: Louisiana adopted a new constitution in 1898, dropping the number of black voters from 130,000 to 5,000;, Alabama re-wrote its constitution in 1901 to establish white supremacy as the rule of law and reduced the number of eligible black voters from more than 180,000 to 3,000; and in Virginia, the number of black voters dropped from 147,000 to 21,000.

The Southern disfranchisement movement was so comprehensive that black people could not vote, serve on juries, or hold political offices, activities that were restricted to registered white voters. As a result, Black Americans were systematically excluded from any role in the socio-political system other than that of a lower caste.

Here’s another twist on denying black vote in the South. Since after the 1870s only Democrats were elected in general elections, in Southern States the most critical election was the primary. But because official state voter registration forms intentionally did not ask a voter’s party affiliation, county and local registrars were the only officials who determined party membership. Because no Southern Black Americans were acknowledged as members of the Democratic Party, they could not vote in primary elections even though they were formally registered voters. Those tactics and systemic white violence against black voters ensured the near total absence of blacks at the polls until the late-1960s.
But white-only primaries, poll taxes, and literacy tests were not the only obstacles to black suffrage. Black land owners and workers throughout the South were told that they would lose their jobs or be denied access to credit if they attempted to vote. In many cases, when a black farmer’s white neighbors found out he intended to vote, local merchants refused to extend credit, weigh his field crops, or deliver materials to his farm. Suppression of black vote was well-organized and systemic through the South and was specifically intended to oppress the black population and sharply curtail their rights.

As has been noted by numerous observers, the Confederacy may have lost the Civil War on the battlefield but the South won the struggle to maintain their white supremacist way of life and to continue oppressing blacks through intimidation and violence. The result was a century-long war of savagery and terror against black citizens carried out by armed Southern whites supported by local and state governments. An as illustration, Mississippi Governor James Vardaman famously stated that "If it is necessary every Negro in the state will be lynched; it will be done to maintain white supremacy."[6]  Many if not all Southern conservatives believed that black suffrage during Reconstruction had been an enormous political blunder because blacks were inherently inferior, unqualified, and unprepared to assume the responsibilities of citizenship and, thus, the near total segregation of blacks from whites was a necessary precondition to eventual citizenship.

*     *     *

Simply stating that Black Americans were denied the fundamental rights of freedom and human dignity guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens does not reveal the specific nature of the inequities and violence committed by bigoted whites and hostile Southern state and local governments against Black Americans. Therefore, several examples are provided below to illustrate the reality of the term “lack of human freedom and dignity” in Southern States for Black Americans. These few examples, extending from the end of the Reconstruction Era to the mid-1960s, are but the tip of an enormous iceberg of racial intimidation and violence directed against Black Americans that characterized Southern and Border States.

Colfax Massacre, Louisiana, 1873
The Colfax Massacre on Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, occurred during a confrontation between Louisiana Democrats in the White League, an armed extralegal militia organized to ensure white supremacy, and white and black Republicans in the nearly all-black and lightly armed official Louisiana State Militia. Between 100 and 150 blacks were killed, half had been murdered after they surrendered, had been disarmed, and held captive by the White League for several hours. Three whites were found guilty of the murders but were released when the legally clueless U.S. Supreme Court declared that their convictions had been unconstitutional because the Enforcement Act of 1870 (which was based on the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment) applied only to actions committed by states and did not apply to individual actions or private conspiracies. That infamous and morally bankrupt decision—United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)—left Black Americans throughout Southern and Border States at the mercy of bigoted state and local governments dominated by white Democrats determined to enforce white supremacy via violence and deny the constitutional rights of Black Americans.

Vicksburg Massacre, Mississippi, 1874
In 1874, armed, extralegal white militias in Vicksburg, Mississippi, worked to suppress black voting and succeeded in defeating all Republican city officials in the August election. By December, the emboldened white Democrats forced the black sheriff to flee to the state capital. Blacks who rallied to Vicksburg to aid the sheriff also had to flee in the face of superior white forces, as armed whites flooded the city. Over the next few days, armed white gangs murdered up to 300 Black Americans in the city and its surroundings. No one was indicted or prosecuted for those crimes.

Ellenton Massacre, South Carolina, 1876
In a brutal and relentless drive to regain political and social power in the South, conservative white Democrats used intimidation and violence to prevent Black Americans from voting. Prior to the election of 1876, armed conflicts took place in Ellenton and nearby areas of South Carolina. White supremacy supporters formed rifle clubs and other paramilitary groups that were established to prevent black Republicans from organizing, voting, and all other political activities.

The Ellenton Massacre occurred from September 15 to 21, 1876. Tensions over elections had been building for weeks and residents of the area had appealed to the governor to curtail the actions of numerous Democratic rifle clubs, which were mobs of extralegal, armed white vigilantes organized to control the election by suppressing the black vote through threats and violence. Although many details of the Race Riot are uncertain, at least in part due to whites who had participated in the violence concealing or destroying evidence, several facts stand out. On September 20, 1876, Simon Coker, a black State representative, was forcibly removed from the rail car on which he was traveling and shot to death by members of a white mob. It was estimated that one white man and between 100 to 150 blacks were murdered in the Ellenton Massacre. No one was indicted or prosecuted for those crimes.

Thibodaux Massacre, Louisiana, 1887
The Thibodaux Massacre is a tale of a bitter agricultural labor dispute leavened with racism, bigotry, and ruthless violence by armed white mobs. The plight of black sugarcane workers in 1887 was one of back-breaking labor and inadequate pay. Most field hands were paid approximately $13 a month in script issued by the plantation that was redeemable only at a plantation store, whose prices were arbitrarily set by the landowner and had little or no relation to market prices. Overcharged workers usually wound up in debt to the landowner. By Louisiana law, if an agricultural worker owed money to a landowner he could not leave the land or employment on the land until the debt was paid in full. That and similar laws throughout the South essentially reduced agricultural laborers, including tenant farmers and share croppers, to a type of serfdom known as debt peonage.

After a three-week sugarcane strike organized by the Knights of Labor union against plantations in southern Louisiana that demanded elimination of scrip, an increase in daily wages, and payment every two weeks, the Louisiana Sugar Producers Association rejected the demands and had the strikers evicted from the plantations by armed white militias. Violence erupted when two white militiamen were fired upon at a checkpoint where they were trying to prevent blacks from moving about the city of Thibodaux freely.

The incident enraged the white population of Thibodaux and unleashed mobs of armed white vigilantes that indiscriminately attacked the black population of Thibodaux in what can only be described as a racial massacre. Between 35 to 300 blacks were killed in the ensuing violence, including defenseless women and children, almost all of whom were unarmed. All of the dead were Black Americans. No one was charged with any offense.

Ocoee Massacre, Florida, 1920
On November 3, 1920, which was Election Day in central Florida, a deadly race riot began in the previously unremarkable, small semi-rural community of Ocoee and quickly spread to nearby Orlando, Apopka, and Winter Garden. The reason was that several Black Americans who had been legally registered to vote in Florida and had paid their poll tax had shown up at the polls to vote. They were physically assaulted and turned away by armed white men. An armed white mob went to the homes of the two black men who had attempted to vote and shots were fired; the situation quickly escalated out of control. The resulting mob violence spread to surrounding cities and nearly 500 blacks living in the Ocoee area were forced to flee for their lives. Before order was restored, nearly all the black-owned homes in Ocoee had been destroyed. The FBI later estimated that from 30 to 60 black men, women, and children had been murdered by mobs of white terrorists. No one was arrested or tried for the attacks. No Black Americans would vote in all of Orange County, Florida, for nearly 20 years after the massacre. Blacks did not re-inhabit the Ocoee area in any numbers until 1981, 61 years after the riot.

Tulsa Race Riot, Oklahoma, 1921
The Tulsa race riot was a large-scale, racially motivated conflict that occurred from May 31 to June 1, 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a city that legally enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised Black Americans. After a black man had been accused of assaulting a young white woman and arrested, armed mobs of whites and blacks exchanged gunfire. A mob of approximately 2,000 armed whites then attacked the prosperous black Tulsa neighborhood of Greenwood, burned it to the ground, and murdered numerous black residents. During that assault, more than 800 blacks who had been attacked by white mobs had to be admitted to local white hospitals because the two black-only hospitals had been destroyed by white mobs. Local police and Oklahoma National Guard troops arrested and detained more than 6,000 black residents simply because of their race. No whites were arrested. An estimated 10,000 black residents were homeless and 35 blocks with 1,256 residences were reduced to rubble by fires set by armed whites. Estimates of black fatalities varied from 55 to 300, with estimates by modern historians at the highest end of that range. The black man originally arrested for assault was released when the young woman refused to press charges. No charges were filed against individual white rioters.

Rosewood Massacre, Florida, 1923
Rosewood was a small, stable, self-sufficient black community in west-central Florida near Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast. It had a thriving all-black population of about 150 until New Year’s Day, 1923, when a white woman in the nearby predominantly white town of Sumner accused a black man of beating her. Those accusations and the news that a black convict had escaped from a local chain gang combined to create the critical mass that erupted in an explosion of bigotry and violent racism. Hundreds of enraged whites formed an armed mob led by the County Sheriff and marched into Rosewood, ostensibly in search of the escaped convict. When they shot and lynched a black male Rosewood resident, other male members of the black community resisted.

Over the next several days more than 30 black Rosewood residents were murdered by an armed mob of at least 300 white men. Those who escaped the violence fled the area. Almost all of what was left of Rosewood was destroyed by fire for no reason other than racial hatred. An all-white grand jury investigation resulted in no indictments and the massacre was quickly forgotten by everyone except the survivors. After the massacre it was determined that the beating that had started the mob violence had been administered by the woman’s white lover. She had lied so that her husband wouldn’t learn of her affair. The Rosewood properties previously owned by black residents were later sold by the County for back taxes.

It wasn’t until 1983 that the incident became public when St. Petersburg Times investigative reporter Gary Moore wrote about the massacre. His article was followed by a segment on CBS-TV’s news magazine 60 Minutes, a documentary on The Discovery Channel, and by a Hollywood movie directed by John Singleton and featured Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, and Don Cheadle. The next twelve years was filled with political haggling and legal wrangling as a restitution claim for Rosewood survivors was introduced in the Florida Legislature. A Special Master appointed by the Speaker of the House ruled that the State had a “moral obligation” to compensate survivors for the loss of property, violation of their constitutional rights, and mental anguish. On May 4, 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles signed a $2.1 million compensation bill that gave nine survivors $150,000 each and established a state university scholarship fund for Rosewood families and their descendants.

*     *     *
Assuming that many if not most Americans may be more sensitive to violence to individuals than by violence to a more anonymous collective, I have listed below a small sample of individuals who were murdered by Southern white racists/bigots.

Harry T. and Henrietta Moore: founders of the Brevard County chapter of the NAACP and civil rights pioneers. Harry was President of Florida's NAACP and was the statewide leader in opposing lynching—at that time Florida had one of the highest rates of black lynching in the U.S. On December 25, 1951, the night of the Moores’ 25th wedding anniversary, a bomb placed under the bedroom in their house exploded, killing both. Harry Moore was the first NAACP official murdered in the civil rights struggle and is justly revered as a martyr. No one was arrested or prosecuted for the murders.

George Lee: civil rights activist, minister, businessman, vice president of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, and head of the Belzoni, Mississippi, branch of the NAACP was heavily involved in black voter registration drives. He was shot to death in northwestern Mississippi on May 7, 1955, by an unidentified white assailant. No charges were brought in the murder.

Lamar Smith: civil rights activist, farmer, and WWI veteran was shot to death at 10:00 AM on August 13, 1955, by a white man on the crowded courthouse lawn in Brookhaven, Mississippi, after urging blacks to vote. Although the killer was known to dozens of witnesses, no one was arrested or tried for the crime.

Emmett Till: a 14 year-old Black American from Chicago who was vacationing with relatives in Mississippi, was savagely beaten, mutilated almost beyond recognition, and shot to death by two white men on August 28, 1955, after reportedly flirting with a white woman at a local grocery store in Money, Mississippi. The two men were tried but found not guilty by an all-white jury. Till’s almost unimaginably brutal murder and the subsequent acquittal of the two white men charged with his death by an all-white jury attracted widespread media attention and outrage in the U.S. and throughout the world. The killing occurred in a context of increasing black challenges in the South after World War II to white supremacy. As one of Till’s killers, John William (J.W.) Milam, reflected later:

"I like niggers—in their place—I know how to work ‘em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government."[7]

Herbert Lee: civil rights activist shot and killed on September 25, 1961, in Liberty, Mississippi, by E.H. Hurst, a white member of the Mississippi State Legislature for participating in the voter registration campaign. Hurst was never changed with the murder as all the witnesses were coerced into testifying Lee had threatened Hurst. After one black witness, Louis Allen, told the FBI that he had been forced to lie to the coroner’s jury, he was murdered. No one was charged or prosecuted for his death.

Medgar Evers: a black U.S. military veteran of WWII and civil rights activist involved in working to desegregate the University of Mississippi was assassinated on June 12, 1963, in Jackson, Mississippi. Evidence, including fingerprints on the murder weapon, pointed to Byron De La Beckwith, a founding member of the White Citizens' Council. Although De La Beckwith was tried twice, both all-white juries were deadlocked, in part due to his being supported by numerous politically prominent Mississippians, including then-Governor Ross Barnett. De La Beckwith was finally convicted of murder in a third trial on February 5, 1994, and died in prison.

Addie Mae Collins (age 14), Denise McNair (age 11), Carole Robertson (age 14), and Cynthia Wesley (age 14): Bombing victims who died on Sunday, September 15, 1963, at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, when four members of the Ku Klux Klan planted dynamite beneath the front steps of the church. Although by 1965 the FBI had information concerning the identity of the bombers, no state or federal charges were brought until 1977, when Alabama Attorney General William Baxley reopened the investigation. Klan leader Robert E. Chambliss was convicted of murder despite the FBI’s refusal to release evidence necessary for the prosecution. Two other former Klan members, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry, were also brought to trial by A.G. Baxley. Blanton was convicted in 2001 and Cherry in 2002. Herman Frank Cash, the fourth bombing suspect, died before he could be tried.

James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner: civil rights activists killed on June 21, 1964, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, by Klansmen. Seven men, including Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, were convicted in federal court of conspiracy to deprive the three victims of their civil rights. In 2005, Edgar Ray Killen, a former recruiter and organizer for the Neshoba County and Lauderdale County KKK, was tried and convicted in state court of three counts of manslaughter for the deaths of the three civil activists for planning and directing their murders and was sentenced to 60 years in prison, 20 years for each count to be served consecutively.

Viola Liuzzo: civil rights activist was shot and killed near Montgomery, Alabama, on March 25, 1965, by members of the Ku Klux Klan; less than two weeks later, a charred cross was planted on the front lawn of her Detroit residence. One of the men in the Klansmen's car was a paid FBI informant who provided evidence against the three Klansmen who killed Liuzzo. After the first state trial ended in a mistrial, an all-white jury took less than two hours to acquit one of the Klansmen. All three were later convicted on federal civil rights charges.

Jimmie Lee Jackson: civil rights activist was beaten by white Alabama State Troopers and shot by Trooper James Fowler on February 18, 1965, while participating in a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, Alabama. Although Jackson was unarmed, his killer was not charged with his murder until May 10, 2007. In a bargain with state prosecutors, Fowler pled guilty to manslaughter and served five months.

James Reeb: civil rights activist and Unitarian Universalist minister from Boston died as a result of being brutally beaten on the head with a club by white racists in Selma, Alabama, on March 11, 1965. He had answered MLK Jr.’s call to clergy around the country to join a second effort to march from Selma to Montgomery. The three white men indicted for Reeb’s murder were acquitted by an all-white jury.

Vernon Dahmer: civil rights activist and president of the Forrest County, Mississippi, chapter of the NAACP died on January 11, 1966, of severe burns and smoke inhalation after his Hattiesburg home was firebombed by a mob of white racists opposed to his efforts to register black voters. Thirteen men with KKK ties were tried. Four were convicted in part because Billie Roy Pitts (the bodyguard of KKK Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers) entered a guilty plea and turned state's evidence. However three of the four convicted were pardoned by Governor John Bell Williams within four years. In 1998, based on new evidence, the state tried Bowers for Dahmer’s murder and assault on his family. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2006.

Martin Luther King Jr.: national civil rights leader was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was assisting city sanitation workers who were on strike. James Earle Ray was convicted of the murder and died in prison.

Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lee Lance, Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Clementa C. Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel Simmons, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, and Myra Thompson: murdered on June 17, 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, by white racist Dylann Roof, who was arrested and charged with 33 federal crimes and nine counts of murder by the state.

*     *     *

Although Black Americans are the principal focus of this essay, Hispanics and Asian-Americans have also faced numerous challenges to their Constitutional rights, including literacy and language tests, poll taxes, discriminatory immigration and naturalization laws, and intimidation and violence. Despite many Americans being unaware of the details, U.S. law prevented any person who was non-white from becoming a citizen. As was mentioned above, the Naturalization Law of 1790 determined that only white men of good standing could become U.S. citizens, meaning all others were barred, including Native Americans. That law stood until it was repealed, at least in part, on December 17, 1943, when Chinese were no longer barred from U.S. citizenship, a concession made only to keep the Chinese Army fighting against the Japanese in WWII. The well-known federal case of In re Ah Yup 1 F. Cas. 223 (C.C.D. Cal. 1878) (No. 104) found that Chinese were non-white and thus were ineligible for naturalization. Anti-Chinese sentiment was so high that in 1882 Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which sharply restricted Chinese immigration to the United States, classified Chinese immigrants as permanent aliens, and excluded them from U.S. citizenship. Adding insult to injury, in 1922 Congress enacted the Cable Act, which stipulated: “any woman citizen who marries an alien ineligible to citizenship shall cease to be a citizen of the United States.” [8]

Concluding Thoughts

The famous German sociologist, Max Weber, proposed an intriguing analogy to a country’s beginning that revolved around a game played with dice that were honest at the onset. But, over time, each major historical event structured future socio-political development/evolution by becoming institutionalized, loading the dice as it were, establishing a directional bias that became stronger and more pronounced as time passed. To put it another way, according to Weber, historical events establish societal values and pre-dispositions that influence future events, thus shaping the direction of socio-political change.

But, as an alternate scenario, what if that game started with loaded instead of honest dice, biasing a country’s socio-political system in a pre-determined direction from the get-go? What if the initial playing field had not been level and the resulting game had not been unbiased at any point? In that variation on Weber’s analogy, events that predisposed a country to favor whites over non-whites would set in motion a support process that increased the future likelihood of favoring whites.

Weber’s loaded dice can easily be identified across American history: the Constitution recognized black slavery as legal and blacks as inferior; the Naturalization Law of 1790 allowed only white men to become citizens; the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled blacks were not fully human; the 1871 Blyew v. United States decision found that in nearly all Southern and Border States whites could kill, rob, or cheat Black Americans as long as the only witnesses were black since by state law blacks could not testify against whites; the 1875 United States v. Cruikshank decision left Black Americans throughout Southern and Border States without the protection of federal law; the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law prevented people of Chinese nationality from immigrating to the U.S. solely because of their racial heritage; the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision found racial separation was legal; Native Americans were not allowed to become American citizens until the mid-20th Century; 127,000 U.S. citizens were imprisoned during World War II and their property was confiscated without judicial process because of their Japanese ancestry; and today we cannot ignore the Affirmative Action programs that are increasingly under attack across the U.S. Connecting those dots should not be difficult.

The very real problem we face today is that conservatives cannot see or cannot allow themselves to see historical reality: that America’s national identity was rigged as ethnocentric from the outset, favoring whites and handicapping people of color, whether enslaved or free blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. From our earliest beginnings as a country, whites were virtuous and superior and non-whites were despicable and inferior and thus not deserving of the same rights and freedoms, no matter what awe-inspiring words were enshrined in the Constitution. What conservatives shield themselves from is that good intentions are meaningless when immoral, unethical, and inequitable acts by whites against people of color are the societal and governmental norm.

Achieving freedom and equality requires, at minimum, a legal system that is fair to all. Although people need a level playing field for success to be attainable, structured inequity translates into success largely for the favored in-group and failure for devalued out-groups. If the source of that inequity is government law/policy that is enforced at all levels from local to national, then transitioning to an unbiased future will be extraordinarily difficult.

To trumpet American Exceptionalism today in the face of our history of ethnocentrism is an act of arrogance that ignores or justifies more than three centuries of white oppression of non-whites and creates the beautiful myth that all people in the U.S. enjoyed freedom and equality as a natural right throughout our history. We owe not our country unconditional love or approval. Rather we owe ourselves the courage to be honest in the face of hard reality. We’re not a perfect country; after all, has such ever existed? But the claims conservatives make that America is, in essence, better than every other country in the world flies in the face of our history. It’s that refusal of conservatives to acknowledge the warts and flaws and self-serving immoral behavior that inevitably characterizes all countries that puts the lie to American Exceptionalism.

Starting from colonial settlement onward we became an “Exceptional country” through a process designed to enrich and empower whites at the expense of all others. We became an “Exceptional country” because a coalition of Southern white plantation owners and Northern white merchants were able to exploit the unpaid labor of savagely oppressed and enslaved blacks that transitioned after the Civil War into the savage oppression of Black Americans through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and violent socio-political restraints. We became an “Exceptional country” through a century of legal, illegal, and extra-legal acts by whites from all political parties and at all levels of government aimed at oppressing non-whites.

Simply because conservatives want to believe the best of the U.S. does not mean that was what transpired in the real world. Wishing it were so does not create historical reality.

For a century after 250 years of the almost unimaginable evil of slavery, federal, state, and local governments turned what was essentially a blind eye to a highly organized and efficient system of legally-based repression, intimidation, and savagery in Southern and Border States that focused physical and psychological violence against Black Americans with the specific intent of depriving them of Constitutional rights in order to maintain and strengthen white supremacy. It was not until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Act of 1965 that American citizens who were first granted suffrage after the Civil War by the 15th Amendment were finally able to vote after 100 years of violent subjugation by state and local governments and white supremacists. That century of systematic, nationwide de jure and de facto hostility and repression has never been officially acknowledged by the U.S. government. Nor has the government apologized for more than two centuries of enslaving blacks. Nor has an apology or any type of broad-based support, not to mention financial/economic reparations, ever been offered to Black Americans by the federal or state governments.[9]

People who trumpet American Exceptionalism cannot allow themselves to see that this country was founded on ethnocentrism and has continued throughout history to operate on that precept because that’s the way the Weberian dice had been loaded. Which makes the U.S. like all too many other countries that were organized around and operated through in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.[10]  Because to acknowledge that historical reality would negate their sense of superiority over other countries and pop their American Exceptionalism balloon. Although it is impossible for conservatives to admit, at our innermost core what makes Americans exceptional is our almost limitless addiction to hypocrisy and denial.

To all conservative politicians and their followers who beat the drum of American Exceptionalism and discount or ignore our shameful history of racial hostility and oppression, I offer the words of Joseph N. Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army, as he addressed Senator Joseph McCarthy during a 1954 Senate investigation:

"Have you no sense of decency . . .? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"[11]


END NOTES
[1] Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/07/text-of-mitt-romneys-speech-on-foreign-policy-at-the-citadel/?mod=google_news_blog
[2] Source: https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/598577980298829824?lang=en
[3] https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/339276/exceptional-debate.
[4] Steven F. Lawson, 1999. Black ballots: Voting rights in the South, 1944-1969. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
[5] Steven F. Lawson. Ibid, p. 14-15 and http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf. See also Michael Perman. 2001. Struggle for Mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888-1908. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
[6] Source: Chris Danielson. 2013. The color of politics: Racism in the American political arena today. New York: Praeger Publishing. See also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/flood-vardaman/
[7] Quoted in http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf Also see: William Bradford Huie. 2001. “The shocking story of approved killing in Mississippi,” in Racial violence on trial: A handbook with cases, laws, and documents, p. 245. Christopher Waldrep, ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; and Stephen J. Whitfield. 1991. A death in the delta: The story of Emmett Till. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[8] Charles J. McClain. 1996. In search of equality: The Chinese struggle against discrimination in nineteenth-century America. Oakland, California: University of California Press. Also see: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf; McClain, Charles J. 1995. Tortuous path, elusive goal: The Asian quest for American citizenship. Asian American Law Journal. 2:33-60. Available online: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=aalj
[9] See Ta-Nehisi Coates: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
[10] See: Axelrod, Robert, and Ross A. Hammond. 2003. “The evolution of ethnocentric behavior.” Revised version of a paper prepared for delivery at Midwest Political Science Convention, April 3-6, 2003, Chicago, Illinois. Available online: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
[11] For the original quote, see: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444/

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Confederate Battle Flag and Southern Heritage

All those who believe that the heritage of the Confederacy and that of the South is purely about a cherished and all but sacred way of life and nothing more should be encouraged to read the famous Cornerstone Address given on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia, by Alexander H. Stephens, who served as Vice President of the Confederate States of America from February 18, 1861, to May 11, 1865.

An excerpt from that speech is provided below.

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man (emphasis added); that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Near the end of his Cornerstone Address, Alexander Stephens boldly summarized Southern Heritage for all to see: “With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.” For the full address see: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

Southern Americans proud of their heritage also should never forget that on January 9, 1861, the State of Mississippi issued its Declaration of Secession from the Union, stating: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.” Source: http://http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

In short, the Confederacy, the way of life of the South so innocently and eagerly promoted as Southern Heritage and the sacrifice of soldiers, as well as the post-Civil War Jim Crow world was founded on one thing only: white supremacy and white domination over black slaves who with their descendants would remain slaves in perpetuity. All the other characterizations are smokescreens, wistful myths, or scurrilous lies.

Watching Southern whites demonstrating their passionate belief in revisionist history on national TV/cable news shows leads you to the conclusion that a great many if not the overwhelming majority give every appearance of being poorly educated, inarticulate, ignorant, and proud of it. Their words/actions leaves little doubt as to their intentions: We might not be smart but we vote; so don’t fuck with us.

As an aside of sorts, could it be that the South is inhabited only by whites who are ferociously proud of their heritage? Or could it be that millions of Black Americans also live in that region who do not identify with the white supremacy, oppression, and slavery represented by the Confederate flag? As an on-point example, South Carolina is home to 1.35 million Black Americans, which is about 28 percent of the State population. Take a guess as to what they think of the Confederate flag and of the whites who rant and rave about their proud Southern heritage.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary—EATING FLORIDA

For those Readers who are somewhat reformed couch potatoes and are eager to experience part of natural Florida without getting their shoes wet, or even dusty, the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in the Big Cypress may be the answer to their prayers. The Sanctuary is a place where even dedicated couch potatoes can relax because visitors can walk into the heart of the swamp on an elevated boardwalk and stay high and dry while becoming immersed in a wetland forest primeval.
By 1952 it had became painfully obvious to everyone who was even mildly interested that commercial logging would soon destroy all large tracts of first-growth baldcypress in Florida. Aware that the ever-increasing public outcry might slow their relentless plundering, the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company offered an option on 2,240 acres of pristine baldcypress forest to the National Audubon Society (joined with an association of 14 other conservation groups) as a sanctuary for wood storks and other endangered wading birds and then donated 640 acres more. Today, Sanctuary property under Audubon Society management has increased to 13,000 acres. The Society’s primary goal at Corkscrew is to preserve the natural ecosystem through extensive monitoring, prescribed burning, limited human access, and control of such exotic pest species as melaleuca (also widely known as cajeput), Australian pine, water hyacinth, and Brazilian pepper, among many others.
In all, timber companies hauled nearly forty thousand railroad cars of cypress from the Big Cypress Swamp in two decades. One rail car held between 60,000 and 80,000 pounds, or thirty to forty tons. You do the math (or I can do it for you — 1,400,000 tons total or 70,000 tons of baldcypress annually). Lumbermen loved to use cypress wood in construction, for railroad ties, posts, and roofing shingles because it was soft, light, strong, straight-grained, very durable, did not warp, and was highly rot-resistant, even under water. Cypress lumber was also used to make gutters, coffins, stadium seats, and pickle barrels. It was even used for the hulls of PT boats in World War II.
Because southwestern Florida’s water regime had been savagely altered by the earlier channelization of the Caloosahatchee River and by the diking of Lake Okeechobee, it took only a few years for the land to dry out after the big trees had been removed. Then one fire after another swept through the cut-over stands, destroying the thin soil down to bedrock, making reseeding and restoration of the baldcypress an impossible task. It took thoughtless, greed-obsessed people less than 30 years to effectively destroy a substantial part of the Big Cypress, an environment that had taken a minimum 5,000 years to develop naturally. Greed reared its ugly head once again and triumphed, as usual, aided and abetted by indifferent or intentionally ineffective State regulatory agencies.
Corkscrew Swamp’s 17 square miles is the last sizeable, contiguous stand of baldcypress left in Florida. Several of the individual baldcypress giants in the Sanctuary may exceed 700 years old. Those huge trees are over 130 feet in height and have girths easily exceeding 25 feet. The Sanctuary is a major nesting ground for endangered wood storks and is a haven for the rare swallow-tailed Everglades kite and also provides nesting sites for white ibis and the great egret.
The original impetus for the National Audubon Society in establishing Corkscrew Swamp as a sanctuary was to save the endangered wood stork and other rare birds. Between 1881 and 1917, perhaps 95 percent of the egret and other wading bird populations of Florida had been systematically slaughtered for ladies’ fashion accessories, especially to provide plumes for fancy hats and other elegant head gear. The only thing that had saved the few birds that survived was not the half dozen inadequate Federal laws prohibiting interstate commerce in birds protected by state laws, but the simple fact that, in 1917, New York whores began using feathers in their costumes as they strutted their wares on the streets. After that, no respectable society “lady” wanted to be confused with ladies of the night so feathers and plumage were instantly dropped from the fashion plates of the rich and social elites.
Nature lovers the world over owe a great debt of gratitude to those nameless prostitutes who simply desired to look upscale and high fashion. They inadvertently and unintentionally saved some of the most beautiful birds in America from certain and remorseless slaughter. And for that alone I hope that God forgave their sins, whatever they were. Unfortunately, the decline in the plume trade came too late for Guy Bradley and C. G. MacLeod, dedicated Audubon Society game wardens who were murdered by plume hunters intent on shooting out all the remaining rookeries in south Florida.
For the uninitiated but interested, it's relatively easy to tell a number of the large wading birds of Corkscrew Swamp apart. Though you’ll probably need a copy of Peterson’s Field Guide to identify the similar looking long-legged members of the heron family. Wood storks are large birds with very large wingspans, about five to six feet in length. Their identifying marks include a white body, dark legs, a naked, dark ugly-looking head that earned it the Florida nickname, ironhead. Its long, thick dark bill curves slightly downward and looks quite lethal, especially from a fish’s point of view. It has black under-side wing and tail feathers. It often soars high overhead on thermals with its legs stretched behind and its neck out straight, unlike the slightly larger herons that fly with their necks held in a curved, S-shaped position.
The white ibis is about half again smaller than the wood stork and has a white rump and black feathers only at the very tips of its wings. White ibis also have reddish bills and legs. Great egrets are large, slender birds, though slightly smaller than wood storks, and feature all-white bodies, wings and tails. Their legs and feet are black and their straight, rapier-like bills are yellow or orangey-yellow.
As an inveterate bird watcher, I'm fascinated by wood storks. One reason I've always loved to observe birds is they can tell us so much about how our environment is faring. But, if you pay attention to what has happened to wood storks in south Florida you're likely to become sad, depressed, and maybe outright angry. Wood storks are truly amazing creatures. They time their reproductive cycle to coincide with the occurrence of shallower waters during south Florida's dry season, when the small fish and frogs they hunt are concentrated in pools as the surrounding marshes dry up. Unlike many other wading birds, a wood stork actively hunts by inserting its beak in the water and moving it about. When a prey animal touches the sensitive beak it snaps shut with lightening speed, about one-fortieth of a second, easily one of the fastest known reaction times in nature.
Before 1900, as the dry season deepened in intensity, the terrestrial dry-down progressed geographically, from upland areas in the northern part of its range to the wet prairies and eventually to the southernmost sloughs and lagoons. That almost linear progression across the vast Kissimmee-Everglades-Big Cypress Basin ensured a continuous supply of concentrated prey through the breeding season. That cycle practically guaranteed breeding success, as a single wood stork needed at least three to four pounds of fish/frogs each day to feed itself and its hatchlings. If it rained too much and the fish were disbursed or the dry season started too early and the fish population died off then the storks would not reproduce. So, the question is if the storks are so marvelously adapted to the specific south Florida environment, then why today has their population been reduced by more than 90 percent when compared to its pre-1930 population? What happened?
The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Humans have altered the land-water system for their short-term financial benefit. Dikes, canals, pumping stations, water impoundment areas, levees, large-scale agriculture, and urban development. We can sum up all these factors with a phrase for the ages: Water Management. What the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District had done was to effectively change the timing and duration of the complex natural hydro-regimes within the entire Kissimmee-Everglades-Big Cypress Basin. And thus they have artificially and perhaps permanently changed all the ecosystems of south Florida.
True, things are not as bad as they were 30 years ago when civil engineers ruled this land with a clenched iron fist. Or even as bad as 15 years ago. But, if you disbelieve those radical, doom-saying environmentalists and really think south Florida is on its way back from the brink of disaster, then why aren't the wood storks on a breeding splurge? Or why hasn't the Everglades snail kite made it off the endangered species list? If you take another guess it had better have something to do with the way Americans have mistreated central and south Florida.
Environmental education is another of the Audubon Society's primary missions at Corkscrew Swamp. And they do a fantastic job. The self-guided elevated boardwalk tour serves as the chief tool to educate visitors. A guidebook, obtained at the Visitors Center, illustrates points of interest along the trail and is complemented by roving interpreters who are available to respond to questions about the Sanctuary and its flora and fauna. Portable exhibits are frequently used to demonstrate fascinating tidbits of swamp ecology and their significance to the well-being of the entire ecosystem.
A two mile-long elevated boardwalk leads into Corkscrew Swamp from the northern-most edge of the Big Cypress. My advice is to arrive promptly at 7:00 a.m. and walk through the swamp slowly, savoring the almost solemn silence and the varied microenvironments. It is, after all, the last remaining stand of virgin baldcypress in Florida. Several of the giant trees in the Sanctuary were mature when the Spanish conquistadores first landed in the early 16th Century. A little quiet reverence or reflection would not be inappropriate.
Our pleasant stroll to the boardwalk begins through a stand of virgin pines located on slightly elevated ground. Their tall, dark, and stately trunks stretch straight into the sky. The transition zone between the pinewoods and the next microenvironment, wet prairie, is sprinkled with plants associated with moist pine flatwoods, including marsh pinks, meadow beauty, and Catesby's lily. Several hundred yards farther brings early morning visitors into a fog-laced stand of the smaller but still impressive pond cypress bordering lettuce fern lagoons. In the cottony mist you can see a profusion of epiphytes (air plants among which are orchids and bromeliads) hanging from the pond cypress trunks and limbs, including the ubiquitous but ever intriguing Spanish Moss, cardinal wild-pine, beautiful butterfly orchids, and ferns in incredible abundance and variety. Bromeliads, which belong to the same family of plants as pineapple, can grow in the ground, on tree trucks and limbs, or on the sides of rocks. They typically have stiff leathery leaves with a spike of bright flowers.
Minutes later, after transitioning through a stand of smaller pond cypress, you enter an immense baldcypress cathedral whose natural splendor simply takes your breath away. Magnificent, awe-inspiring trees tower overhead, several more than one hundred feet tall. The aura of almost sacred mystery is overwhelming, practically demanding that visitors contemplate what southern Florida would be like today if law or conscience had restrained the marauding timber companies. And don't we all know exactly what a fat chance that would have been, especially in the State of Florida.
I first brought my family to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in the mid-1980s. Just as we entered the densest part of the virgin cypress forest, we were treated to the ear-splitting roars of a nearby alligator, challenging only God knew what. It was a heart-stopping thrill for me but certainly more than a little frightening for all three of our kids, who were twelve, nine, and seven years old. Not more than five minutes later a small barred owl unexpectedly swooped low over our heads, landed on a tree trunk some 30 feet away and deftly snatched up a morning-chilled, slow moving lizard. With its breakfast secure in its beak, the owl then swiveled its head to stare at the small group of humans intruding into its space. As I watched, absolutely transfixed by the drama of the scene, the hapless lizard’s tail twitched wildly from one corner of the bird’s beak to the other. Well, coming immediately after the roar of the gator, the twitching tail hanging out of the owl’s mouth was about all the natural environment my finicky wife and kids cared to see. So, they departed for the car’s reassuring comfort. Which was fine by me since I had more time to soak up the magic and mystery of Corkscrew Swamp.
When the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary was established in 1954, it was in a remote part of Collier and Lee Counties and attracted fewer than 10,000 visitors annually. By the early-1990s, however, attendance surpassed 100,000 visitors annually, nearly overwhelming its modest sewage facilities. That inability to handle wastewater adequately presented an immediate problem that had to be addressed since Florida law required all facilities with that heavy visitor load to build appropriately sized sewage systems.
The recommended solution was to construct two small package plants featuring traditional technology that would work in tandem, both running full speed during the heavy onslaught of the tourist season and only one during the off-season. The problem with that solution involved not only efficiency and reliability but also the large amount of land needed and the system’s inappropriateness in a natural landscape.
At that point a scientist named John Todd suggested a patented wastewater treatment system called Living Machines that used sunlight, bacteria, green plants (such as alligator flag, arrowhead, pickerel weed, blue flag iris, and swamp lily), and animals (including snails, shrimp, insects, and various types of fish) to restore wastewater to pure conditions. Todd, a PhD ecologist whose work was inspired by the famous systems ecologist, Howard Odum, was founder of Ocean Arks International, which is a Vermont-based not-for-profit corporation that had been designing Living Machines for well over ten years. The system Todd proposed would occupy an area of only 4,900 square feet (a little more than a tenth of an acre), purify wastes without chemical additives, and recycle 90 percent of the purified water back into the toilets for reuse. Audubon was intrigued since Todd’s innovative system used natural processes and had the added value of costing substantially less than the conventional sanitary engineering approach. Construction began in May 1994 and was completed in October 1994. The Sanctuary has and continues to use the first Living Machine treatment system permitted in Florida.
The Living Machine has the added advantage of offering the Sanctuary wonderful educational opportunities. The entire facility is open to the public and is interpreted with illustrative signs and displays. Sanctuary officials feel that the wastewater treatment system is so attractive and efficient that it is an ideal setting for teaching water chemistry, natural wastewater purification, and recycling lessons to visitors young and old, consequently it fits flawlessly into Audubon’s environmental educational program and into its mission to preserve the last remaining baldcypress forest in America.
Implications
The wonderful lesson of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is that non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in this case the National Audubon Society, can work with private landowners and various government agencies to purchase pristine, damaged, or even broken ecosystems before they are irretrievably destroyed. For certain, those sensitive lands can't all be purchased and typically they can't be protected by single-handed and uncoordinated action. But by joining together communities, businesses, governments, partner organizations, and people just like us those fragile land-water environments can be preserved for future generations to use and enjoy and also to preserve in turn for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
I have adapted materials contained in The Nature Conservancy’s web site to provide just a few of the many ways the mission of environmental preservation can be achieved: land acquisition (known by real estate professionals as fee simple), public and private lands conservation, conservation easements, conservation buyer projects, conservation-friendly public policies, public land management, parks-in-peril program, public funding for conservation, debt for nature swaps, conservation (estate) trust funds, ecosystem services payments, resource extraction fees, public finance campaigns, and transfer of development rights. Those methods work. We only have to step to the plate and get involved.
Many environmental organizations regularly work hand in glove with local stakeholders (people like you and me who give money in amounts large and small), governmental agencies at varying levels, other non-profit organizations, international groups, and corporations with consciences and enter into unilateral-multilateral-bilateral agreements to buy and preserve fragile and sensitive lands. NGOs like the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council among others are able to play critical roles in ensuring that environments that have present and lasting value are not thrown into the crushing jaws of development.
For the gift of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary we all owe the National Audubon Society a debt of gratitude, despite the numerous failings of its sister organization, Audubon of Florida, with regard to the nearby Everglades. More on that debacle later.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

American Exceptionalism: An Evaluation

Initial Thoughts
Over the years I have come to the realization that Americans view their country through rose-colored glasses. Variants on that theme are common, even in casual conversation. America is a country unlike any other, a moral leader with a global mission to spread freedom and democracy. “What makes American exceptionalism different is that we are the only people I know of in history to say power comes directly from God to each one of you” (Newt Gingrich as reported in Lawrence 2011). America has an “exceptional role on the world stage, that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom” (Romney 2011). How we see our country and portray ourselves to the world is precisely what I want to examine in this essay.

American Exceptionalism has been a thorny issue for me for several decades, though it is a concept beloved by conservatives, moderates of varied stripes, libertarians, and liberals. Part of what I find troubling is that Exceptionalists typically extol the U.S. as the moral model of democracy—that rare system founded in equal measures on the consent of the governed and on the inalienable rights of freedom and dignity possessed by all people—as well as a socioeconomic success that should be envied and emulated by the rest of the world. Another troubling issue for me before every presidential election is the propensity of many incumbent and wanna-be politicians to work their bases into a state of political fervor by throwing out the red meat of Exceptionalism. Part of that trend is for those same politicians to try to outdo their opponents with respect to who is the most rabidly devoted to American Exceptionalism, more than suggesting that those who are even moderate in their expressed devotion to Exceptionalism are lacking in patriotism and thus are not viable candidates (Ledbetter 2012). To put it another way, in many political and ideological circles Exceptionalism = patriotism. I believe that situation calls for critical analysis of how historical events have been interpreted with respect to the claim of Exceptionalists that American is a great democratic country so dramatically different than and superior to others that it deserves the world’s adulation and emulation.

In this essay I do not engage in a full-scale analysis of the defining attributes of the American Exceptionalist concept (for such reviews see Hodgson 2010, Madsen 1998, Murray 2013, and Pease 2009). Rather, this evaluation is concerned with what I regard as key elements that were part of the American experience at the very onset of our becoming a new country, namely how the concepts of inalienable human rights—especially freedom, dignity, and equality—were expressed in American life and culture, not in high-minded words but in real-world actions. The specific historical elements in which this essay is grounded include the treatment of Native Americans and slavery and its aftermath. Although both topics are complex, my goal is to clarify their place in American history and thus their relationship to Exceptionalism.

Author’s Note: Few people are open to information that challenges their own beliefs, although most of us are quite capable of finding errors in the beliefs of others. What we all have inside us, at varying levels of intensity, is a confirmation bias (Nickerson 1998) that prompts us to seek evidence that confirms what we intuitively/emotionally know to be true and reject information that fails to confirm those beliefs. I do not know of a reliable way to counteract the internal bias or the inclination to engage in system justification (Jost et al. 2004) and motivated reasoning (Westen 2006) that we all have. My technique in this essay is to rely on historical documents and academic research despite knowing that technique will seldom persuade those who either reject objective evidence or minimize its relevance to a discussion. Nevertheless, in the hope of promoting a fuller understanding of American history, the sources I have provided herein are largely available online so people can read original research/documents and make up their own minds.

Treatment of Indigenous Nations
When Europeans began colonizing the New World, they found it populated with indigenous peoples engaged in hunting, fishing, gathering, complex social interactions with neighboring peoples that included trade and cooperation as well as conflict, and a wide variety of agricultural activities. Many of those native peoples, especially on the Eastern Seaboard and Piedmont, inhabited permanent, self-sufficient settlements or villages that were substantial in size and complexity. The typical English reaction to discovering native peoples in the New World, after their failures with the Popham and Roanoke Colonies, was to make clear their intent through words and deeds:

We seek land and resources. Because we are Christian, white, civilized, and better armed, we are superior to you in every way. Resistance will cause us to attack you. Your only viable option is to accept our dominion and sell your land to us at prices and conditions we determine to be fair (see Jennings 1975).

A chilling chapter in North American history that was largely under-researched until the last several decades concerns the enslavement of Native Americans. Today, most Americans have at least passing familiarity with the displacement of Native Americans by whites but little awareness of the specific ways in which displacement and enslavement overlapped in early North American history. What a number of contemporary historians have discovered is that the seeds of the African enslavement system were sown in earlier European efforts to exploit Native American labor. That white determination to force Native Americans into slavery intensified the turmoil of contact between the two groups, disrupting what had been fairly well-established inter-tribal relationships and creating volatility among native communities that were struggling to determine their place in a radically new socio-political reality forced on them by waves of white invaders.

A detailed summary article on this critical topic is available in Rebecca Onion’s “America’s Other Original Sin” published in Slate (see: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.single.html)

A sampling of recently published research into this topic would include the work of Gallay (2003 and 2015), Krauthamer (2013), Newell (2015), Reséndez (2016), Rushford (2012), Saunt (2005), and Snyder (2010).

And so adventurous and profit-seeking Englishmen proceeded to slowly but surely subjugate the indigenous peoples they found in the New World, taking what they wanted through varying combinations of mutual aid mixed with violence, coercion, and duplicity (Allen 1991), exploiting the land for their benefit, and establishing colonial outposts that mimicked the places from which they had come. The newly minted U.S. Government took its lead directly from England and continued in that imperialistic-colonializing mode despite the sacred promises of freedom/individual liberty, equality, and justice for all enshrined so prominently in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (see Loesch 1993).

Two early U.S. Supreme Court decisions—Johnson v. M’Intosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia—sealed the fate of Native Americans long before most tribes across the continent knew much about white people in general, or about the law-less American frontiersmen/pioneers/settlers massing at their borders, boiling with lust for free land to homestead. Several principles established in those famous decisions are relevant today:

• The British right of discovery (meaning legal ownership) with respect to all land in the area comprising the U.S. passed directly to the federal Government when the former colonies became an independent country.

• The right of the U.S. to property it claimed in North America was ownership in fee simple and the Native American right to the land they had occupied for hundreds of years was comparable to a lease [Author’s Note: a condition clearly subordinate to and dependent on the legal owner, the U.S. Government].

• Native American rights to property could only be sold to the U.S. Government [Author’s Note: creating a monopsony of one buyer and one seller with the buyer able to “fix” the price to its advantage].

• Native Americans tribes were not independent nations but were “wards” of the U.S. Government “in a state of pupilage”; nor had the Framers of the Constitution considered them citizens with legal standing in court (Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, pp. 30 U.S. 17-18; see also Naturalization Act of 1790).

Of interest is that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh was reached without Native American tribes being present or represented by counsel. Thus, the Court was free to craft a “story” of Native American savagery that gave substance to its “new rule” of conquest but was at considerable variance with historical facts that were widely known at the time (Engle 2004; Kades 2000), facts the Court itself later acknowledged in Cherokee Nation (Krupat 1992).

Native American tribes were not sovereign nations under U.S. law but were defined by the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation as “domestic dependent nations.” Thus, when the Government desired to buy tribal land, the Executive Branch negotiated a treaty that would be ratified by the Senate if judged appropriate. Those treaties were acknowledged by the Government as “contracts between nations” and as statutory obligations. In most treaties, a tribe would agree to give up (cede) its rights to part of its land while reserving the remaining portions for their use (reservation). In exchange, the U.S. Government would purchase the land from the tribe and promise to protect them from white encroachment and allow them to live permanently on treaty-authorized reservations. That was how it was supposed to work. Reality was considerably different.

What happened to the Cherokee Nation is illustrative of the reality that every tribe in the U.S. would eventually face. Article VII of the Government’s Holston Treaty (1791) with the Cherokee specifically stated: “The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation, all their lands not hereby ceded.” However, due to intense pressure by white settlers to appropriate Cherokee land guaranteed by Congress as legally in tribal possession, the State of Georgia commenced an organized program to eject all members of the tribe from the State (see Mintz and McNeil 2013). When gold was discovered in Georgia in the mid-1820s on land owned and occupied by the Cherokee Nation, the pressure by whites on the national and state governments to take the land grew exponentially (Engle 2004). To solve that problem, President Andrew Jackson, via the Indian Removal Act of 1830, simply forced the Cherokee and the other Five Civilized Tribes from their lands despite the Tribes’ refusal to sign treaties acceding to Washington’s demands and in flagrant violation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokees (Worcester v. Georgia). Those tribes and over two dozen Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southeastern tribes were removed by the U.S. military, typically without their consent, to what was called Indian Territory. In 1825, the Government had specified Indian Territory as all the land lying west of the Mississippi River and constituting parts of the present day states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, though that land had been occupied for many decades by other indigenous tribes. Forced removal of members of the Five Civilized Tribes alone opened approximately 25 million acres in the Southeast for white settlement, cotton plantations, and slavery. By 1850, over 100,000 Native Americans had been forcibly evicted from their ancestral homelands in the Midwest and Southeast to Indian Territory; approximately 15,000 Native Americans died along that brutal journey from disease, exposure, or malnutrition directly due to federal Government indifference and mismanagement (Perdue and Green 1995).

A statement from the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, reveals the reality of Government relations with Native American tribes. “The U.S. Government used treaties as one means to displace Indians from their tribal lands, a mechanism that was strengthened with the Removal Act of 1830. In cases where this failed, the Government sometimes violated both treaties and Supreme Court rulings to facilitate the spread of European Americans westward across the continent” (Source: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties).

Another prime example of U.S. Government duplicity with Native Americans involves the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty that established the Great Sioux Reservation. One of the main Treaty provisions was the Government’s obligation to prevent non-Native American settlement or intrusion on treaty lands. The Treaty also guaranteed that all changes to the official document had to be approved by three-fourths of adult Dakota/Lakota males. The federal Government immediately violated the Treaty by failing to provide the stipulated food rations, clothing, medical care, and schools. Early in the 1870s, the Government again violated its Treaty obligations by allowing Northern Pacific Railroad survey crews on Treaty land without tribal permission and in the face of vociferous tribal opposition. But the final straw was when gold was discovered in 1874 in the Black Hills, land that was sacred to the Dakota/Lakota, and thousands of white miners invaded the Reservation. The Government’s immediate reaction was to demand the Treaty be renegotiated to allow purchase of the area, a demand the tribes overwhelmingly rejected and refused to relinquish their Treaty rights. Despite the supposed legally binding nature of the Treaty and the Dakota/Lakota refusal to sign a new treaty, the Government unilaterally ordered seizure of the Black Hills, extinguished tribal hunting rights on adjacent land that had been set aside in the Treaty for exclusive Dakota/Lakota use, and opened the area to settlement by gold-crazed whites. The Sioux War commenced and the rest is history as the U.S. Government rejected justice and morality and imposed its will by military power.

The Dakota/Lakota Tribes eventually sued over seizure of the Black Hills, losing repeatedly until in 1980 the Supreme Court heard the case and agreed with the Indian Claims Commission’s finding that the U.S. Government had “acquired the Black Hills through a course of unfair and dishonorable dealing for which the Sioux were entitled to damages” and also “remarked upon President Grant’s duplicity in breaching the Government’s treaty obligation to keep trespassers out of the Black Hills” (United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians 1980, 387-388). Not surprisingly, the Court ruled, in effect, that the U.S. Government got a pass on its bad behavior in abrogating its treaty obligations with the Dakota/Lakota Tribes but was obligated to pay for the Black Hills land it had seized illegally.

Author’s Note: The Dakota/Lakota Tribes did not deposit or cash the Government’s $107 million check it was awarded as a result of winning its suit, insisting that the Black Hills are theirs and a monetary award is irrelevant to that ownership.

A final example shines a spotlight on Government intentions/actions regarding its statutory treaty obligations with Native Americans. Because many people reading this essay likely have little training in legal matters, it is important to provide background by calling attention to United States v. Kagama (1886) and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). The Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions in both cases determined that since Native Americans were “wards of the nation” (established in Cherokee Nation) and matters involving Indian lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress, therefore Congress had the power to violate and abrogate the terms of ratified treaties without the consent of the affected tribes, no matter what the Government had agreed to or promised in the treaties (the plenary powers doctrine that is clearly extra-Constitutional and controversial). The Supreme Court handed Congress a legal license to steal and Congress immediately put that power to use by passing the General Allotment Act in 1887. For more information, see: http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24391 and http://outreach.asu.edu/book/resource-guide/plenary-power-cases.

The General Allotment Act (also known as the Dawes Severalty Act after its main sponsor, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts ) was one of the first efforts of Congress to deal with nearly all tribes in the U.S. as a single entity, rather than individually, and to alter across the board, without tribal participation or consent, rights previously guaranteed in several hundred treaties ratified by the Senate. That Law marked a major policy change since the Government had previously dealt with individual tribes through treaties, a practice Congress ended in 1871.

The General Allotment Law split almost all treaty-authorized reservations (with certain exceptions subject to later allotment) into numerous smaller units typically ranging from 40 to 160 acres and then allotted that acreage to the head of each family and other individuals within the tribe. The stated objectives of the Law were to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream culture by forcing them to become farmers/grazers and to free land for white settlement (Washburn 1975). The primary unstated but well-known objectives of the Law were to destroy tribal culture through the forced removal of Native American children from their families to distant, off-reservation boarding schools and to restrict the practice of indigenous religions, languages, and traditions. The Law stipulated that the Government would classify reservation lands remaining after the allotment process as “excess” and acquire them at minimal cost, frequently at a dollar per acre or less, and convey those lands to white Americans for homesteading. Even at the time, that scheme was understood as a brazen ploy to appease land hungry white settlers rather than as a legitimate effort to aid Native Americans. The Act was proposed, debated, and adopted as law by Congress without consultation with Native American tribes whose treaty-authorized lands were then taken without their consent in violation of several hundred ratified treaties (Gunn 2004). Before the Law was repealed in 1934, the U.S. Government had unilaterally but legally expropriated more than 90 million acres, or close to two-thirds of the land that had been granted by the Government to Native American tribes via more than 350 Senate-ratified treaties.

Author's Note: It is critical for readers to know that a 1928 study ordered by the Calvin Coolidge Administration,  known as the Meriam Report, determined that the Dawes Act had been used to illegally deprive Native Americans of their land rights and that in general the U.S. federal government had failed to protect Native Americans, their land and  resources, both personal and cultural.

After serving as the prime mover for the Allotment Act, Senator Dawes went on to concoct the “Great Sioux Agreement” of 1889 that was designed to destroy what remained of the Dakota-Lakota bands' traditional way of life and speed the process of forcing Native Americans from their treaty-guaranteed lands. In regard to the agreement, he openly acknowledged the illegal, unethical, and immoral techniques the federal government had used to deprive tribes of their land: “We may cry out against the violation of treaties, denounce flagrant disregard of inalienable rights and the inhumanity of our treatment of the defenseless . . . but the fact remains. . . . Without doubt these Indians are going to be absorbed into and become a part of the 50,000,000 of our people.” See: Francis Paul Prucha. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. For an analysis of Indian sovereignty and conflicts with the U.S. court system, see David E. Wilkins. 1997. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.

The adverse effects of the General Allotment Law not only continue today but also have worsened over time. Those adverse effects include increasingly fractionated ownership of Indian land (parcels whose title is splintered into multiple undivided interests, leaving allotment heirs with tiny, unusable ownership fractions) that renders the land almost incapable of productive use, checkerboard ownership patterns where Native American land is typically surrounded by land in white ownership, and loss of access to sacred sites. Actions by the U.S. Government over the last 200 plus years have demonstrated that land that had been granted to Native American tribes via ratified treaties and held in “trust” for their use remained in trust only until demand for land by white American settlers rose to a fever pitch. Whereupon Congress abrogated the treaties, seized the land, and conveyed it to whites. One wonders how Native Americans are able to muster an iota of trust for a Government whose behavior has ranged from benevolent to exploitative to unjust-unethical and to what would be criminal in any other context.

When the U.S. Government wanted ancestral Native American land and resources they expropriated them through a combination of coercion, questionable court decisions, duplicitous negotiation-acquisition strategies (Schuyler 1783; Washington 1931; Kades 2008), and the clever frauds that were treaties (Engle 2004; Kades 2000; Williams Jr. 1990). Although Wilcomb E. Washburn (1976, 23), the well-known historian of Native American relations with the U.S. Government, has claimed “American Indian policy has, therefore, been an amalgam of insight and greed, implicit bias and practical concern,” on-the-ground results of application of that amalgam demonstrate beyond question the critical roles played by greed and bias on the part of white Americans. Native American tribal lands held in trust by the federal Government comprise 56 million acres, or slightly less than 2.3 percent of the U.S. land mass, an area totaling 2.436 billion acres. Thus, the area held by indigenous people prior to the arrival of the Spanish and English in the 16th Century declined from 100 percent to the 2.3 percent now held, a significant portion of which ranges from economically marginal land to that with no productive uses.

At this point we should reflect on what President George Washington said to the Seneca Nation in 1790 after passage of the original Indian Trade and Intercourse Act: “The general government will never consent to your being defrauded. But it will protect you in all your just rights.” History proved Washington wrong because he failed to take into account the land lust/greed that drove white settlers (Kades 2001, 2008; Washburn 1972) and the duplicity of the U.S. Government in expropriating lands and resources that had been officially granted to indigenous tribes in perpetuity through treaties ratified by the Senate. Washington could not wrap his mind around the idea that the Government itself would defraud the tribes through legalized chicanery.

Imagine your reaction of someone flipped a coin 500 times and it always came up heads. You would know immediately something was rigged. Apply that same logic to the interactions of the U.S. Government with Native American tribes. To summarize that relationship, Native Americans lost while white Americans gained with such uniformity as to defy characterization as accident, chance, or the unfortunate effects of unintended consequences (Washburn 1976).

The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government have consistently refused to recognize that many of the policies, decisions, and laws they adopted regarding relations with Native American tribes have authorized theft from the weak and powerless even though that is the precise historical result. The question as to why that is the case is addressed in the Discussion section below.

Slavery and its Aftermath
Much of the way I understand Exceptionalism is grounded in our historical relationships with blacks. [Author’s Note: Although other racial-ethnic groups have been targets of white American bigotry, the focus of this part of the essay is on how our treatment of slaves created the foundation on which later actions that discriminated against Black Americans were built.] Historical documents demonstrate that many of the Founding “Fathers” personally regarded the peculiar institution of slavery as troubling for moral and political reasons. Although the Founders may have recognized the many conflicts generated by white ownership of blacks with respect to rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they consciously turned their backs on resolving those conflicts. For the slave-owning Signers of the Declaration of Independence and ten of the first 13 Presidents of the United States, the unalienable rights of all to freedom and justice were trumped by property rights, wealth, self-interest, and status of white Americans. Because the very existence of their world and personal fortunes depended on enslaving blacks, white Americans elevated greed over morality and demonstrated that the concepts of unalienable natural rights and liberty were reserved exclusively for people exactly like themselves.

The seeds of racial bigotry and discrimination planted at the birth of the U.S. grew into a bitter harvest: the rise of King Cotton and the rapidly expanding plantation system that tortured slaves into ever greater production, the Civil War, and the short-lived Reconstruction (Baptist 2014; Derenoncourt 2014; McPherson 1988). Although the Thirteenth Amendment freed blacks from the chains of slavery, they were uneducated and illiterate, asset-less, and typically unskilled except as agricultural laborers and faced a country that wanted as little to do with them as possible other than to ensure their subservience to and separation from whites.

Author’s Note: President Andrew Johnson and many Congressmen opposed the proposed Thirteenth Amendment, arguing that it would lead to full citizenship for blacks and thus create a “mongrel government instead of a white man’s government.” (Colbert 1995, 11). In Blyew v. United States (1871), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that in Kentucky, and nearly all Southern and Border States, whites could kill, rob, or cheat Black Americans as long as the only witnesses were black because those states had laws prohibiting blacks from testifying in court against whites, thus no prosecution could result.

To circumvent contact between blacks and whites as equals, 34 of the then 40 states in the U.S. enacted Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that mandated white supremacy and effectively continued slavery. In the South, newly freed blacks were enticed by plantation owners into becoming tenant farmers who would receive anywhere between 33 to 75 percent of the crops they grew. But that system involved debt peonage (Ransom and Sutch 1972), a type of forced labor established and imposed by state law in which tenant farmers could not leave the property until all debts were paid in full. Since newly freed blacks were totally without assets, they borrowed on credit from white land owners and merchants the cost of food, clothing, seed, farm animals, farm implements, fuel, medical care, and even the shacks in which they lived to tide them over until the crops could be harvested. The land owner typically set the cost of those items as well as the price paid for the resulting crops. As a consequence, a great many if not most black tenant farmers were in long-term debt (Winters 1988). The KKK, White Citizens’ Councils, Red Shirts, Knights of the White Camellia, Sabre and Rifle Clubs, and other well-armed white supremacist groups in the South and Border States led the way in a physical and mental reign of violence and terror against Black Americans, who they felt were responsible for their loss of political privilege and socioeconomic status, by lynching (nearly 4,750 murders by 1968), firebombing/burning, beatings, public humiliation, false arrests, and other acts of atavistic violence.

Author’s Note: From 1882 to 1968, approximately 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress. Seven presidents and many dozen politicians fought for anti-lynching federal legislation, but no law was ever passed that made lynching illegal because Democratic Congressmen who controlled the Southern and Border States opposed all federal legislation, especially through Senate filibusters, that would have made lynching a violation of federal law.

In all Southern and Border States, voter registration laws, poll tax laws, grandfather clauses (if your grandfather had not voted before 1867 you could not vote), literacy tests, and violence prevented Black Americans from voting. State laws throughout the U.S. required schools to be racially separate; schools for Black Americans were very inadequately funded and staffed and were overwhelmingly located in high-poverty areas. Unbeknownst to most Americans, in Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination, a ruling that stood for the next 70 years. State laws prohibited inter-racial marriage and co-habitation and required segregation in education, housing, hospitals, commercial transactions, employment, transportation, hotels and restaurants, and public places like parks, swimming pools, and beaches. Publicly funded universities across the country rejected Black American applicants solely because of their race; as examples, the first blacks were admitted to the Universities of South Carolina and Alabama in 1963, despite the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.

The first wave of Black American migration to northern industrial cities occurred from 1910 and 1930, when between 1.5 million to two million fled the rural South. When that first wave of migrants arrived in northern cities they found already in place a system of legally and socially enforced segregation and mostly low-wage, low-skill jobs. Municipalities had enacted racially restrictive zoning ordinances and property covenants that required segregation (Jackson 1985; Seitles 1998) The use of threats and physical violence, such as firebombing residential and office buildings owned by Black Americans to force them from white neighborhoods, was commonplace and culminated in widespread race riots that killed hundreds of blacks and dispossessed many thousands more of their homes (for examples see http://www.displaysforschools.com/rosewoodrp.html and http://digital.library.okstate.edu/ENCYCLOPEDIA/ENTRIES/T/TU013.html).

State and local laws restricted Black American’s right to own and lease property, conduct business, and move freely through public spaces in cities. Banks, savings and loan companies, mortgage firms, realtors, and insurance companies engaged in redlining [Author’s Note: no loans or policies were provided for individuals living within undesirable areas outlined in red] to ensure Black Americans lived separate lives from whites in areas characterized by dilapidated and deteriorated housing typically without indoor plumbing or running water and with minimal urban services, such as police, fire, street lighting, street repair, and trash pick-up.

By the time the second and much larger wave of approximately five million Black Americans migrated in 1940 to 1970 from the South to the urban Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, and Southwest, white America had fine-tuned its de jure and de facto systems of racial discrimination. In cities throughout the U.S., racially restrictive covenants had become private and were thus legal according to the Supreme Court. Redlining by banks, savings and loans, mortgage firms, realtors represented by the National Association of Real Estate Boards, and insurance companies was the rule. Violence and threats of violence served to maintain all-white residential neighborhoods through the 1970s (Abrams 1955; Brown Jr. 1972). Federal programs like those run by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the U.S.-sponsored Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), Federal Housing Authority (FHA), and Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) systematically fostered racial segregation by refusing, via federal regulations, to lend money to black people for home purchase or improvements unless they lived in all-black neighborhoods, or to whites who lived in racially integrated areas, and also promoted racially restrictive housing covenants (Brown Jr. 1972; Hayden 2004; Jackson 1985; Massey and Denton 1998). In the post-war suburban expansion period, the HOLC, FHA, FNMA, and private banks required new suburbs to be uniformly white before investments would be made or insured (Mahoney 1995, 1671-1672) and used redlining to exclude homeowners in black neighborhoods from securing federally-backed mortgages and home improvement loans (Seitles 1998).

Perhaps readers can imagine this real-world situation: Black Americans seeking to buy homes could only get mortgages if they lived in all-black neighborhoods, but since all-black neighborhoods were redlined by the HOLC, FHA, VA, FNMA, and private banks as undesirable areas no federally-insured or conventional mortgages could be obtained. Local laws/ordinances also prevented low and moderate income housing from being built for minorities (Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel).

On May 24, 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), thus upholding private racially restrictive residential covenants and ensuring more than four decades of legal, racially motivated housing discrimination throughout the U.S. As examples of the widespread nature of racially restrictive covenants, by the 1940s about 85 percent of the housing in Detroit and between 75 to 80 percent of Chicago housing was subject to such covenants (Sugrue 1996). Effectively that meant until the Supreme Court’s 1968 Jones v. Mayer decision, FHA and HOLC regulations stipulated that if housing developers sold to blacks, they would not be able to sell houses in the same neighborhood to whites who needed home loans. Home loan programs administered by the U.S. Veterans Administration had similar if not completely identical racially discriminatory regulations. In many thousands of cases, black families unable to obtain a standard conventional or U.S. Government-insured bank mortgage had no other option but to buy houses in black-only neighborhoods using a financially punitive housing “contract” system that preyed on poor, option-less black buyers (Satter 2010).

Author’s Note: Even as late as 1998, racially restrictive covenants in largely white, middle- to upper middle-class cities like Kirkwood, Missouri, were still attached to house deeds in residential subdivisions (Schuessler 2014). Although the covenants were no longer legally enforceable, they served as powerful reminders that discrimination against blacks was pervasive throughout the metropolitan landscape and not just in large central cities.

As a result, those practices created a system in which buyers, sellers, realtors, bankers, insurers, and housing developers worked in concert with the federal Government to maintain existing all-white neighborhoods and all-black ghettos and to build all-white suburbs that were largely financed through FHA and VA programs (Jackson 1985; Mahoney 1995). In the context of VA loans, I must mention that the one million Black Americans who served in the U.S. military during WWII were as racially segregated as they were in the Deep South (until July 26, 1948, when President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981 that integrated the armed forces). They could fight and die for democracy against totalitarian enemies overseas but were nearly powerless against the overt racism and bigotry that typified white America. Here’s an example that is both telling and chilling: in 1942 the American Red Cross refused to accept the blood of Black American volunteer donors (Gates 2013).

Readers should not assume housing discrimination is a thing of the past, in 2009 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against leading mortgage lender Wells Fargo, alleging the company steered Black and Latino homebuyers into riskier subprime loans and charged them more than it did white customers. Wells Fargo settled the suit in 2012 by agreeing to pay $175 million in damages. In December 2012, the DOJ settled a similar lawsuit with Bank of America for $335 million over loan discrimination by its Countrywide Financial unit. In June 2014, the city of Miami sued JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of engaging in discriminatory lending practices in minority neighborhoods since at least 2004 in violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act. In November 2014, the city of Los Angeles filed similar claims of predatory mortgage lending in minority neighborhoods against JPMorgan Chase for allegedly steering minority buyers into high risk loans they could not afford. In mid-January 2017, the U.S. DOJ accused JPMorgan Chase & Co of violating the U.S. Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act between 2006 and 2009. The lawsuit stipulated that JPMorgan Chase showed "reckless disregard" for the rights of at least 53,000 African American and Hispanic borrowers by allowing mortgage brokers to charge them more for home loans than they did for other borrowers. On the same day the DOJ suit was filed, the bank agreed to pay $55 million to settle the suit while maintaining it had not discriminated against minority borrowers.

Author’s Note: Lest we forget, the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not repeal anti-miscegenation laws found in 16 states that prohibited blacks and whites from co-habiting or marrying, including every Southern state plus Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Delaware. In 1967, those laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Years prior to that ruling, 41 of the then 48 states had passed anti-miscegenation laws. In 2000, Alabama became the last state to officially remove an anti-miscegenation provision from its Constitution. Although 60 percent of those voting approved that ballot measure, nearly 526,000 Alabamans, the remaining 40 percent, voted to continue the prohibition of racial inter-marriage.

Discussion
In this essay I have been concerned with evaluating American Exceptionalism in terms of historical evidence as to how the U.S. Government treated Native Americans and slaves, including Black Americans in the aftermath of the Thirteenth Amendment. Although certain characteristics were shared by both Black and Native Americans, one stands above all others as critical: according to federal and state law and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Native Americans and blacks were non-citizens innately inferior to whites (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia; Scott v. Sandford; Naturalization Act of 1790). As non-citizens/non-persons they were not afforded the same recourse to legal protections or remedies enjoyed by American citizens.

The harsh treatment suffered by Native Americans included being deprived of property rights as their lands were taken from them by the federal Government via coercion and legalized fraud/deceit, their freedom of religion denied, and their cultures marginalized and even destroyed. The harsh treatment suffered by blacks included slavery and the plantation torture system and also the non-citizenship of freedmen, who could not vote, hold public office, sign contracts, live where they desired, marry whom they chose, attend public school with whites, patronize white-only establishments such as hospitals and commercial enterprises, or otherwise enjoy the prerogatives of citizens. The harsh treatment suffered by Black Americans after being freed from slavery was far more complex but can be summarized as to their being discriminated against by the majority white culture at nearly every turn, especially in the reign of racial terror that characterized Southern and Border States, and by federal housing regulations and many hundred racially discriminatory laws passed by almost every state and city in the nation (laws found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court) that ensured they were segregated from the white population and treated unequally.

Those non-citizens/non-persons were officially excluded from the United States of America, a country founded on the consent of the governed and on such popular phrases as “all men are created equal” and “liberty and justice for all.” The very beginning of this country can be characterized as a massive divergence or separation of high-minded thoughts and words as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from the real-world actions of slavery and taking the core of the North American continent from Native Americans by Government duplicity and coercion.

A question that has troubled me is why a country ostensibly founded on freedom and equality—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—could build itself by means of duplicity, oppressing and terrorizing minorities, and inequity. Since intentional, cold-hearted dishonesty stretching across more than a century is neither logical nor supported by documentary evidence, I believe the explanation must be found elsewhere. The leading candidate is Eurocentrism, that deep-rooted sense of white entitlement, white privilege, white superiority, and white bias (Harris 1993; Leonardo 2004; Mahoney 1995; McIntosh 1988; also see U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790).

Here’s how I think it worked. Because white rights took precedence, the U.S. Government was able to break its sworn word (statutory obligations) to indigenous peoples and take land promised in ratified treaties would be tribal property in perpetuity and give it to white Americans and not feel dishonorable or treacherous. Because white rights took precedence, white Americans could enslave and torture blacks and not feel legal or moral obligations to treat them as human rather than as chattel. Because white rights took precedence, white Americans could deny citizenship to blacks and Native Americans (as well as Asians) and not recognize the astounding divergence of those actions with ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Because white rights took precedence, in the 1930s approximately 800,000 Mexican-American citizens were deprived of due process and forcibly and illegally deported to Mexico by the U.S. and state governments (Valenciana and Ordonez-Jasis 2012). Because white rights took precedence, white Americans felt no guilt in amassing the collective power of federal, state, and local governments to oppress Black Americans freed from the chains of slavery and force them by law into a racially separate and inferior world. Because white Americans—whether Supreme Court justices, Congressmen, land-hungry settlers, or men and women in the streets—were confirmed in their superior station over subordinate non-persons of color, they knew their actions regarding them were right and just.

The existence of overt racial bigotry and bias in relations between dominant whites and sub-dominate people of color in the U.S. is well-documented in our history and our daily lives (Dollard 1949; Johnson Jr. 1995; Massey and Denton 1989; Myrdal 1944; Steinberg 1995). My guess is most Americans are completely unaware that the Naturalization Law of 1790 limited citizenship to immigrants who were “free white” persons of good character, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. Although overt racial bigotry has declined, recent empirical psychological research (Greenwald and Pettigrew 2014; Lai et al. 2014; Nosek et al. 2014; Nosek, Hawkins, and Frazier 2012) has documented the pervasiveness of implicit racial bias in Americans.

The U.S. has never adequately addressed its history of institutional racism or inequality (see Gotanda 1991; Spring 1994)—witness the Chinese Exclusion Law (1882) that prevented Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. and from becoming citizens once here was not repealed until 1943 when the U.S. desperately needed China to continue fighting Japan, the forced relocation and imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps during WWII as the Supreme Court refused to consider the Constitutional issue of incarcerating U.S. citizens without due process, or the multi-century bigotry against Hispanics in the Southwest—and most likely never will because too many Americans deny the existence of institutional racism and inequality and are comfortable with the present situation.

The fault, many Americans claim, lies with the millions of Native and Black Americans who have willfully chosen not to participate in the quintessential American Dream and thus are responsible for such individual shortcomings as laziness/no work ethic/lack of initiative, dependence on government hand-outs, poverty, poor education, unemployment, etc. (Wilson 2009). Those Americans hold tight to their glorification of our country as having been made Exceptional through our unique democratic spirit and therefore worthy of uncritical love, devotion, and patriotism and ignore or trivialize the existence of Supreme Court mandated non-persons and reject structural causes of inequity.

American imperialistic history was grounded in ethnocentrism uncritically adopted from England and other European countries. Exceptionalists celebrate that history while refusing to acknowledge the true nature of those events. As a country we have systematically mythologized that imperialism as the triumph of Manifest Destiny and other trumped up premises of superior racial/cultural entitlement, our frontier-pioneering spirit, free enterprise/market economics, and rugged individualism, never willing to peel back that slick facade to see the greed and biases that drove white Americans to rob native peoples of their lands, their livelihoods, and their essences and to enslave more than four million blacks and compel them through systematized torture on plantations into back-breaking labor designed to destroy their spirits and enrich their owners (Baptist 2014). The U.S. Government in effect operated as a bully who consistently used coercion, duplicity, and naked power to achieve its desired goals while holding its hands up in wide-eyed innocence, boasting of its superiority over tainted European-style government.

Many serious and complex problems are the direct result of the U.S. creation of non-citizens/non-persons and its aftermath. Native American treaty-granted resources are still held in “trust” for the tribes despite more than 150 years of federal corruption and massive mismanagement. Examples of that mismanagement (a polite way to say swindling) abound but of particular significance is the $3.4 billion settlement reached in December 2009 between the U.S. Government and Native American plaintiffs concerning federal mismanagement of funds and other trust assets, including royalties owed to Native Americans for oil, gas, grazing, and other leases. Another example is the federal Government’s 2014 settlement of nearly $555 million with the Navajo Nation over U.S. mismanagement of trust fund assets dating back to 1946. Why the Government continues to hold tribal resources in “trust” as if Native Americans were incompetent and the government managers are not defies decades of experience as well as rational explanation other than bureaucratic/political inertia or that we enjoy wielding colonial power while treating Native Americans as our inferiors.

Irrespective of tribal affiliation, Native Americans who today live on reservations face lives characterized by economic adversity, poverty, unemployment, substandard education, and what the U.S. Indian Health Service (2014) termed “discrimination in the delivery of health services.” The IHS also determined that Native Americans die at higher rates than other Americans from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (368 percent higher), diabetes (177 percent higher), unintentional injuries (138 percent higher), assault/homicide (82 percent higher), intentional self-harm/suicide (65 percent higher), and chronic lower respiratory diseases (59 percent higher). It should come as no surprise that in 2010 the poverty rate on reservations was 28.4 percent, compared with 15.3 percent among all Americans.

Nor has the federal Government addressed the results of callously throwing five million newly freed, illiterate, asset-less, and basically unskilled blacks into the cauldron of American society and then ignoring its responsibility to incorporate them into that society and to protect them from the very people and states that had been their enslavers and oppressors. Moreover, the Government has never addressed the multitude of adverse effects of federal, state, and local laws and majority white culture that intentionally discriminated against and oppressed Black Americans for well more than 100 years.

The inequity resulting from that discrimination is highlighted in research by sociologists and economists at numerous universities (Shapiro et al. 2013) and more recently by Kochhar and Fry (2014) of the Pew Research Center who reported the median household wealth for whites in 2013 was $141,900 and $11,000 for blacks, a wealth gap of nearly 1,300 percent. Their research found that from 2010 to 2013 “the median wealth of non-Hispanic white households increased from $138,600 to $141,900, or by 2.4 percent” while during the same period the median wealth of non-Hispanic black households fell 33.7 percent, from $16,600 to $11,000. Unless broad public policy and institutional changes are initiated at the federal level to address racial disparities in homeownership, education, employment, income, wealth, and inheritance, closing the black-white inequity gap will be an unfulfilled dream (Shapiro 2004, 2006; also see Johnson 2014).

The socioeconomic playing field was not designed from the birth of this country to be level for Black or Native Americans. That discrimination resulted in the inequities that are present today and has denied them opportunities other Americans enjoy. Because federal and state laws and regulations produced this situation, it is obvious those governments have the ability to undo the results of that creation. But, absent political will, that is impossible.

Concluding Thoughts
Since many if not most Exceptionalists would agree with Mitt Romney (2011) that “It is our [the American people’s] belief in the universality of . . . unalienable rights that leads us to our exceptional role on the world stage, that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom,” perhaps they could address the following questions.
  • How much human freedom and dignity did blacks have when enslaved in a country dedicated to unalienable rights and human freedom and dignity?
  • How much human freedom and dignity did Black Americans have when they were forced into separate, unequal lives from the majority white population by federal, state, and local laws found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court?
  • How much human freedom and dignity did Black Americans have when they were terrorized by white bigots throughout the South and Border States?
  • How much human freedom and dignity did Native Americans have when the U.S. Government classified them as non-citizens/non-persons in a country founded on the universality of unalienable rights?
  • How much human freedom and dignity did Native Americans have when the U.S. Government broke its promises by unilaterally abrogating ratified treaties and taking land promised to the tribes in perpetuity?
The United States, that “great champion of human dignity and human freedom,” adopted without objection anti-democratic Eurocentrism from its English mentors and refused to extend the “unalienable” natural rights possessed by all men to Native Americans and blacks. Instead, we designated and treated them as non-citizens/non-persons under the law in what should be acknowledged as the Great American Hypocrisy. Continental-scale land and natural resource expropriation and slavery of millions gave this country the economic boost it needed to become the most powerful in the world, yet those realities are ignored, minimized, denied, or dismissed out of hand by those who trumpet Exceptionalism. As a country, we have never fully addressed the adverse effects whites have visited upon Black and Native Americans and apparently have little intention of doing so; witness how mainstream America has rejected affirmative action while embracing so-called “anti-discrimination” programs whose effects favor whites (see Perry 2015).

In reality, the U.S., like many other countries, was founded on hubris, greed, ethnocentrism, and self-serving nationalism but presents itself as an Exceptional democratic nation endowed by God to be admired by all. It should come as no surprise that I reject the Exceptionalist concept because it is an unhistorical, self-aggrandizing myth (see Walt 2011) that smokescreens our reality of internal imperialism and pays lip-service to high-minded ideals while ignoring actions that are morally repugnant and reprehensible.

Until Americans and Exceptionalists understand our country’s history and finally reject the myths they hold so closely, as a country we will never be able to come to grips with the many challenges we face today and into the future. If we are ignorant of the mechanisms our ancestors used to grow this country into the large and powerful nation it is today, if we are ignorant of the origin of our racial troubles, real-world solutions will forever evade us. But, facts are not the issue when it comes to ideology. When a majority of Americans deny, ignore, or turn their backs on historical reality we will continuing living our version of the movie, Groundhog Day. That's why we will continue to have many more incidents of racial violence and white people will shake their heads and wonder what in the world is wrong with black people that they have not moved on to the good life American Exceptionalism promises. Surely, it's their fault because all their problems are in the past and no longer pertain to the present.

The lesson I have discerned from American history and geography is that the ideal of a country founded on the consent of the governed and the values of individual liberty, justice, and dignity innate to all humans, although perhaps not a perfect solution to the enormous challenges of governance, is the most viable alternative to monarchies, oligarchies, and authoritarian regimes. However, the failed execution of that ideal from our very inception as a new country and the continued refusal of Exceptionalists and others to acknowledge that flawed reality cannot be ignored or glossed over.

When a strong country subjugates the weak and powerless through coercion, duplicity, and legalized inequity, the legitimacy of that society is diminished. A country that has acted in such a manner and denies the results of those actions are its responsibility to remedy should never be held up as an example to be emulated or admired uncritically.

Legal Cases
Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 581 581 (1871). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/581/

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1 1 (1831). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1/case.html

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/271/323/

Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/543/case.html

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/409/case.html

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/187/553/case.html

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 119 N.J. Super. 164 (1972) 290 A.2d 465. Available online at: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1972/119-n-j-super-164-0.html

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/375/case.html

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) 448 U.S. 371. Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/371/case.html or http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=448&invol=371

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/case.html

References
Abrams, Charles. 1955. Forbidden Neighbors: A Study of Prejudice in Housing. New York: Harper.

Allen, Douglas W. 1991. Homesteading and Property Rights, or, How the West Was Really Won. Journal of Law and Economics 34(1): 1-23.

Baptist, Edward E. 2014. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

Brown Jr., William H. 1972. Access to Housing: The Role of the Real Estate Industry. Economic Geography 48(1): 66-78.

Chinese Exclusion Act. 1882 (An act to inaugurate certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese). Sess. I, Chap. 126; 22 Stat. 58. 47th Congress; approved May 6, 1882. Available online at: http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1882_chinese_exclusion_act.html.

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. 2014. The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic (May 21). Available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/.

Colbert, Douglas L. 1995. Liberating the Thirteenth Amendment, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 30(1): 1-55. The full text of the article is available online via Google Scholar.

Derenoncourt, Ellora. 2014. The Slaver’s Objectivity. Jacobin Magazine, 9-10-14. Available online at: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the-slavers-objectivity/.

Dollard, John. 1949. Caste and Class in a Southern Town. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Engle, Patricia. 2004. The Origins and Legacy of Justice Marshall’s “New Rule” of Conquest in Johnson v. M’Intosh. In Lehigh University’s The Literature of Justification, Supreme Court -- Essays. Available online at: http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/court/essay/.

Gallay, Alan. 2003. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gallay, Alan, ed. 2015. Indian Slavery in Colonial America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Gates Jr., Henry Louis. 2013. What Was Black America’s Double War? The Root, May 24, 2013. Available online at: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/05/double_v_campaign_during_world_war_ii_what_was_it.html.

Gingrich, Newt. 2011. A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

Gotanda, Neil. 1991. A Critique of “Our Constitution Is Color-Blind.” Stanford Law Review 44(1): 1-68.

Greenwald, Anthony G., and Thomas F. Pettigrew. 2014. With Malice toward None and Charity for Some: Ingroup Favoritism Enables Discrimination. American Psychologist 69: 669-684. Available online at: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Greenwald&Pettigrew.MaliceTowardNone.AP.2014.pdf.

Gunn, Steven J. 2004. Indian General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) (1887). Major Acts of Congress. Encyclopedia.com. Available online at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400164.html.

Harris, Cheryl I. 1993. Whiteness as Property. Harvard Law Review 106(8): 1707-1791. Available online at: http://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Harris_Whiteness%20as%20Property_106HarvLRev-1.pdf.

Hayden, Delores. 2004. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Vintage Press.

Hodgson, Godfrey. 2010. The Myth of American Exceptionalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Holston Treaty with the Cherokee. 1791. Available online at Yale Law School, Goldman Law Library; The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/chr1791.asp.

Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Fact Sheets, Disparities. Available online at: http://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/factsheets/disparities/.

Jackson, Kenneth. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jennings, Francis. 1975. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Johnson Jr., Alex M. 1995. How Race and Poverty Intersect to Prevent Integration: Destabilizing Race as a Vehicle to Integrate Neighborhoods. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143: 1595-1658. Available online at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3576&context=penn_law_review.

Johnson, Rucker C. 2014 (Revised from 2011). Long-Run Impacts of School Desegregation and School Quality on Adult Attainments; Working Paper 16664, National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA: NBER. Available online at: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf.

Jost, John T. Mahzarin R. Banaji, Brian A. Nosek. 2004. A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology 25(6): 881-919.

Kades, Eric. 2000. The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148: 1065-1190. Available online at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=facpubs.

Kades, Eric. 2001. History and Interpretation of the Great Case of Johnson v. M'Intosh. Law and History Review 19(1): 67-116. Available online at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=facpubs.

Kades, Eric. 2008. The “Middle Ground” Perspective on the Expropriation of Indian Lands. Law and Social Inquiry 33(3): 827-839.

Kochhar, Rakesh, and Richard Fry. Wealth Inequality Has Widened along Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of Great Recession. Pew Research Center, Fact Tank. December 12, 2014. Available online at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/.

Krauthamer, Barbara. 2013. Black Slaves, Indian Masters: Slavery, Emancipation, and Citizenship in the Native American South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Krupat, Arnold. 1992. Ethnocriticism: Ethnography, History, Literature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lai, Calvin K., Maddalena Marini, Steven A. Lehr, Carlo Cerruti, Jiyun-Elizabeth L. Shin, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Arnold K. Ho, Bethany A. Teachman, Sean P. Wojcik, Spassena P. Koleva, Brian A. Nosek, et al. 2014. Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A. Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 143(4): 1765-1785. Online First Publication, March 24, 2014. Available online at: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/2014_Lai_JESPG.pdf.

Lawrence, Jill. 2011. Gingrich’s Version of American Exceptionalism Could Insult Our Allies. The Atlantic, November 22, 2011. Available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/gingrichs-version-of-american-exceptionalism-could-insult-our-allies/248887/.

Ledbetter, James. 2012. What is American exceptionalism? Reuters, The Great Debate Blog. January 23, 2012. Available online at: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/23/what-is-american-exceptionalism/.

Leonardo, Zeus. 2004. The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the Discourse of “White Privilege”. Educational Philosophy and Theory 36(2): 137-152.

Loesch, Martin C. 1993. The First Americans and the “Free” Exercise of Religion. American Indian Law Review 18(2): 313-377.

Madsen, Deborah L. 1998. American Exceptionalism. Oxford, MI: University Press of Mississippi.

Mahoney, Martha R. 1995. Segregation, Whiteness, and Transformation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143(5): 1659-1684. Available online at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3577&context=penn_law_review.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1989. Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation along Five Dimensions. Demography 26(3): 373-391.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1998. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McIntosh, Peggy. 1988. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack. Available online at: https://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/white-privilege.pdf.

McPherson, James M. 1988. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Volume Six, Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mintz, Steven, and Sara McNeil. 2013. Digital History. Available online at: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu.

Murray, Charles. 2013. American Exceptionalism: An Experiment in History. Values and Capitalism Series. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma, Volume 1: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

Naturalization Act of 1790 (An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization). Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103. 1st Congress; March 26, 1790. Available online at: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html.

Newell, Margaret Ellen. 2015. Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology  2(2): 175-220. Available online at: http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf.

Nosek, Brian A., Yoav Bar-Anan, N. Sriram, Jordan Axt, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2014. Understanding and Using the Brief Implicit Association Test: Recommended Scoring Procedures. PLoS ONE 9(12): e110938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110938. Available online at: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Nosek&al.BIAT%20scoring%20algorith.PLoS%20ONE.2014.pdf.

Nosek, Brian A., Carlee B. Hawkins, and Rebecca S. Frazier. 2012. Implicit Social Cognition. In The Sage Handbook of Social Cognition, edited by Susan T. Fiske and C. Neil Macrae, pp. 31-53. New York: Sage.

Pease, Donald E. 2009. The New American Exceptionalism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Perdue, Theda and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books (St. Martin’s Press).

Perry, Mark J. Acceptance rates at US Medical Schools in 2014 Reveal Ongoing Discrimination against Asian-Americans and Whites. American Enterprise Institute. January 4, 2015 11:38 pm. Available online at: https://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-us-medical-schools-2014-reveal-ongoing-racial-profiling-affirmative-discrimination-blacks-hispanics/.

Ransom, Roger L. and Richard Sutch. 1972. Debt Peonage in the Cotton South After the Civil War. The Journal of Economic History 32(3): 641-669.

Reséndez, Andrés. 2016. The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Romney, Mitt. 2011. Text of Mitt Romney’s Speech on Foreign Policy at The Citadel. Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2011. Available online at: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/07/text-of-mitt-romneys-speech-on-foreign-policy-at-the-citadel/.

Rushforth, Brett. 2012. Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Satter, Beryl. 2010. Family Properties: How the Struggle Over Race and Real Estate Transformed Chicago and Urban America. New York: Metropolitan Books (Macmillan).

Schuessler, Ryan. 2014. The Ferguson Next Door in Missouri Holds Powerful Lesson. Al Jazeera America, December 21, 2014. Available online at: //america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/21/a-neighboring-missouritownmightholdlessonsforferguson.html.

Schuyler, Philip. Letter to Congress, July 29, 1783. In Papers of the Continental Congress 1774-1789. Vol. 3 (item 153, microfilm). Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Service. Quoted in Kades (2008).

Seitles, Marc D. 1998. The Perpetuation of Residential Racial Segregation in America: Historical Discrimination, Modern Forms of Exclusion, and Inclusionary Remedies. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14(1): 89-124. Available online at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm.

Shapiro, Thomas M. 2004. The Hidden Cost of Being African American. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shapiro, Thomas M. 2006. Race, Homeownership and Wealth. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 20(1): 53-74. Available online at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=law_journal_law_policy.

Shapiro, Thomas M., Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro. 2013. The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide. Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy; Research and Policy Brief, February 2013. Available online at: http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf.

Saunt, Claudio. 2005. Black, White, and Indian: Race and the Unmaking of an American Family. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

Snyder, Christina. 2010. Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spring, Joel. 1994. Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1995. Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Princeton Studies in American Politics).

Valenciana, Christine, and Rosario Ordonez-Jasis. 2012. Unconstitutional Deportation of the 1930s: Learning from the Voices of the Past. Social Studies 103: 81-89.

Walt, Stephen M. 2011. The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Foreign Policy, October 11, 2011. Available online at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/the-myth-of-american-exceptionalism/ or at scholar.google.com.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1972. The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians. In Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, 15-32, edited by James Morton Smith. New York: Norton.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1976. The Historical Context of American Indian Legal Problems. Law and Contemporary Problems 40(4): 12-24. Available online at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3470&context=lcp.

Washington, George. 1931. Letter to James Duane, Sept. 7, 1783. In The Writings of George Washington. Vol. 27, edited by John C. Fitzpatrick. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Quoted in Kades (2008).

Westen, Drew, Pavel S. Blagov, Keith Harenski, Clint Kilts, and Stephan Hamann. 2006. Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(11): 1947-1958. Available online at: http://birc.jaredjustus.com/assets/publications/Westen,%20Kilts%202006%20J%20Cognit%20Neurosci.pdf.

Williams Jr., Robert A. 1990. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 2009. More than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City. Poverty and Race 18(3): 1-11. Available online at: http://www.prrac.org/pdf/WJWMayJune2009PRRAC.pdf.

Winters. Donald L. 1988. Postbellum Reorganization of Southern Agriculture: The Economics of Sharecropping in Tennessee. Agricultural History 62(4): 1-19. Presidential Address to the Agricultural History Society.