Feeds:
Entradas
Comentarios

Archive for the ‘Historia de Estados Unidos’ Category

Como bien ha analizado la historiadora Joanne Freeman en su excelente libro Field of Blood: Congressional Violence in Antebellum America (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018), previo a la guerra civil el Capitolio era un lugar peligroso. Separados cada vez más por el tema de la esclavitud, los legisladores recurrieron a métodos más violentos para tratar de imponer su posición. En otras palabras, la guerra de secesión se comenzó a pelear en los hemiciclos del Congreso años antes de que la primera bomba confederada cayera sobre Fort Sumter el fatídico día 12 de abril de 1861.

En este nota que comparto con mis lectores, la escritora Livia Gershon comenta uno de los episodios más famosos de violencia ocurridos en el Capitolio. El 22 de mayo de 1856, el Representante Preston S. Brooks, un esclavista de Carolina del Sur, atacó con una bastón al senador por el estado de Massachussets y abolicionistas, Charles Sumner. El severo ataque fue en respuesta a un discurso de Sumner criticando a la esclavitud y a los senadores que la defendían.

En el contexto del asalto contra del Capitolio el pasado 6 de enero, creo conveniente continuar subrayando que la violencia es un elemento intrínseco en la historia política estadounidense.


A dramatic portrayal of the 1856 attack and severe beating of Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner by Representative Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina.

A dramatic portrayal of the 1856 attack and severe beating of Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner by Representative Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina
via LOC

Political Divisions Led to Violence in the U.S. Senate in 1856

The horrific caning of Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate in 1856 marked one of the most divisive moments in U.S. political history.

As we prepare for a new term of government in the wake of the recent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we might wonder just how contentious federal politics can get. But let’s not forget that time when South Carolina congressman Preston Smith Brooks assaulted Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner with a cane in the Senate chamber, beating him so badly that his skull was exposed and he lost consciousness, was covered in blood, and nearly died. As historian Manisha Sinha writes, this 1856 attack highlighted and magnified the divisions that would cause the country to come apart less than five years later.

Charles Sumner | American Battlefield TrustWhen Sumner joined the Senate in 1851, Sinha writes, his anti-slavery beliefs quickly made him enemies. Opponents blocked him from committee appointments, denied him the floor, and heckled him when he spoke.

Brooks’s attack came after Sumner gave his May 1856 speech “The Crime Against Kansas,” in which he condemned the actions of pro-slavery forces. Brooks claimed that he was provoked by Sumner’s insulting words about another senator, who was a distant relation of his. But, Sinha points out, under the prevailing southern code of honor, the appropriate response to a personal insult from a social equal would be a challenge to duel. Instead, Brooks resorted to a form of violence reserved for social inferiors—notably including the enslaved. Many southerners praised Brooks specifically for using a demeaning form of physical force. As a public letter to Brooks from five Charleston residents put it, “You have put the Senator from Massachusetts where he should be. You have applied a blow to his back… His submission to your blows has now qualified him for the closest companionship with a degraded class.”

Charles Sumner

Senator Charles Sumner was beaten nearly to death by Representative Preston Brooks on the Senate floor in 1856
via Flickr/Boston Public Library

Sinha writes that abolitionists drew the same comparison, to different ends. The New York Tribune asked if Congress was “a slave plantation where Northern members act under the lash, the bowie-knife, and the pistol.” Robert Morris, a Black Boston lawyer, wrote to Sumner that “no persons felt more keenly and sympathized with you more deeply and sincerely than your colored constituents in Boston.”

The attack on Sumner also highlighted divisions in the nation when it came to ideas of masculinity. Some in the South reviled Sumner’s “unmanly submission.” This was in line with pro-slavery rhetoric that tied abolitionism to feminism and accused white male abolitionists of effeminate “sickly sentimentality.” Northerners, on the other hand, were more likely to embrace a bourgeois idea of masculinity rooted in self-control and to view Brooks’s attack on an unarmed man as cowardly.

For many in the North, Sinha writes, the incident called to mind the question of whether slavery was compatible with a republican form of government. The New England Anti-Slavery Convention warned that slaveholders were trying to “crush out” freedom of speech on the floor of Congress, as they had done on their plantations.

As we think about division in our own time, it’s worth considering the historical context of political anger and division in the past.

Read Full Post »

La Smithsonian National Postal Museum’s Maynard Sundman Lecture Series invita a su próximo webinair titulado «Under Three Flags, the Postal History of the Spanish-Cuban/American War» por Yamil Kouri Jr. Ganador del 2020 Luff Award for Exceptional Contributions to Philately, el Sr. Kouri dialogará sobre su más reciente libro analizando el impacto de la guerra hispano-cubano-estadounidense sobre el servicio postal de los países involucrados en tal conflicto.

La conferencia será el día 9 de diciembre a las 4:00PM EST. Los interesados pueden registrarse aquí.

Screen Shot 2020-11-17 at 12.40.51 PM.png

Read Full Post »

Las elecciones presidenciales de 1876 fueron unas históricas caracterizadas por el fraude, la intimidación y la violencia. Los Republicanos nominaron como su candidato al gobernador de Ohio Rutherford B. Hayes, un político insípido, pero integro. Los Demócratas nominaron al gobernador de Nueva York Samuel J. Tilden. Ambos favorecían el gobierno propio para el Sur (es decir, no interferir ni intervenir en los asuntos políticos del Sur) y, además, la reconstrucción no era una de sus prioridades.

Esta elección ha sido una de las más cerradas en la historia de los Estados Unidos. Hayes obtuvo el 48% de los votos populares y 185 votos electorales, mientras que Tilden le superó en votos populares con el 50% de éstos, pero sólo alcanzó 184 votos electorales. Ninguno de los dos candidatos obtuvo el número de votos electorales necesarios para ser electo presidente, lo que provocó una seria crisis política. Para resolver esta crisis el Congreso nombró un comité compuesto por cinco senadores, cinco representantes y cinco jueces del Tribunal Supremo, ocho Republicanos y siete Demócratas. El comité votó en estricta línea partidista a favor de reconocer la elección de Hayes, lo que generó las protestas  de los Demócratas. Éstos controlaban la Cámara de Representantes y amenazaron con bloquear la juramentación de Hayes. Para superar esta crisis se llevaron a cabo negociaciones secretas que culminaron con un acuerdo en febrero de 1877: los Demócratas aceptaron la elección del Hayes a cambio de que éste nombrara a un sureño en su gabinete, no interfiriera en la política del Sur y se comprometiera a retirar las tropas federales que quedaban en el sur.

Poco tiempo después de su juramentación como Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Hayes ordenó la salida de las tropas federales de Florida y Carolina del Sur. La salida de los soldados conllevó la eventual derrota de los gobernadores Republicanos de ambos estados. Al adoptar una política de no interferencia en los asuntos del Sur, los Republicanos abandonaron a los afroamericanos. Aunque formaban parte de la constitución, las Enmiendas 14 y 15 quedaron sin efecto en el Sur porque fueron sistemáticamente ignoradas por los gobiernos sureños. Con ello murió la era de la Reconstrucción y se inició una era vergonzosa caracterizada por la supremacía de los blancos, la violencia racial, la violación sistemática de los derechos de los ciudadanos afroamericanos y la segregación de los negros.


Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite administering the oath of office to Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877.

Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite administering the oath of office to Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877.

The Presidential Election of 1876

In the summer of 1876 the United States celebrated a centenary of independence. Although it was a jubilee year, the American Republic was also deeply troubled. The desperate battles of the Civil War had ended more than a decade before; yet Abraham Lincoln’s call for ‘malice toward none’ remained an unfulfilled appeal, as Federal troops continued to occupy some of the former Confederate States. President Ulysses S. Grant’s second term of office was drawing to a close under a barrage of criticism directed at corruption in his government. The coming Presidential election would take place in November.

It promised to be an exciting fight, but no one foresaw that the struggle between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden would result in an unparalleled scandal and bring America perilously close to another civil conflict. Indeed, the roots of the dispute were firmly woven into the Civil War and its tragic aftermath.

On April 9th, 1865 General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia and the guns at Appomattox stopped firing. The Civil War drew to a close. In four years of grim fighting the troops of both sides had developed a respect for each other, a bond of harsh experiences mutually endured. Now Yankees shared their rations with Confederates and traded wartime stories.

The day after the surrender, Abraham Lincoln returned to Washington after a visit to Richmond. A wildly cheering crowd called for a speech, but the President demurred. Instead, he asked the military band to strike up ‘Dixie’. For a brief moment there seemed to be hope of genuine reconciliation. It was unquestionably Lincoln’s fervent hope. Then, only days later, John Wilkes Booth fired a fatal bullet into the President’s head at Ford’s Theatre in Washington.

Election Cartoon, 1876 Photograph by Granger

With Lincoln’s death, the ‘Radicals’ in the Republican Party gained the upper hand. For men like Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, the South fully deserved the revenge they had planned. The bitter years of ‘Reconstruction’ followed. Government tax-collectors enjoyed a bonanza below the Mason-Dixon Line. General Lee’s magnificent home at Arlington was seized for taxes. Properties worth thousands of dollars were sold for a few hundred and Federal Treasury agents laid claim to supposedly abandoned land. Even General William Tecumseh Sherman, whose army made the famous march from Atlanta to the sea, burning and destroying everything in its path, spoke in compassionate terms to a veterans’ gathering shortly after the war:

It was in this atmosphere that white Southerners fought to regain control of South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Florida and other states of the former Confederacy; the newly emancipated slaves fought for a place in a society previously denied them; and political scavengers fought to hang on to the spoils of war. Gradually, however, the South returned to the control of its native white population. In doing so, it became more solidly attached to the Democratic Party than ever before.

Due to the presence of Federal troops and officials in positions of power, Ulysses S. Grant was able to carry eight southern states for the Republican Party in the Presidential election of 1868. Grant won a second term in 1872, but this time only six southern states were in the Republican camp. The grip of Radical Republican power was fading. Perhaps more significant, the immediate post-war zeal in the North for African-American welfare had diminished.

 

Republican election poster

Republican election poster, 1876.

 

As the election of 1876 approached, Grant’s Republican administration reeled under a heavy attack by the press when a great whisky scandal broke. Western distillers had been flagrantly evading Federal taxes, and Grant’s own private secretary, General Babcock, was implicated. The President’s enemies gleefully pointed to corruption in the White House. Instead of dissociating himself from Babcock, Grant leaped to his defence.

Indeed, Grant displayed an almost incredible loyalty to dubious colleagues during his Presidency. His support of Babcock largely contributed to an acquittal. But this was just part of the rapidly mounting troubles faced by the Republican Party.

In March 1876, just eight months before the election, Secretary of War William Belknap was charged with malfeasance in office by the House of Representatives. Rather than remove Belknap from his post, Grant merely accepted the cabinet member’s resignation. One month later it was James G. Blaine’s turn to embarrass the Administration. As Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Blaine was in a most influential position. When the press charged that he had taken favours from the Union Pacific Railroad, the tag of ‘Grantism’ received new life as a synonym for political avarice.

The scandals could not have come at a more inopportune time, for the Republicans desperately needed a politically untarnished standard-bearer in the coming election and Blaine was a strong candidate. Despite the publicity, Blaine’s name was prominent when the Republicans met at Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 14th to nominate a contender for the Presidency. Recognising that public attention had to be focused on something other than the Administration’s record, Blaine attacked the South and stirred up fears of a new war. In doing so, he alienated those members of his party who sought a genuine rapprochement with the old Confederacy. On the seventh ballot, he lost the nomination to a ‘dark horse’ candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio. Hayes was a compromise between the extreme wings of the Party. Above all, his personal record and political integrity could not be seriously challenged.

The 53-year-old Hayes had a good, if not spectacular, background. Born in Delaware, Ohio, he had been raised by a widowed mother who, fortunately, enjoyed financial security. He received a degree from the Harvard Law School in 1845 and subsequently accepted a number of fugitive slave cases. During the Civil War, Hayes rose to the rank of brevet major-general of volunteers, participated in many actions and was severely wounded. While the war still raged he was elected to Congress. He was later elected Governor of Ohio on three separate occasions and put through a number of reforms.

In accepting the nomination, Hayes vowed to end the spoils system and called for an end to ‘the distinction between North and South in our common country’. This conciliatory statement was in sharp contrast to Resolution Number 16 of the Party Platform which went so far as to question the loyalty of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. This allegation reflected the presence of Congressmen who had fought for the Confederacy.

The Democrats had no problem in devising their campaign strategy. The entire nation was aware of the Administration’s shortcomings. Corruption was the issue and the Democratic Party promised reform. On June 27th they held their convention in St Louis, Missouri. In an auditorium jammed with 5,000 people, Governor Samuel J. Tilden of New York scored a landslide victory on the second ballot.

 

Samuel J. Tilden is announced as the Democratic presidential nominee

Samuel J. Tilden is announced as the Democratic presidential nominee.

 

Tilden was a unique figure, and certainly one of the most interesting to cross the American political scene. This frail, cold, articulate bachelor commanded a crusading zeal from his supporters. As a boy, Tilden was withdrawn and showed little inclination to mix with young people. Politics, however, fascinated him and his father fostered that interest. At the age of 15 he used his own money to buy Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. By 1841 he was a qualified lawyer with a continuing and consuming interest in politics. His brilliant grasp of political matters brought him to the attention of Democratic leaders who sought his counsel. For some time Tilden studiously avoided candidacy for high public office, but his own abilities soon brought him national recognition.

A particularly significant event was Tilden’s exposure and prosecution of New York’s notorious racketeer, ‘Boss’ William M. Tweed. His popularity soared and he was elected Governor of New York. Then he broke up the Canal Ring, a group of crooks and unscrupulous politicians. Tilden’s name became associated with integrity in politics. This was just what the Democratic Party wanted as a contrast to the Republican Administration.

The battle lines were clearly defined. Left to themselves, it is possible that Hayes and Tilden might have kept the election campaign free from distortion of facts and bitter personal invective, but it was not to be. Tilden was subjected to a number of damaging of charges. There seemed to be no limit to the accusations: that he was a liar, swindler, perjurer, counterfeiter and even an absurd claim that he had been in league with the infamous Tweed. In line with their basic campaign strategy, the Republicans alleged that Tilden had supported the Confederacy, the right of secession and the continuation of slavery. This all stemmed from his opposition to Lincoln in 1860, but that was because he was a Democrat and feared a Republican victory would bring disaster to the United States. This feeling had no bearing on his fundamental loyalty to the Union, and once the war began he had urged the quick suppression of the Confederacy.

As election day approached, excitement grew with each rally and parade. It was, after all, the centenary of American independence. Even politically apathetic citizens came out for Hayes or Tilden with great enthusiasm. But on polling day, November 7th, calm prevailed as people made their way to voting centres. It was a stillness soon to be shattered. Hayes’ hopes began to sink as swing states such as Connecticut, Indiana and New Jersey went to Tilden. When New York finally fell into Tilden’s camp, Hayes admitted defeat to those around him and went to bed.

Tilden was not only leading in the popular vote: he had 184 of the far more important electoral votes to Hayes’ 166. The 19 votes of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were had not yet been declared, but they were in the heartland of the Democratic South. At the Republican National Headquarters, exhausted and dispirited party workers began to go home. On the morning of November 8th, the press of both parties was crowded with news of Tilden’s victory. Even the militantly Republican New York Tribune conceded the election.

The New York Times, however, would do no more than admit a Democratic lead. Two days after the election, John C. Reid, the newspaper’s influential editor, sat in the editorial room with two assistants. It was after 3am when a message arrived from the State Democratic Committee: ‘Please give your estimate of the electoral votes secured by Tilden. Answer at once.’ Reid was astounded. If they urgently needed such information, then the Democrats were not certain of victory. In a matter of minutes he conceived a scheme to wrest the election away from Tilden and put Rutherford B. Hayes into the White House. Tilden had 18 more electoral votes than Hayes, but if the 19 from South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida were secured by the Republicans, Hayes would win by one vote, 185 to 184.

Tilden (left) and Hayes

Samuel J. Tilden (left) and Rutherford B. Hayes (right).

Reid, accompanied by a Republican official, hurried into the night and awakened Zachariah Chandler, National Republican Chairman. Chandler agreed to Reid’s proposal: telegrams must be sent immediately to Republican officials in the three states, with the following message: ‘Hayes is elected if we have carried South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. Can you hold your state? Answer immediately.’ The meaning was clear: those states were to be held at any cost. At the same time, Republican headquarters proclaimed Hayes’ election.

The key to the plot’s success lay in the state canvassing boards. They had the power to certify the votes and cast out those that, in the board’s opinion, were questionable. The need for absolute honesty by the boards in exercising their power was self evident, but the personnel of some made comedy of that requirement. Of course, all of the boards were Republican and backed by Federal troops.

Initially, Hayes dissociated himself from the plan, saying: ‘I think we are defeated … I am of the opinion that the Democrats have carried the country and elected Tilden.’ A few weeks later, however, he changed his mind: ‘I have no doubt that we are justly and legally entitled to the Presidency.’

From the beginning there was an outside chance that Hayes could have carried South Carolina and Louisiana on the strength of votes from African-Americans and ‘carpetbaggers’ (a pejorative term for Northerners who moved South during the Reconstruction). Florida’s heavily Democratic white majority, however, made that state a dim prospect for Republican hopes. But they had to have Florida or Tilden would win by 188 to 181. During the actual election campaign, all three states witnessed a wide variety of attempts by both sides to cow voters and fraud was rampant. In one shameful tactic, the Democrats tried to distribute ballots with the Republican emblem prominently displayed over the names of Democratic candidates. It was worth the chance in the hope of picking up votes from illiterate voters. On the Republican side, one inspired person devised ‘little jokers’. These were tiny Republican tickets inside a regular ballot. A partisan clerk could slip them into the ballot box with little chance of being detected.

In Louisiana, Tilden held a comfortable majority over Hayes. And in New Orleans, the Democratic elector with the smallest plurality had more than 6,000 votes over his Republican opponent. The canvassing board solved the problem in that state by simply throwing out 13,000 Tilden votes against only 2,000 for Hayes. Then the electors for Hayes were certified.

The prelude to the election in South Carolina was a bloody affair. The Governor was Daniel H. Chamberlain of Massachusetts, a strict dogmatist on the race question and thoroughly loathed by white South Carolinians. In addition to the Presidential election, there was a gubernatorial race. The Democrats were running a war hero, former Confederate General Wade Hampton. ‘Rifle clubs’ were organised over the entire state by Hampton’s supporters and there were numerous clashes with African-American groups. As far back as July 8th, there had been a sharp fight in Aiken County at which African-Americans suffered a severe defeat. Chamberlain appealed to President Grant for help. Grant described the rifle clubs as ‘insurgents’ and sent all readily available troops to South Carolina. The resultant fury at this action was compounded when the Republican canvassing board ensured the certification of Hayes’ electors.

The Election of 1876 & The End of Reconstruction

Florida was the most critical problem. As the polling booths closed, each side claimed victory. Once again, the canvassing board held the decision in its hands. The three-man board was dominated by two Republicans, Florida’s Secretary of State and its Comptroller. The third man was the Democratic Attorney General. The board had the right to exclude ‘irregular, false or fraudulent’ votes. In a complete travesty of integrity, the board voted for Hayes by virtue of its Republican majority. Thus, Florida’s key electoral votes went to Hayes. The Republican Governor certified them with the official blessing of the state. The outraged Democrats held a meeting and had the Attorney General certify the Tilden electors. With this action, a new and dangerous complication entered the scene. Democrats, claiming dishonesty by the canvassing boards, were certifying their own electors by whatever legal or quasi-legal means they could. To further complicate matters, Florida Democrats elected G. F. Drew as Governor and he appointed a new board of canvassers who promptly judged Tilden’s electors to be victorious. In South Carolina, where Wade Hampton had been elected Governor, there were unqualified demands to disenfranchise the Hayes electors.

As a precaution, General Grant ordered Federal troops into all three state capitals, directing General Sherman ‘to see that the proper and legal boards of canvassers are unmolested in the performance of their duties’. That meant Hayes would win. At this point, Samuel Tilden’s followers almost begged him to denounce the plot publicly, but he would no nothing to prejudice the legal process. This is somewhat difficult to understand in view of his previous anti-fraud successes.

The Senate and House of Representatives convened for the second session of the 44th Congress on December 4th, 1876. It was just two days before the date set for Presidential electors chosen in each state to meet and declare their choice for President and Vice-President of the United States. It was the responsibility of each state Governor and Secretary of State to affix the official state seal to the voting certificates and send them to the President of the Senate in Washington D.C. who would then count them before a joint session of Congress.

Since the Senate was controlled by Republicans, the Democratic House demanded the right to decide which votes were valid. The Senate, understandably, refused. Here was an incredible situation; each day bringing the United States closer to March 4th, the date when Grant’s term expired. Who would succeed him and how would it be done? Rumblings of a new civil war rolled ominously across America. There were drills and parades and wartime units began to reform. Even cool heads discussed the possibility of the National Guard, under the command of Democratic Governors in most states, marching on Washington to install Tilden by force, if necessary. In that case, the Regular Army under Grant would oppose the Guard as Hayes had been ‘legally’ elected.

Amazon.com: Presidential Campaign 1876 Ncontemporary American Newspaper  Cartoon Attacking William Eaton Chandler Who Directed Republican Tactics In  The Rutherford B Hayes And Samuel J Tilden Election In Which Twe: Posters &  PrintsIt was an unthinkable prospect. Fortunately, there were men of influence on both sides who saw that a peaceful solution was absolutely mandatory. On December 14th, the House appointed a committee to approach the Senate in the hope that a tribunal could be created; one ‘whose authority none can question and whose decision all will accept as final’. After much debate, an Electoral Commission was approved. Congress proceeded to set up a group of 15 men; five from the Senate, five from the House and five from the Supreme Court. Presumably, the Court Justices would be non-partisan. Both Hayes and Tilden declared the Commission unconstitutional, but they reluctantly agreed to accept its verdict.

It was clear to everyone what would happen without the Commission. Republican Senator Thomas Ferry of Michigan, presiding officer of the Senate, would open the certificates before a joint session and declare Hayes the winner by 185 to 184 electoral votes. The House would then immediately adjourn to its own chambers where Speaker Samuel Randall would declare no electoral majority and throw the election into a vote by each state delegation in the House. That would assure Tilden’s victory, and on March 4th, 1877 both Hayes and Tilden would be in Washington to be inaugurated as President of the United States. Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York described this route as a ‘Hell-gate paved and honeycombed with dynamite’. It was no understatement.

The Commission held its first session just four weeks before the inauguration. Democratic members of the Commission pressed for a searching examination of the honesty of the canvassing boards. The Republican members claimed that the legal state authorities had filed legitimate certificates and Congress had no power to interfere.

The Commission finally voted along party lines with the decision going to Hayes, 8 to 7. On Friday, March 2nd at 4am, the Senate awarded the last certificate to Hayes. It was just two days before the inauguration. The fury of the South was matched by its Democratic allies in the North. All eyes turned to Samuel J. Tilden. If he claimed that the will of the American people had been frustrated by partisan duplicity and fraud, then America faced civil war. Instead, Tilden said: ‘It is what I expected.’

Electoral map of 1876: Republican wins in red, Democrat in blue, non-states in grey.

Electoral map of 1876: Republican wins in red, Democrat in blue, non-states in grey.

 

Open conflict might still have been a possibility except for a meeting that has since been the subject of much speculation. One week before the inauguration, Southern Democrats and Republicans met at the Wormley Hotel in Washington in an effort to find some compromise before it was too late. There is ample evidence to suggest that a quid pro quo was reached; the South to agree to Hayes’ election if the North would agree to abandon all efforts to maintain carpetbag regimes in the South. That meant withdrawal of Federal troops. In return, the South presumably agreed not to take reprisals against African-Americans or carpetbag officials.

For that matter, the South and its Democratic friends in the North already held a powerful sword over the head of the United States Army. They attached a clause to the Army Appropriations Bill that outlawed the use of Federal troops to sustain state governments in the South without Congressional approval. When the Senate refused the clause, the House simply adjourned and left the Army without funds to pay soldiers. Morale collapsed and the end of Reconstruction was at hand.

After the decision, Tilden commented: ‘I can retire to private life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit for having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares.’ That summer he sailed for Europe for a year’s vacation. Rutherford B. Hayes took the oath of office in private, kissing the open Bible at Psalm 118:13 ‘… the Lord helped me’.

There was no inaugural parade or ball. There was little to celebrate.

Read Full Post »

La supresión o anulación del derecho al voto ha sido un tema recurrente en la actual campaña electoral estadounidense. Comparto este artículo en el que el historiador Mark Krasovic nos recuerda que esta es una práctica muy presente en la historia estadounidense. Para ello analizará las tácticas usadas por el Partido Republicano para suprimir el derecho al voto en el estado de New Jersey en la década de 1980. El Dr. Krasovic es profesor de historia de Estados Unidos en la Universidad de Rutgers.


How Voter Suppression Imperils the Midterms - Progressive.org

Trump’s encouragement of GOP poll watchers echoes an old tactic of voter intimidation

The Conversation   September 30, 2020

During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump was asked by moderator Chris Wallace if he would “urge” his followers to remain calm during a prolonged vote-counting period after the election, if the winner were unclear.

“I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that is what has to happen, I am urging them to do it,” Trump said. “I hope it’s going to be a fair election, and if it’s a fair election, I am 100 percent on board, but if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can’t go along with that.”

This wasn’t the first time Trump has said he wants to recruit poll watchers to monitor the vote. And to some, the image of thousands of Trump supporters crowding into polling places to monitor voters looks like voter intimidation, a practice long used in the U.S. by political parties to suppress one side’s vote and affect an election’s outcome.

In the history of voter suppression in the U.S. – including attempts to stop Black and Latino people from voting – Republican tactics in the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial race are worth highlighting. That incident sparked a court order – a “consent decree” – forbidding the GOP from using a variety of voter intimidation methods, including armed poll watchers.

The 2020 presidential election will be the first in nearly 40 years conducted without the protections afforded by that decree.

The National Ballot Security Task Force

In November 1981, voters in several cities saw posters at polling places printed in bright red letters. “WARNING,” they read. “This area is being patrolled by the National Ballot Security Task Force.”

And voters soon encountered the patrols themselves. About 200 were deployed statewide, many of them uniformed and carrying guns.

In Trenton, patrol members asked a Black voter for her registration card and turned her away when she didn’t produce it. Latino voters were similarly prevented from voting in Vineland, while in Newark some voters were physically chased from the polls by patrolmen, one of whom warned a poll worker not to stay at her post after dark. Similar scenes played out in at least two other cities, Camden and Atlantic City.

Weeks later, after a recount, Republican Thomas Kean won the election by fewer than 1,800 votes.

Democrats, however, soon won a significant victory. With local civil rights activists, they discovered that the “ballot security” operation was a joint project of the state and national Republican committees. They filed suit in December 1981, charging Republicans with “efforts to intimidate, threaten and coerce duly qualified black and Hispanic voters.”

In November 1982, the case was settled when the Republican committees signed a federal consent decree – a court order applicable to activities anywhere in the U.S. – agreeing not to use race in selecting targets for ballot security activities and to refrain from deploying armed poll watchers.

That order expired in 2018 after Democrats failed to convince a judge to renew it.

As a professor who teaches and writes about New Jersey history, I’m alarmed by the expiration because I know that Republicans in 1981 relied not only on armed poll watchers but also on a history of white vigilantism and intimidation in the Garden State. These issues resonate today in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement and continued GOP attempts to suppress the 2020 vote in numerous states.

 U.S. Rep. John Lewis with House Democrats before passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act to eliminate potential state and local voter suppression laws, Dec. 29, 2019. The Senate has not taken up the bill. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite  

The Republican ‘ballot security’ plan

Considered an early referendum on Ronald Reagan’s presidency, New Jersey’s 1981 gubernatorial race held special meaning for Republicans nationwide. Kean – with campaign manager Roger Stone at the helm – promised corporate tax cuts and relied heavily on Reagan’s endorsement.

To secure victory, state and national Republican party officials devised a project they claimed would prevent Democratic cheating at the polls.

In the summer of 1981, the Republican National Committee sent an operative named John A. Kelly to New Jersey to run the ballot security effort. Kelly had first been hired by the Republican National Committee in 1980 to work in the Reagan campaign, and he served as one of the RNC’s liaisons to the Reagan White House.

Later, after he was revealed as the organizer of the National Ballot Security Task Force – and after The New York Times discovered that he had lied about graduating from Notre Dame and had been arrested for impersonating a police officer – Republicans distanced themselves from him.

In August 1981, under the guise of the National Ballot Security Task Force, Kelly sent about 200,000 letters marked “return to sender” to voters in heavily Black and Latino districts. Those whose letters were returned had their names added to a list of voters to be challenged at the polls on Election Day, a tactic known as voter caging.

In the Newark area, Kelly produced a list of 20,000 voters whom he deemed potentially fraudulent. He then hired local operatives to organize patrols, ostensibly to keep such fraud at bay. To run the Newark operation, he hired Anthony Imperiale.

Newark’s white vigilante

Imperiale, in turn, hired off-duty police officers and employees of his private business, the Imperiale Security Police, to patrol voting sites in the city.

The gun-toting, barrel-chested former Marine had first adopted the security role during Newark’s 1967 uprising – five days of protests and a deadly occupation of the city by police and the National Guard following the police beating of a Black cab driver. During the uprising, Imperiale organized patrols of his predominantly white neighborhood to keep “the riots” out.

Soon, Imperiale became a hero of white backlash politics. His opposition to police reform earned him widespread support from law enforcement. And his fight against Black housing development in Newark’s North Ward delighted many of his neighbors. By the end of the 1970s, Hollywood was making a movie based on his activities.

Actress Frances Fisher arrives to speak at a downtown rally in Los Angeles, California on May 19, 2016, to bring attention to voter suppression. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

After serving as an independent in both houses of the state legislature, Imperiale became a Republican in 1979. Two years later, he campaigned with Kean. Once in office, the new governor named Imperiale director of a new one-man state Office of Community Safety – an appointment often interpreted as reward for Imperiale’s leadership of the ballot efforts in Newark, but stymied when Democrats refused to fund the position.

Outcome and legacy

Despite Kean’s slim margin of victory, Democrats at the time were careful not to claim that Republican voter suppression efforts had decided the election. (In 2016, the former Democratic candidate claimed they did indeed make the difference.)

Rather, the state and national Democratic committees brought suit against the Republican National Committee to ensure it couldn’t again use such methods anywhere. For nearly 40 years – through amendments and challenges – the resulting consent decree helped curtail voter suppression tactics.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Since the decree’s expiration in 2018, Republicans have ramped up their recruitment of poll watchers for the 2020 presidential election. Last November, Trump campaign lawyer Justin Clark – calling the decree’s absence “a huge, huge, huge, huge deal” for the party – promised a larger, better-funded and “more aggressive” program of Election Day operations.

The Trump campaign is claiming, as Republicans did in 1981, that Democrats “will be up to their old dirty tricks” and has vowed to “cover every polling place in the country” with workers to ensure an honest election and reelect the president.

This November, Republican tactics in 1981 are worth remembering. They demonstrate that the safeguarding of polling places from supposedly fraudulent voters and of public places from Black bodies share not only a logic. They also share a history.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on August 10, 2020.

Read Full Post »

El voto por correo se ha convertido en un tema controversial en las elecciones presidenciales estadounidense. Donald J. Trump ha cuestionado, sin evidencia, la transparencia del voto por correo, alegando que facilitaría un fraude masivo que le podría costar la reelección. No voy analizar la validez de las alegaciones del Presidente, pues ese no es el objetivo de este blog. Lo que pretendo hacer es colocar el tema en su contexto  compartiendo un breve artículo de Jessica Pearce Rotondi titulado «Vote-by-Mail Programs Date Back to the Civil War«.  Publicado en la revista History, este ensayo confirma la antigüedad y utilidad que el voto por correo ha tenido en la historia de Estados Unidos.


War 

 

Jessica Pearce Rotondi

 

History   September 24, 2020

 

Voting by mail can trace its roots to soldiers voting far from home during the Civil War and World War II. By the late 1800s, some states were extending absentee ballots

to civilian voters under certain conditions, but it wasn’t until 2000 that Oregon became the first state to move to an all-mail voting system. Here is everything you need to know about the history of absentee voting and vote by mail.

What Does the Constitution Say About Voting?

There is no step-by-step guide to voting in the United States Constitution. Article 1, Section 4 says that it’s up to each state to determine “The Times, Places and Manner

of holding Elections.” This openness has enabled the voting process in the United States to evolve as the country’s needs have changed.

The Founding Fathers voted by raising their voices—literally. Until the early 19th century, all eligible voters cast their “Viva Voce” (voice vote) in public. While the number of people eligible to vote in that era was low and primarily composed of land- owning white males, turnout hovered around 85 percent, largely due to enticing voting parties held at polling stations.

The first paper ballots appeared in the early 19th century and were originally blank pieces of paper. By the mid-1800s, they had gone to the other extreme: political

parties printed tickets with the names of every candidate pre-filled along party lines. It wasn’t until 1888 that New York and Massachusetts became the first states to adopt pre-printed ballots with the names of all candidates (a style called the “Australian ballot” after where it was created). By then, another revolution in voting had taken place: Absentee voting.

The first widespread instance of absentee voting in the United States was during theCivil War. The logistics of a wartime election were daunting: “We cannot have free government without elections,” President Abraham Lincoln told a crowd outside theWhite House in 1864, “and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-03 a la(s) 17.59.53.png

 Union Army soldiers lined up to vote in the 1864 election during the American Civil War.
Interim Archives/Getty Images 

 

“Lincoln was concerned about the outcome of the midterm elections,” says Bob Stein, Director of the Center for Civic Leadership at Rice University. “Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, pointed out that there were a lot of Union soldiers who couldn’t vote, so the president encouraged states to permit them to cast their ballots from the field.” (There was some precedent for Lincoln’s wish; Pennsylvania became the first state to offer absentee voting for soldiers during the War of 1812.)

In the 1864 presidential election between Lincoln and George McClellan, 19 Union states changed their laws to allow soldiers to vote absentee. Some states permitted soldiers to name a proxy to vote for them back home while others created polling sites in the camps themselves. Approximately 150,000 out of one million soldiers voted in the election, and Lincoln carried a whopping 78 percent of the military vote.

By the late 1800s, several states offered civilians the option of absentee voting, though they had to offer an accepted excuse, most commonly distance or illness. The passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870 and 19th Amendment in 1920 expanded the number of eligible voters in the United States, but it would take another war to propel absentee voting back into the national spotlight.

Absentee Voting in World War II

Absentee voting re-entered the national conversation during World War II, when “both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman encouraged military voting,” says Stein. The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 permitted all members of the military overseas to send their ballots from abroad. Over 3.2 million absentee ballots were cast during the war. The act was amended in 1944 and expired at war’s end.

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-03 a la(s) 18.01.36

GI’s on the fighting fronts in Italy, Capt. William H. Atkinson of Omaha, Nebraska, swears in Cpl. Tito Fargellese of Boston, Massachusetts , before Fargellese cast his ballot for the 1944 election.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Legislation passed throughout the next few decades made voting easier for servicemen and women and their families: The Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) in 1986; and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment, or MOVE Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2009.

 

States Expand Vote by Mail

“Before the civil rights movement., it was largely members of the military, expats and people who were truly disabled or couldn’t get to their jurisdiction who were permitted to vote absentee,” says Stein. While most historians cite California as the first state to offer no-excuse absentee voting, Michael Hanmer, research director of the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, says it was actually Washington state that made the switch in 1974.

Other Western states soon followed: “Western states are newer, have the biggest rural areas, the most land and are doing the most pioneering work,” says Lonna Atkeson, Director of the Center for the Study of Voting, Elections, and Democracy at the University of New Mexico. “Their progressive values played a role in their political culture.”

Oregon became the first state to switch to vote by mail exclusively in 2000. Washington followed in 2011.

EAVS Deep Dive: Early, Absentee and Mail Voting | U.S. Election Assistance  Commission

Did You Know? It took The Vietnam War for the voting age to be lowered to 18 with the ratification of the 26th amendment.

2020 Election: Which States Offer Voting by Mail?

The 2020 presidential election takes place in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, when concerns about virus transmission in crowds caused lawmakers to rethink rules around appearing in person to vote. For the first time in history, at least 75 percent of Americans are able to vote absentee.

In the 2020 election:

· Thirty-four U.S. states offer no-excuse absentee voting or permit registered voters to cite COVID-19 as their reason to vote absentee.

· Nine states and Washington, D.C. mail all ballots directly to voters: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

· Seven states—Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas—require voters to give a reason other than COVID-19 to vote absentee.

How to Vote by Mail

Ballots that go through the mail can be divided into two categories: Absentee ballots, typically requested by people who are unable to vote in person for physical reasons, and mail-in ballots, which are automatically provided to all eligible voters in states with all-mail voting systems.

The rules around voting by mail vary from state to state.

“When are ballots due? Postmarked? Federalism is a beautiful thing, but it’s complex because each state does something different,” says Atkeson. “In the end, access and security make for a well-run election and makes people feel that their vote is counted.”

How does vote-by-mail work and does it increase election fraud?

Read Full Post »

Acaba de ser publicado el número 19 de la revista digital Huellas de Estados Unidos. En esta ocasión incluye una sección con la opinión de varios expertos latinoamericanos sobre el posible resultado de las elecciones presidenciales en Estados Unidos. Este  número incluye además, una interesante selección de artículos entre los que llaman poderosamente mi atención dos trabajos sobre las relaciones internacionales de Argentina y Estados Unidos. También destacan un ensayo de Sven Beckert sobre el algodón y la guerra civil, y el trabajo de Diego Alexander Olivera examinando el pensamiento político de los hermanos Kagan. Felicitamos y agradecemos a los editores de Huellas de Estados Unidos.


 

Huellas de Estados Unidos / #19 / Octubre 2020

Edicion 19

Haz click para descargar en formato pdf

………………………………………….

………………………………………….

……………………………………………

………………………………………….

……………………………………………

……………………………………………

………………………………………….

………..

Read Full Post »

Para comenmorar el centenario de la ratificación de la Enmienda 19 reconociendo el derecho al voto a las ciudadanas estadounidenses, comparto esta antología de artículos sobre del sufragismo en Estados Unidos, publicados en el Journal of American History.  El acceso a ellos será gratuito hasta el 20 de noviembre de este año.


Today in History, June 4, 1919: Congress approved 19th amendment ...

Women, Voting, and the Nineteenth Amendment: a JAH Suffrage Reader

On August 18, 1920, the General Assembly of Tennessee—the requisite thirty-sixth state—ratified the Nineteenth Amendment. After decades of public activism, and more than a year of legislative debate, the amendment, which prohibited the denial or abridgement of the right of citizens to vote “on account of sex,” at last became part of the U.S. Constitution. Woman suffrage became a right—though not for all women a reality—throughout the nation.

To mark the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment, and to encourage critical assessment of the broader histories of suffrage and suffrage restriction in the United States, the Journal of American History has assembled “Women, Voting, and the Nineteenth Amendment: A JAH Suffrage Reader.” This reader offers a sampling of numerous articles and reviews published in the JAH over the past half century. By no means exhaustive, it is intended to provide readers with a brief introduction to the history and historiography of woman suffrage, and women’s political activism more generally, in the United States. As part of our ongoing series Sex, Suffrage, Solidarities: Centennial Reappraisals, we hope that this reader will benefit students, educators, and researchers who wish to learn more about these topics. We invite all readers to revisit as well the JAH Women’s History Index, published in our March 2020 issue.

The following articles and reviews will be freely available through November 30, 2020:

Detail, Votes for Women: Song (1914). Library of Congress, Music Division.

 

The New Woman: Changing Views of Women in the 1920s (September 1974)

Estelle B Freedman

Journal of American History, Volume 61, Issue 2, September 1974, Pages 372–393, https://doi.org/10.2307/1903954

Leadership and Tactics in the American Woman Suffrage Movement: A New Perspective from Massachusetts (September 1975)

Sharon Hartman Strom

Journal of American History, Volume 62, Issue 2, September 1975, Pages 296–315, https://doi.org/10.2307/1903256

Feminist Politics in the 1920s: The National Woman’s Party (June 1984)

Nancy F Cott

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 71, Issue 1, June 1984, Pages 43–68, https://doi.org/10.2307/1899833

Working Women, Class Relations, and Suffrage Militance: Harriot Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894–1909 (June 1987)

Ellen Carol DuBois

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 74, Issue 1, June 1987, Pages 34–58, https://doi.org/10.2307/1908504

Outgrowing the Compact of the Fathers: Equal Rights, Woman Suffrage, and the United States Constitution, 1820–1878 (December 1987)

Ellen Carol DuBois

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 74, Issue 3, December 1987, Pages 836–862, https://doi.org/10.2307/1902156

What’s in a Name? The Limits of “Social Feminism”; or, Expanding the Vocabulary of Women’s History (December 1989)

Nancy F Cott

Journal of American History, Volume 76, Issue 3, December 1989, Pages 809–829, https://doi.org/10.2307/2936422

Political Style and Women’s Power, 1830–1930 (December 1990)

Michael McGerr

Journal of American History, Volume 77, Issue 3, December 1990, Pages 864–885, https://doi.org/10.2307/2078989

Review of New Women of the New South: The Leaders of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the Southern States by Marjorie Spruill Wheeler (September 1994)

Laura F Edwards

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 81, Issue 2, September 1994, Page 731, https://doi.org/10.2307/2081305

Review of Women against Women: American Anti-Suffragism, 1880-1920 by Jane Jerome Camhi and The Home, Heaven, and Mother Party: Female Anti-Suffragists in the United States, 1868-1920 by Thomas J. Jablonksy (June 1996)

Anne M Boylan

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 83, Issue 1, June 1996, Pages 247–249, https://doi.org/10.2307/2945572

“The Liberty of Self-Degradation”: Polygamy, Woman Suffrage, and Consent in Nineteenth-Century America (December 1996)

Sarah Barringer Gordon

Journal of American History, Volume 83, Issue 3, December 1996, Pages 815–847, https://doi.org/10.2307/2945641

Review of African American Women in the Struggle for the Vote, 1850-1920 by Rosalyn Terborg-Penn (June 1999)

Jane Rhodes

Journal of American History, Volume 86, Issue 1, June 1999, Page 273, https://doi.org/10.2307/2567500

Review of Woman Suffrage and Women’s Rights by Ellen Carol DuBois (June 2001)

Louise M Newman

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 88, Issue 1, June 2001, Pages 215–216, https://doi.org/10.2307/2674975

Review of Suffragists in an Imperial Age: U.S. Expansion and the Woman Question, 1870-1929 by Allison L. Sneider (December 2008)

Tracey Jean Boisseau

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 95, Issue 3, December 2008, Page 866, https://doi.org/10.2307/27694455

The Incorporation of American Feminism: Suffragists and the Postbellum Lyceum (March 2010)

Lisa Tetrault

Journal of American History, Volume 96, Issue 4, March 2010, Pages 1027–1056, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/96.4.1027

Suffragettes and Soviets: American Feminists and the Specter of Revolutionary Russia (March 2014)

Julia L Mickenberg

Journal of American History, Volume 100, Issue 4, March 2014, Pages 1021–1051, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jau004

Review of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women’s Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898 by Lisa Tetrault (September 2015)

Nicole Eaton

Journal of American History, Volume 102, Issue 2, September 2015, Pages 559–560, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav368

Review of Counting Women’s Ballots: Female Voters from Suffrage through the New Deal by J. Kevin Corder and Christina Wolbrecht (March 2018)

Eileen McDonagh

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 104, Issue 4, March 2018, Page 1043, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jax493

Interchange: Women’s Suffrage, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the Right to Vote (December 2019)

Ellen Carol DuBois, Liette Gidlow, et al.

in Journals

Journal of American History, Volume 106, Issue 3, December 2019, Pages 662–694, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaz506

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Read Full Post »

semanario Claridad Archives - LVDSEl semanario Claridad es una publicación que este año cumple sesenta años defendiendo y promoviendo la independencia de Puerto Rico, la colonia más atigua del planeta. Durante este periodo ha enfrentado persecución política, ataques terroristas y los vaivanes socio-económicos y políticos de la sociedad puertorriqueña. La  entrega de quienes durante todos estos años han luchado por la supervivencia de este vocero de la nacionalidad puertorriqueña es encomiable.

En estos sensenta años Claridad ha sido mucho más que el vocero de una lucha política. Este semanario ha sido también un medio cultural, en donde academicos de diversas disciplinas  han  disfrutado de un espacio para compartir sus ideas. Comparto con mis lectores una corta nota titulada «1898, del otro lado«, escrita por la Dra. Dolores Aponte Ramos,  sobre el uso de la música «como recurso publicitario» durante la guerra hispano-cubano-estadounidense en 1898.


1898, del otro lado

Lola Aponte, de oficio hilandera.

Claridad

24 de julio de 2020

Nos propone Sun Tzu:  cuando se conduce a los hombres a la batalla con astucia, el impulso es como rocas redondas que se precipitan montaña abajo: ésta es la fuerza que produce la victoria.” ¿Cómo lograr el discurso que lograr mover las rocas?  ¿Quienes eran los soldados que en el 1897 fueron movidos a la guerra hispanoamericana? ¿Cómo hacerles partícipes de una ideología dominante en la cual se percibieran como salvadores en la lucha del bien versus el mal?  ¿Qué nociones del otro, del enemigo y de sí mismos los alentaba?

Esta guerra recurre a la prensa y a la música para crear el espíritu entre los soldados y ciudadanía de la necesidad de la guerra   Aquí propongo algunos textos visuales y musicales para darnos un sabor de la Guerra Hispanoamericana, conocida en los libros de historia militar de USA como “la guerra breve,”  Primero la representación de España como enemigo irracional y degradado.  Estas caricaturas ampliamente difundidas, crean “al otro” en cuanto  animalizado y brutal, asesino de los soldados el Maine, violador de la libertad.

Article Images | Origins: Current Events in Historical PerspectiveComo sabemos hacía ya décadas que latifundistas norteamericanos habían comprado enormes fincas en el Caribe hispano.  El interés por Cuba y Puerto Rico se había expresado incluso en la colaboración con los Partido Revolucionarios de ambas islas si bien fundados en New York.  Se había  materializado en el apoyo en armas a los mamvíses, ejército de guerrilla cubano organizado contra el estado español y asilo a figuras cimeras en la búsqueda de la independencia.  La imagen, sin embargo, no está dirigida hacia la intelligentsia militar, que conoce los intereses comerciales y expansionistas de esta guerra.  Esta imagen amarillista y metafórica está enfocada al lector promedio del periódico.  La auspicia el cuerpo militar, liderado por Teddy Roosevelt, para crear opinión pública.  Buscan y logran apoyo masivo a la primera guerra claramente imperialista de Estado Unidos.  Los cuerpos sangrientos, la ferocidad de contrincante, de proporciones corporales gigantescas son elocuentes en sí mismas.  Un importante grupo de jóvenes voluntariará para hacerse soldados a favor de tan justa causa. Formarán varios regimientos, voluntarios que servirán de linea de frontal de infantería.    En la imagen, Tio Sam protector de la Cuba feminina, presuntamente a punto de ser violada, mira con miedo a españoles de tez oscura que detiene su ataque mas no su gesto violento   Así la guerra se torna en una de protección de valores domésticos, un desarrollo contra la infamia antes que una búsqueda expansionista .  Los habitantes de las islas no parecen tener historia, y se nos muestran incapaces de  buscar redención propia, no parecen conocer la posibilidad siquiera de reclamar derechos, tampoco se les adjudica valores propios   Damiselas asustadizas, subyugadas ellas mismas ante su salvador  Sin duda la fantasía de dominación perfecta.  Es este la misma ideología que expresa su música.

Song sheet cover featuring Eugene Stratton in All Coons Look Alike ...

La música, como recurso publicitario,  mayormente producida alrededor de la casa de publicación Tin Pan Alley.  Entre los grandes éxitos del 1898 produjeron Yankee Doddle Dewey,  y Ma Fillipino Babe.  Esta compañía es responsable de otros top ten en el billboard de la época, tales como ˆ  All the Coons Look Alike to Me—(Todos los putos negros me parecen idénticos, traduzco temblándome el corazón)   Mientras Mark Twain se oponía a la intrusión militar como contraria al espíritu de la república, su país que había salido de su primera gran recesión estaba listo para adelantar la propuesta de intervención militar en el Caribe y cantaba a coro estas melodías.  Aquí tres fragmentos de canciones a las que siguen traducciones :  

A CALL FROM CUBA – J. R. Martin

 Rouse! Sons of Columbia, hear the cry of despair, Wrung from skeleton forms in the dreary night air;

Human forma herded there by a mandate from Spain, Without help, food or shelter, from sun, cold or rain; Age and infancy blend, no strong arm to defend, They wait in dull anguish the sorrowful end;

They’re our neighbors in Cuba; oh, hear their sad cry: “Save us, sons of Columbia, or haste, ere we die.”

Have we forfeited life because longing to be

Like your glorious union, in full liberty?

Our hearts are like lead ‘neath this load of despair,

You are brave, you are generous, hear this our prayer; By your own love of liberty, grant us the same,

Shield our homes and loved ones from the fury of Spain; Then the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave, O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

We have suffered for years every outrage which Spain Could invent to insult us and fill lie with pain;

The music they love is the shriek of desviar

And the moan of lost innocence in the night air;

Oh God! hear our cry, from Thy throne up on high, Send deliverance from Spain, or permit us to die;

May the star spangled banner o’er Cuba soon wave, Blessed emblem of peace for the home of the brave.

AS WE GO MARCHING THROUGH CUBA – Wilbur Eastlake

Hark, ye freemen, to the drums that call yon to the fray. Liberty now needs her sons, the fight is on to-day; Truth and Justice will prevail and Tyranny decay

As we go marching through Cuba.

Ignorance of human rights, contempt for human kind

And neglect of Freedom’s growth hath made Earth’s rulers blind. Fling Old Glory to the breeze, ‘twill closer brave hearts bind

As we go marching through Cuba.

“REMEMBER THE MAINE” – Lilith V. Pinchbeck Hark! don’t you hear the trumpets?

The beating of the drum

And measured tread of marching feet Proclaim that war has come.

The battle cry rolls onward

As they thin the ranks from Spain— ‘T is no more “Remember the Alamo But “Remember, boys, the Maine!”


A CALL FROM CUBA – J. R. MartinDe pie, Hijos de Columbia, escuchen el grito de dolor, 

de retorcidos esqueletos en el triste aire de la noche

Manada de formas humanas reducidas por mandato de España:

sin ayuda, comida; ni cobijo del sol, el frío o la lluvia,

 infancia y vejez sufren, sin brazo que les defienda,

 esperan en angustia el triste final. 

Son nuestros vecinos, Cubanos; 

Escucha sus tristes gritos: “Sálvennos, hijos de Columbia,

aprisa,  o moriremos 

¿Débemos sacrificar nuestra vida por querer tener,

 una nación como la suya, gloriosa, llena de libertad? 

nuestros corazones son como plomo bajo esta carga de dolor

son ustedes bravos, generosos, escuchan nuestra 

!Qué su amor por la libertad nos ampare a nosotros por igual 

protejan nuestras casas y a nuestros amados de la furia de España!

Entonces, la bandera de estrellas y rayas, triunfante ondeará  

sobre la tierra del libre y el hogar del valiente. (fragmento, traducción nuestra)

AS WE GO MARCHING THROUGH CUBA – Wilbur Eastlake

Atención!!, hombre libres al tambor.  les llama al servicio de libertad que necesita de sus hijos

en la lucha de hoy, Verdad y Justicia vencerán; t tiranía caerá

Según marchamos por Cuba

huirán los gobernantes con su ignorancia por los derechos humanos, 

 su desprecio por la vida y el olvido de desarrollar la Libertad humana.

Su gloria se desvanecerá en el aire

cuando nuestros bravos corazones 

Marchen por Cuba

Read Full Post »

El Public Domain Review acaba de hacer disponible una versión digital de la primera edición del discurso pronunciado por Fredrick Douglas el 5 de julio de 1852, criticando la hipocrecia de celebrar la independencia de Estados Unidos cuando millones de negros seguían siendo esclavos.  Bajo el título First Edition Pamphlet of Frederick Douglass’ «What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?» (1852), este documento viene acompañado de un breve análisis de su importancia como una de las piezas de oratoria más significativas de la historia estadounidense, así como también una fuente invaluable para el estudio de la esclavitud en Estados Unidos.

Los interesados en este documento pueden ir aquí.

Para mis lectores hispano parlantes incluyo a continuación la traducción de las primeras dos páginas de este discurso producida por la página Mass Humanities.


Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July ...

El significado del cuatro de julio para el negro Frederick Douglass July 5, 1852

Nota: Por razones históricas, en esta traducción se han empleado las formas de vosotros para la segunda persona plural. Aunque vosotros ya no se usa en el español hispanoamericano, era común durante el siglo xix, y sobre todo en la oratoria; por consiguiente, ayuda a captar, por analogía, el estilo decimonónico del inglés de Douglass.

1 Sr. Presidente, Amigos, y Ciudadanos de Compañero: La tarea antes de mi es alguno lo que requiere mucho pensamiento anterior y estudio para su desempeño adecuado. No me recuerdo nunca haber a parecer como un altavoz en frente de alguna asamblea con nerviosismo, ni con más desconfianza en mi habilidad que hago este día. Los papeles y los carteles dicen que voy a entregar una oración sobre el cuatro de julio. El hecho es, señores y señoras, la distancia entre esta plataforma y la plantación de esclavos, desde que me escapé, es considerable-y los dificultades para superar para que mover del último al anterior, no son leves. Lo que estoy aquí es algo de asombro así como de agradecimiento.

2 Esto, para el propósito de esta celebración, es el cuatro de julio. Esto es el cumpleaños de tu Independencia Nacional, y de tu libertad política. Esto, para ti, tiene la significa de la Pascua para la gente emancipada de Dios. Se lleva a tus mentes al día, y al momento de tu gran liberación. También, esta celebración significa la empieza de otro año de tu vida nacional; y te recuerda que la República de América ahora tiene 76 años. Estoy feliz, ciudadanos de compañero, porque tu nación está muy joven. Eres, incluso ahora, sólo a la empieza de tu carrera nacional, todavía persistiendo en el período de infancia. Repito, me alegre que esto es verdad. Hay esperanza en el pensamiento, y la esperanza es muy necesaria, debajo de los nubes oscuros que se bajan sobre el horizonte.

3 Ciudadanos del compañero, hace 76 años, las personas de este país eran súbditas británicas. El estilo y el título de tu «gente soberana» (en el cual tu ahora gloria) no nació. Estabas debajo de La Corona Británica. Tus padres estimaron el Gobierno Inglés como el gobierno de tu casa. Inglaterra como la patria, aunque una distancia muy lejos de tu casa, les impone, por el ejercito de sus prerrogativas de los padres, a sus niños coloniales, tales restricciones, cargas, y limitaciones, como, en su juicio maduro, se considere sabio, correcto, y adecuada.

4 Pero tus padres, cuyos no adoptaron la idea que el gobierno es infalible, y el carácter absoluto de sus acciones, presumieron a ser diferente del gobierno local en respeto al sabio y la justicia de algunos de las cargas y restricciones. Ellos se fueron en lo que para pronunciar las medidas del gobierno que son injustas, irrazonables, opresivas, y en total medidas que no la gente no debe someter a silencio. No necesito decir, ciudadanos de compañero, que mi opinión sobre las medidas son completamente en conformidad con los opiniones de tus padres. Tus padres se sentían tratados duramente e injustamente por el gobierno local, entonces tus padres, como hombres de honestidad, y hombres de espíritu, buscaron la compensación. Ellos solicitaron y protestaron; lo hicieron con una manera decorosa, respetuosa, y leal. Esto, sin embargo, no respondió al propósito. Ellos fueron maltratados con indiferencia soberana, frialdad, y desdén. Aún perseveraron.

frederick douglass Corinthian Hall 1852 speech

5 La opresión hace enojado al hombre sabio. Tus padres estuvieron intranquilos debajo de este trato. Ellos sintieron como las víctimas de errores graves que son incurables en su capacidad colonial. Con hombres valientes siempre hay un remedio para la opresión. Aquí, ¡la idea de separación total de las colonias de la corona nació! Era una idea sorprendente, mucho más que lo consideramos a esta distancia del tiempo. La gente tímida y prudente de esa día, por supuesto, estaban sorprendidas por esta idea. Su oposición al pensamiento, lo que consideraba peligroso durante en ese tiempo, estaba serio y poderoso; pero, durante de su terror y vociferaciones asustados contra de la idea, la idea alarmante y revolucionaria continuaba, y el país continuaba también. 6 El dos de julio, 1776, el Congreso Continental, para la consternación de los amantes de la facilidad y de los adoradores de la propiedad, alarmante y revolucionaria. Lo hicieron por una forma de una resolución. Casi nunca concebimos resoluciones, las que creamos en nuestras días, que tienen significados mejores que la resolución del Congreso Continental: «Resuelto, que estas colonias unidas son correctos y deben ser estados independientes y libres; también son absueltos de la lealtad de la Corona Ingles en total. 7 Ciudadanos, la resolución cumplió por tus padres. Ellos triunfaron; y hoy cosechas las frutas del triunfo de tus padres. La libertad que ganaron es tuyo; y tú, por lo tanto, puedes celebrar este aniversario. El cuatro de julio es el primer gran hecho en la historia de tu nación-la parte tan importante que todo en tu destino subdesarrollado. 8 El orgullo y patriotismo, no menos que el agradecimiento, te inspiran a celebrar y recordarlo perpetuamente. Lo he dicho que la Declaración de la Independencia es anillo – perno de la cadena del destino de tu nación; entonces, de hecho, lo considero. Los principales que están en ese instrumento son principales de salvación. Adhiere a estos principales, sea leal a estos en todos las situaciones, en todos los lugares, contra de todos los enemigos, y a cualquier precio.

Para la traducción completa se puede ir aquí.

Read Full Post »

Comparto una nota periodistica escrita por Jaume Pi del diario La Vanguardia sobre una de las rebeliones de esclavos más importante de la historia estadounidense.  En 1831 un esclavo llamado Nat Turner dirigió una sangrienta rebelión de esclavos que fue duramente reprimida. Como bien señala el autor, esta y otras rebeliones de esclavos confirman la falsedad de quienes aún hoy alegan la bondad del regimen esclavista que fue fundamental en el desarrollo económico de Estados Unidos.


Screen Shot 2020-07-23 at 1.16.24 PM

Nat Turner: la rebelión del esclavo predicado

Jaume Pi

La Vanguardia 

7 de julio de 2020

Uno de los argumentos de los defensores del sistema esclavista en los EE.UU. fue que era un modo de vida garantizaba la paz social. Se sostenía que la misma población negra vivía conforme y feliz a este orden y que dicha jerarquía favorecía la convivencia entre razas. Esta visión idealizada se mantuvo incluso después de la proclamación de emancipación de Abraham Lincoln (1863) y es la que se refleja en la popular novela Lo que el viento se llevó, de Margaret Mitchell (1936), y posterior adaptación cinematográfica (1939).

Sin embargo, esta imagen no se sostiene en los hechos históricos. El periodo esclavista en EE.UU. no fue, ni mucho menos, una etapa pacífica. Resultó convulsa y conflictiva. Los afroamericanos sometidos nunca aceptaron de buen grado su condición y se estima que se produjeron hasta 250 rebeliones de esclavos entre 1619 y 1865 en el país, desde las célebres revueltas cimarrones en las colonias españolas en los siglos XVII y XVIII hasta las numerosas insurrecciones de principios del XIX en pleno crecimiento del movimiento abolicionista.

La rebelión de Nat Turner es considerada una de las más sangrientas e impactantes de aquel periodo. Turner, un esclavo que había podido aprender a leer y escribir gracias a la supuesta benevolencia de sus amos blancos, utilizó sus capacidades y su posición como predicador para liderar una insurrección que durante 2 días puso en jaque el condado de Southhampton, Virginia.

Fue un levantamiento violento, que conmocionó a la región y todo el país, y que provocó una reacción igualmente represiva y virulenta contra la población negra. Su impacto posterior implicó el endurecimiento de las leyes de los estados del sur contra los negros (tanto esclavos como hombres libres), una situación que se fue tornando insostenible hasta el estallido de la Guerra Civil (1861-1865).

Nat Turner nació el 2 de octubre de 1800. Nació esclavo, hijo de esclavos, en la plantación de su amo Benjamin Turner, de quien, como era costumbre, tomó el apellido. De bien pequeño demostró que tenía altas capacidades y, de forma excepcional, sus propietarios le enseñaron a leer y escribir, especialmente la Biblia y textos religiosos. La primera infancia de Nat fue relativamente feliz: era el niño preferido de sus dueños blancos, que le exhibían a las visitas como una rara atracción.

UNSPECIFIED - CIRCA 1754: Plantation slaves gathered outside their huts, Virginia, America. Photograph c1860. (Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images)

Plantación de esclavos en Virgina, en una fotografía tomada alrededor de 1860
 UniversalImagesGroup / Getty

Cabe puntualizar el contexto de la Virginia de ese entonces. En contra de lo que ocurría en el profundo sur, los propietarios no eran necesariamente crueles con sus siervos, que en algunos casos disponían de vacaciones o tiempo de ocio. Por lo tanto, tratos como los que obtuvo Nat no eran tan extraños. Sin embargo, llegada la adolescencia, ese privilegio se esfumó de forma abrupta. Cuando el joven tuvo la edad para ponerse a trabajar en los campos de algodón, fue apartado de sus estudios y tratado como un esclavo más.

La influencia de la religión tuvo un impacto brutal en Turner. De muy pequeño, su entorno familiar ya le atribuía unos poderes extraordinarios, fruto de una supuesta ancestral herencia africana. Él mismo se vio como una especie de elegido, asegurando que recibía mensajes o señales de Dios. Gozaba así de un gran prestigio entre los suyos, que le consideraban un líder y que le reconocían su inteligencia superior. Al mismo tiempo, conservaba la buena consideración de sus dueños, que veían en él la figura perfecta para evangelizar y tranquilizar al resto de esclavos.

Mantuvo su buena reputación de negro dócil probablemente como una estrategia para elaborar mejor su plan de insurrección. Sus motivos pudieron ser muchos: desde el desengaño por haber perdido su condición privilegiada hasta la toma de consciencia de la inmoralidad e injusticia del sistema esclavista. Todo ello aderezado por sus ideas religiosas. Dejó escrito que en la primavera de 1828 se había convencido de que “el Todopoderoso” le había encomendado “una gran misión” y que esperaba una señal para llevarla a cabo.

En torno a 1830, fue comprado por Joseph Travis, quien admirado por su buena fama, le permitió realizar reuniones religiosas en las que Turner comenzó a trazar sus planes. El predicador fue especialmente cuidadoso. Para evitar traiciones internas, se rodeó de un reducido grupo de fieles. Unas 4 o 5 personas a lo sumo que se intercambiaban la información a través de canciones y prédicas.

1831: Slaves rebelling in Virginia during the revolt led by Nat Turner. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)

Litografía que muestra la rebelión de Nat Turner y su posterior neutralización por parte de las milicias del Estado de Virginia MPI / Getty

En febrero de 1831, Nat Turner interpretó un eclipse solar como la señal que estaba esperando. La noche del domingo 21 de agosto de 1831 comenzó la rebelión cerca de Cabin Pond, en el distrito Cross Keys de Southampton. Armados solo con hachas y cuchillos, el objetivo de Turner y de sus seis hombres era tomar Jerusalén, que así es como se llamaba la capital del condado. Su plan era sembrar el pánico en un ataque relámpago e intentar reclutar el máximo número de armas y combatientes por el camino.

Comenzaron adentrándose en la finca del dueño de Nat, al que ejecutaron rápidamente. Al mismo tiempo, convencieron a los esclavos para que se sumaran al grupo para seguir en la lucha. Este fue el modus operandi de los rebeldes durante esos días: recorrían la región, entraban en las casas, mataban a los dueños blancos, y trataban de convencer a los esclavos negros de que se unieran a la causa.

xiste cierta controversia sobre cómo fueron aquellos ataques. Las crónicas del momento hablan de masacres despiadadas y de todo tipo de atrocidades contra hombres, mujeres y niños, movidas por la sed de venganza de un “fanático religioso”. Lo cierto es que no hubo mucha piedad por parte de los insurrectos, como tampoco la habría posteriormente por parte de los propietarios blancos. Turner aseguró que la matanza indiscriminada solo se llevó a cabo inicialmente para generar alarma y añadió que, por ejemplo, evitó los ataques a “pobres blancos” por considerarlos también víctimas de aquel sistema.

Fuera como fuera, unas 70 personas blancas fueron asesinadas en apenas dos días hasta que la rebelión fue sofocada. Tras el shock inicial, los propietarios blancos comenzaron a organizar grupos armados y se produjeron intercambios de disparos en varias granjas. En las siguientes 48 horas, el grupo siguió liberando y reclutando esclavos -entre 50 y 80 personas se unieron a la lucha- hasta que los propietarios recurrieron a la infantería del estado que, mucho más numerosa en efectivos que los rebeldes, acabó por sofocar el levantamiento. Nat Turner pudo escapar.

SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA - APRIL 09: The Porter house is seen at dusk on Tuesday April 09, 2019 in Southampton County, VA. In 1831 a slave rebellion was led by Nat Turner in Southampton County. Turner was found guilty and hung. The Porter family were warned about the insurrection and left before Turner and his followers arrived. (Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Ruinas de una de las granjas del condado de Southampton que fueron atacadas por Nat Turnet y sus seguidores en 1831. The Washington Post / Getty

Ruinas de una de las granjas del condado de Southampton que fueron atacadas por Nat Turnet y sus seguidores en 1831. The Washington Post / Getty

La respuesta de las autoridades a la revuelta fue la de una cruenta represión. Con el líder de la rebelión todavía vivo, se optó por dar un mensaje ejemplarizante a la población negra. Los 16 rebeldes capturados fueron condenados a muerte por el tribunal del condado, y centenares de negros fueron linchados y ejecutados sin juicio por sus propietarios, incluso sin haber tenido nada que ver con la rebelión. Las noticias del levantamiento se propagaron rápidamente más allá del Southampton y las atrocidades contra los afroamericanos, fueran esclavos u hombres libres, se extendieron por el resto de Virginia y por los estados del sur.

El cabecilla de la insurrección sobrevivió semanas vagando por el condado sin que fuera capturado, hasta que se entregó a las autoridades el 30 de octubre de ese 1831 tras ser avistado por un granjero. El 11 de noviembre fue ahorcado en Jerusalén, Virginia, tras ser condenado por rebelión. Su cuerpo fue descuartizado y despellejado, en un intento de hacer olvidar su legado. Si se saben tantos detalles de su vida es porque él mismo se los dictó a su abogado de oficio, T.R. Gray, quien poco después de la ejecución publicaría Las confesiones de Nat Turner.

The Faculty Lounge: Was Nat Turner's Lawyer Gay?

El episodio del levantamiento de Nat Turner conmocionó no solo el condado de Southampton sino todo el país. EE.UU. vivía en aquel entonces un intenso debate sobre la idoneidad del sistema esclavista. Cabe matizar que los contrarios a la esclavitud eran partidarios de una abolición gradual y generalmente, más allá de consideraciones morales, esgrimían argumentos económicos. Sin embargo, la rebelión de 1831 tuvo un efecto contraproducente y el debate terminó abruptamente en el sur en favor de los defensores de la esclavitud, que se entendió como un elemento identitario de los estados sureños.

Además, el miedo a nuevas insurrecciones provocó el endurecimiento de las leyes. El Congreso de Virginia prohibió enseñar a esclavos, negros libres o de “raza mixta” a leer o escribir. Igualmente limitó las reuniones de esclavos y las congregaciones de las iglesias negras, imponiendo que al menos un blanco estuviera presente en este tipo de encuentros para evitar nuevas revueltas.

La nueva legislación también recortó derechos civiles de los negros libres e incluso de blancos favorables del abolicionismo, movimiento que en el sur quedó borrado de la noche a la mañana. Curiosamente fue entonces cuando en el norte tomó mayor impulso: ese mismo 1831 se fundó la New England Anti-Slavery Society, la primera asociación abolicionista de los EE.UU. Una irreconciliable división entre el sur esclavista y el norte antiesclavista se estaba gestando, una situación que acabaría por ser insostenible y desencadenaría la Guerra de Secesión.

La rebelión de Nat Turner es uno de aquellos episodios clave en la historia de los afroamericanos, aunque también de las más controvertidas. Turner es visto como un héroe, sobre todo porque su caso demuestra que la esclavitud nunca fue aceptada por sus víctimas. Sin embargo, existen muchas críticas contra dicha idealización por el componente extremadamente violento del suceso.

La historia alcanzó una gran popularidad a raíz de la publicación en 1967 de la novela Las confesiones de Nat Turner, de William Styrton, obra inspirada en el texto de Gray y presentado como una narración en primera persona del predicador. La obra ganó el premio Pulitzer, como en su momento lo había hecho el clásico de Mitchell. Asimismo, en 2016, el director Nate Parker rodó The Birth of a Nation, un filme basado en el libro de Styrton y que se llevó el primer premio en el festival Sundance

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »