# African American congressmembers and senators following the civil war **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888 "2014-12-22T05:23:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/1 "2014-12-22T05:23:19Z")
Something that has always struck me as odd was that following the civil war there were several African American congressmembers and senators, and then there were none until the mid 1900s. > **[African Americans in the United States Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress)** > > From the first United States Congress in 1789 through the 116th Congress in 2020, 162 African Americans served in Congress. Meanwhile, the total number of all individuals who have served in Congress over that period is 12,348. Between 1789 and 2020, 152 have served in the House of Representatives, nine have served in the Senate, and one has served in both chambers. Voting members have totaled 156, while six others have served as delegates. Party membership has been 131 Democrats and 31 Re > **[List of African-American United States senators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_United_States_Senators)** > > This is a list of African Americans who have served in the United States Senate. The Senate has had 12 African-American elected or appointed officeholders. Two each served during both the 19th and 20th centuries. > Three of the 12 African American senators held Illinois's Class 3 seat, including Barack Obama, who went on to become President of the United States. This makes Illinois the state with the most African-American U.S. senators to date. > In 2016, Kamala Harris became the first African A... There is a LOT of history involving this but I was curious what the social situation was basically, I would have assumed following the end of the civil war that racial tensions would have been high and electing an African American to office difficult. As the articles show following the withdrawal of federal troops it didn’t take long for Jim Crow legislation to disenfranchise black voters in southern states. > [@](#): > > In 1890 the Democratic-dominated state legislature passed a new constitution disfranchising most black voters. Every other southern state also passed disfranchising constitutions by 1908, excluding African Americans from the political system in the entire former Confederacy. This situation persisted into the 1960s until after federal enforcement of constitutional rights under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I’m curious why the years after the civil war seemed to be a magical time of tolerance, was it simply the large number of black voters gaining the right to vote? ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/2 "2014-12-22T07:39:01Z")
It’s because of Reconstruction, which was a set of federal programs and policies after the Civil War that, among other things, protected the rights of former slaves and severely curtailed the political power of former members of the Confederate government. The Reconstruction Era lasted from the end of the war in 1865 through about 1877 (“about” because it didn’t end all at once). It didn’t take long after that for the rights of southern blacks to come under attack. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/3 "2014-12-22T14:42:52Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I’m curious why the years after the civil war seemed to be a magical time of tolerance, was it simply the large number of black voters gaining the right to vote? They gained the right to vote, and it hadn’t been taken away yet. It was as simple as that. Keep in mind that the percentage of black population in the South (especially in the Deep South) was higher then than it is now. Black voters formed a majority of the electorate in South Carolina, and it was just about 50-50 in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. So in any fair election it stood to reason that significant numbers of African Americans would win. And, the earliest Reconstruction-era elections were fair. Federal troops patrolled the polling places, and black candidates harassed by whites could appeal for protection. After 1870, as the new biracial state governments were established, the federal government became gradually less responsive to appeals for protection. They expected the state governments to be able to defend themselves. But they couldn’t. No state government could stand up to the paramilitary terror unleashed by white “regulators” and Klansmen. The rights which had been won, were taken away–first by brute force, and then by law (literacy tests and white primaries). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/4 "2014-12-22T16:52:23Z")
Also, a lot of southern whites were disenfranchised during the Reconstruction, as former Confederacy supporters. As these restrictions were eased white voters increased. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/5 "2014-12-22T17:04:19Z")
But what was it like for black congressmen in Washington? Did they attend the same parties as everyone else? What kinds of discrimination did they personally face as elected officials? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/6 "2014-12-22T19:35:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Also, a lot of southern whites were disenfranchised during the Reconstruction, as former Confederacy supporters. As these restrictions were eased white voters increased. This is mostly untrue. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867, which governed the first round of Reconstruction elections, disenfranchised Confederate “oath violators”–that is, persons, who had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (usually as a requirement to hold state office) and then supported the Confederacy. Oath violators were a small percentage of all Confederate supporters. After 1868 Southern elections reverted to state control, and no state (even when dominated by Republicans) continued disenfranchisement of any kind. > [@Dr. Drake](#): > > But what was it like for black congressmen in Washington? Did they attend the same parties as everyone else? What kinds of discrimination did they personally face as elected officials? Nobody at the time knew that Reconstruction would fail. The Republican establishment looked forward to having black voters and office holders as part of their governing coalition for a long time to come. So, their establishment was reasonably welcoming and “inclusive” (to use the modern word). Outside the establishment, white Southerners sometimes gave the cold shoulder to black colleagues, sometimes not. James Lusk Alcorn refused to escort his black colleague Blanche K. Bruce to his seat, a courtesy otherwise universal for new senators. Exchanges on the floor could get nasty. But then, exchanges among white politicians get nasty too. Outside of the halls of Congress, it was catch as catch can. It’s hard to generalize about Jim Crow in the 1870’s and 1880’s. It wasn’t yet required by law, and it was far from universal, but it was also far from unknown. Black Representative Joseph Rainey [complained in 1874](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rainey): > [@](#): > > Why is it that colored members of Congress cannot enjoy the same immunities that are accorded to white members? Why cannot we stop hotels here without meeting objection? Why cannot we go into restaurants without being insulted? We are here enacting laws for the country and casting votes upon important questions; we have been sent here by the suffrages of the people, and why cannot we enjoy the same benefits that are accorded to our white colleagues on this floor? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/7 "2014-12-22T20:00:34Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > This is mostly untrue. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867, which governed the first round of Reconstruction elections, disenfranchised Confederate “oath violators”–that is, persons, who had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (usually as a requirement to hold state office) and then supported the Confederacy. This appears to be incorrect. From [url=]Wikipedia > [@](#): > > To take the Ironclad Oath, a person had to swear he had never borne arms against the Union or supported the Confederacy — that is, he had “never voluntarily borne arms against the United States,” had “voluntarily” given “no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement” to persons in rebellion and had exercised or attempted to exercise the functions of no office under the Confederacy. A farmer who sold grain to the Confederate Army would be covered. So your assertion that it was about prior officeholder who had subsequently supported the confederacy (obviously a very small group of people) is incorrect and it was about anyone who had supported the confederacy, a much larger group. Further: > [@](#): > > Voting restrictions on former Confederates voting during the rest of Reconstruction varied state by state. Very few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned those newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance, but allowed them to vote if they took an oath favoring Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than required by the Ironclad Oath. In states where there was disenfranchisement the maximum percentage was 10-20% of otherwise eligible white voters with most states having considerably smaller percentages. In the South most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the hill counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities. So while it wasn’t anything near a majority of white voters, it was enough to have an impact, as I wrote. Your claim that after 1868 there was no disefranchisement of any kind is also contradicted by the Wiki article. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/8 "2014-12-22T22:16:49Z")
The “ironclad oath” wasn’t the oath that was required to register to vote under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. Said oath was specified [in the acts themselves:](https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/reconstruction.html) > [@](#): > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That before the first day of September, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, the commanding general in each district defined by an act entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,” passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States included in his district, which registration shall include only those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation: “I, \_\_\_\_\_, do solemnly swear (or affirm), in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State of \_\_\_\_\_; that I have resided in said State for \_\_\_\_\_ months next preceding this day, and now reside in the county of \_\_\_\_\_ or the parish of \_\_\_\_\_, in said State (as the case may be); that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not be disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God”’ which oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering officer. This is a much easier oath. The only persons disenfranchised by this were the relatively small group who had held state or federal office before the war. Many ordinary Confederate soldiers, who had not been officeholders, participated in the 1867-68 elections. Eric Foner has estimated the total number of people throughout the South affected by the Fourteenth Amendment DQ clause (equivalent to those disfranchised by the RA oath) at 10,000 to 15,000. This out of a prewar white voting population of almost a million. Yes, I overspoke by saying that no state maintained **any** form of disenfranchisement after 1868–I had forgotten that some maintained the crossover ban from the DQ clause–but even then there werw wiggle clauses allowing the persons so affected to vote if they swore to support “the civil equality of all men” or words to that effect. The lapse of white franchise restrictions was **not** a major factor in the decline of black electoral success after the 1870’s. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/9 "2014-12-23T03:33:48Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > They gained the right to vote, and it hadn’t been taken away yet. It was as simple as that. > > Keep in mind that the percentage of black population in the South (especially in the Deep South) was higher then than it is now. Black voters formed a majority of the electorate in South Carolina, and it was just about 50-50 in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. > > So in any fair election it stood to reason that significant numbers of African Americans would win. > > And, the earliest Reconstruction-era elections were fair. Federal troops patrolled the polling places, and black candidates harassed by whites could appeal for protection. After 1870, as the new biracial state governments were established, the federal government became gradually less responsive to appeals for protection. They expected the state governments to be able to defend themselves. But they couldn’t. No state government could stand up to the paramilitary terror unleashed by white “regulators” and Klansmen. The rights which had been won, were taken away–first by brute force, and then by law (literacy tests and white primaries). Thank you that was the context I was missing, it makes sense now. I missed that the black population of many southern states was higher at the time of the fifteenth amendment passing. It is kind of stunning that after the enormous cost in lives and cash the civil war required the federal government basically allowed former confederate states to nullify the fifteenth amendment through Jim Crow laws, you would think at the first hint of it they would come down hard to avoid fighting another “war” a few decades down the line(or as it turned out almost a century). ---
**Author:** ![wedgehed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@wedgehed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wedgehed)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/10 "2014-12-23T04:11:44Z")
> [@grude](#): > > It is kind of stunning that after the enormous cost in lives and cash the civil war required the federal government basically allowed former confederate states to nullify the fifteenth amendment through Jim Crow laws, you would think at the first hint of it they would come down hard to avoid fighting another “war” a few decades down the line(or as it turned out almost a century). That’s because the war was over secession, not slavery. If the South had not seceded, they could have kept their slaves no matter how many terms Lincoln was elected to. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/11 "2014-12-23T07:31:31Z")
> [@grude](#): > > It is kind of stunning that after the enormous cost in lives and cash the civil war required the federal government basically allowed former confederate states to nullify the fifteenth amendment through Jim Crow laws, you would think at the first hint of it they would come down hard to avoid fighting another “war” a few decades down the line(or as it turned out almost a century). The presidential election of 1876 had a lot to do with this. The outcome in three states (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina) was in dispute, and one elector in Oregon was disqualified and had to be replaced. There were 20 votes in the electoral college in doubt. Tilden, the Democratic Party candidate, would have won if even one of these votes had gone his way. In the Compromise of 1877, the Republican Party agreed to end Reconstruction (including withdrawing federal troops from the former Confederate states) in exchange for all the electoral votes going to their candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/12 "2014-12-23T14:39:20Z")
So which was it … > [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > They gained the right to vote, and it hadn’t been taken away yet. It was as simple as that. > [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > After 1868 Southern elections reverted to state control, and no state (even when dominated by Republicans) continued disenfranchisement of any kind. > : ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/13 "2014-12-23T14:40:25Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > That’s because the war was over secession, not slavery. Ugh. Let’s not get into that again. It’s a false dichotomy since secession was about slavery. You don’t have the former without the latter. > [@](#): > > If the South had not seceded, they could have kept their slaves no matter how many terms Lincoln was elected to. That’s impossible to know, so does not qualify as a factual answer. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/14 "2014-12-24T02:07:59Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > That’s because the war was over secession, not slavery. If someone wants to claim that the Civil War had more than one cause, that’s a defensible position (although I wouldn’t agree). However, claiming that slavery was not a cause for the Civil War is utter nonsense. Pick up a history book before spreading this ignorance. Oh, and before you think about responding, go read all the declarations of secessions for the states that seceded. More than one of them explicitly state that slavery forms at least part (if not all) of the reason for secession. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/african-american-congressmembers-and-senators-following-the-civil-war/707888/15 "2014-12-24T04:34:32Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > If someone wants to claim that the Civil War had more than one cause, that’s a defensible position (although I wouldn’t agree). However, claiming that slavery was not a cause for the Civil War is utter nonsense. Pick up a history book before spreading this ignorance. > > Oh, and before you think about responding, go read all the declarations of secessions for the states that seceded. More than one of them explicitly state that slavery forms at least part (if not all) of the reason for secession. _Oh, and before you think about responding, go read all the declarations of secessions for the states that seceded. More than one of them explicitly state that slavery forms at least part (if not all) of the reason for secession._ Absolutely. It’s all there in black and white.