Did You Know the Word ‘Miscegenation’ Was Invented by Democrats as a Smear?

Nineteenth-century American newspapers were, in general, partisan in their politics, and the New York World was a Democrat paper. In 1863, two writers for the World, George Wakeman and David Goodman Croly, wrote a 72-page pamphlet that was published anonymously with the title, Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro.

The title term of the pamphlet was a new coinage, from the Latin words for “mix” and “race,” and the subject was decidedly inflammatory. During his 1858 debates with Democrats Stephen Douglass, Abraham Lincoln had been forced to stipulate that while he was opposed to slavery, he was not an advocate of “social equality” and certainly not in favor what that loaded phrase implied, “amalgamation” as it was then commonly termed. Republicans were very sensitive to such accusations, since even those whites who adamantly opposed slavery were in general horrifed by the thought of “amalgamation.” (Indeed, there was a strong element of white separatism in the “Free Soil” movement, and some Midwestern states had antebellum laws forbidding free blacks from settling there.)

Such was the context, then, within which the Miscegenation pamphlet was anonymously published. Though written by two Democrats, the argument was a sort of deadpan satire, written as a political hoax. The pamphlet argued in favor of interracial unions, asserting that mixed-race nations were actually superior to mono-racial nations, and put that argument into an explicitly political context:

It is idle to maintain that this present war is not a war for the negro … It is a war, if you please, of amalgamation … a war looking, as its final fruit, to the blending of the white and black… Let the war go on… until church, and state, and society recognize not only the propriety but the necessity of the fusion of the white and black—in short, until the great truth shall be declared in our public documents and announced in the messages of our Presidents, that it is desirable the white man should marry the black woman and the white woman the black man.

To further their hoax, Wakeman and  Croly sent their disingenuous pamphlet to leading abolitionists, requesting their endorsements, which some of them willingly supplied in letters. The pamphlet was also advertised in abolitionist journals, and then the authors — whose identities were not discovered until years later — sprang their trap.

They provided copies of Miscegenation and of the abolitionist letters praising the pamphlet to an Ohio Democratic congressman, who gave a February 1864 speech in Congress denouncing the pamphlet’s doctrine and its advocates, suggesting that it expressed the Republican Party’s secret radical policy goals. A month later, Horace Greeley of the Republican paper, the New York Tribune, replied to Cox’s speech in an editorial that conveyed a laissez-faire attitude toward interracial marriage. In response, the World — the Democrat paper for which the pamphlet’s anonymous authors worked — published its own editorial, declaring that “the leading Republican journal of the country is the unblushing advocate of ‘miscegenation,’ which it ranks with the highest questions of social and political philosophy.” Thus began a national controversy that continued for months. Continue reading Did You Know the Word ‘Miscegenation’ Was Invented by Democrats as a Smear? →

CNN: Sarah Palin Turned Down Invitation to Appear in Tonight’s Tea Party Debate

TAMPA, Fla.
Didn’t expect to get actual news during the media walk-through of the debate hall here at the Florida State Fair, but CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Geist disclosed to reporters that Sarah Palin had been invited to participate in tonight’s event sponsored by the Tea Party Express.

Palin ranks third in the latest CNN poll:

Rick Perry …….. 30%
Mitt Romney ……. 18%
Sarah Palin ……. 15%
Ron Paul ………. 12%
Herman Cain …….. 5%
Newt Gingrich …… 5%
Michele Bachmann … 4%
Jon Huntsman ……. 2%
Rick Santorum 2%

UPDATE: A couple of photos from the walk-through:


I gotta run: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is about to hold a press conference.

Not Enough

by Smitty

Another day, another tantrum from somebody who may be lacking in the nerve department. Sarah Palin must do X, or I’m going to post Y.  I’m supporting candidate Z, and I’m really tired of questioning Sarah Palin’s actions, because her supporters are really mean, and they roughed me up in the comments and stuff.

Do this: put yourself past caring who wins the nomination. All of the GOP candidates are working according to the script. Except one, who is writing her own. Might work, might blow up fabulously.

Personally, I think it is not enough to win within the system. Case in point is Mitt Romney, of whose economic plan the WSJ said:

Where the Governor is less persuasive is on the larger issues of taxes, spending, entitlements and trade. Here he ducks and covers more than he needs to.

Of course Romney’s ducking and covering: he’s playing the moderate, compromised, no-sacred-cow-butchery game that he thinks will win. Can’t fault him, but I don’t support him. This is precisely the non-approach to tackling our problems that is almost guaranteed to perpetuate them.

On the other hand, you have an undeclared possible candidate who is setting about gathering the required mandate to, you know, do something, and being met with sputtering imagination from the audience.

I simply cannot fault her if she reaches her go/no go moment, and her willingness to carry through falters, and she says: “. . .let this cup pass from me. . .”

More at The Lonely Conservative.

Color Professor Jacobson unimpressed:

The nonsense coming from Coulter and Erickson and others is why I am not overly optimistic about 2012, regardless of what the polls now show. We are our own worst enemies.

Dan Riehl is stranegly sympathetic to Erickson’s argument: “For All The Brave Whiners On Palin”. Whoops, I meant critical.

Teach sounds like he’s at the end of his rope.

Sarah Palin Shows Her Union Card

Writing “as a proud former union member and the wife, daughter, and sister of union members,” Sarah Palin denounces the “thuggery” of Jim Hoffa:

Union bosses like this do not have your best interests at heart. What they care about is their own power and re-electing their friend Barack Obama so he will take care of them to the detriment of everyone else. . . .
Recently someone commented: “I’m a union member. I’ve been a Democrat all my life. Now I’ll vote for anyone with a plan to save America.” I know what that person is feeling. I want all good union brothers and sisters to know that there is an alternative. The grassroots, independent Tea Party Movement articulates a real alternative rooted in free men and free markets, not the cronyism of Barack Obama and the permanent political class in DC. Their cronyism is why we have no job growth, massive unsustainable debt, and a housing market in the tank. Too many politicians are simply addressing the economic symptoms instead of fighting the underlying disease. The path forward is through reform. . . .
In the meantime, good union brothers and sisters, don’t let Hoffa tell you what to do. He doesn’t represent the real interests of working men and women. He’s not doing you any favors. He’s just living off your paychecks.

Read the whole thing.

‘Fired Up’ for Palin?

One of the great things about being both a blogger and a journalist is the opportunity to recycle what I’ve previously blogged for a different readership, as in my Tuesday column for The American Spectator:

The dismissive sneers of Palin’s detractors were, quite literally, front-page news in the local press. “You tend to get a sense now that the times have passed by her.… People are looking elsewhere,” a University of New Hampshire political science professor said in an article splashed across the top of the front page of Sunday’sManchester Union Leader. That article also quoted the head of a New Hampshire conservative group who jeered at Palin, the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee, for “stringing the media along” and playing a “coy game” about her 2012 plans. People are “kind of over Sarah Palin at this point,” Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Action, told the Union Leader, saying that her long-delayed decision “is turning people off.”
The people at Veterans Memorial Park, however, weren’t turned off nor were they “over Sarah Palin.” Many traveled long distances to attend the event, including Mary Watson, a law student at Virginia’s George Mason University who had come to New Hampshire to distribute flyers for Students4Palin.com. What got her so fired up for Palin? “What is there not to be fired up about?” Watson answered. And like the Mama Grizzly’s hard-core supporters everywhere, she is “absolutely” certain that Palin will enter the 2012 race. “She’s biding her time and we’re all getting ready for her,” Watson said. “We’re gearing up, so whenever she says the word, we’re ready.” . . .

Please read the whole thing. Regular readers here may recognize some of the material, but I hope you’ll appreciate how artfully it’s reused.

UPDATE: Speaking of “artful,” here’s the front of the Students4Palin flyer Mary Watson was distributing yesterday:

UPDATE II: Here are the top of the front pages of Sunday’s Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader and Concord (N.H.) Monitor (click to enlarge):

Fear and Loathing in Manchester: Palin Offers No Sympathy for the Media Devil

The Right Scoop has full video of Sarah Palin’s speech today in Manchester, N.H., and if nothing else, Palin is driving political reporters nuts. At one point during the speech, she referenced the media “ignoring the fact” that the Tea Party movement was a decisive force in last year’s mid-term elections. Her remark clearly irritated Dave Weigel of Slate:

This is what the media ignoring the Tea Party looks like: Palin is speaking to a crowd of maybe 700 people. Every protester holding a reasonably witty or weird sign — or a sign with Sarah Palin’s visage on it — is being interviewed by a reporter. There are at least 50 of us looking for quotes. CNN is taking the event live, and the Tea Party Express, which put on the event, is raffling tickets to the presidential debate it’s going to co-sponsor in seven days with that network.

Translation: “Lies! All lies!”

It’s kind of hard to get regular people to feel sympathy for reporters forced to put together a story in this kind of pack-journalism environment, but I certainly feel Dave’s pain. Palin’s expertise at inflicting pain on journalists, however, is one reason she’s so popular. Note the well-aimed shots in her official statement from Sarah PAC:

Just wrapping up an awesome four day trip to the Hawkeye and Granite States. Visiting with residents there it’s easy to see why they play such an important role in vetting America’s leaders. Todd and I were able to interact directly with informed Americans and hear their concerns first hand outside the media spin. . . .
Thank you to the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire for your hospitality, your thoughtful questions and picking up where the media left off in vetting and challenging us all on our vision for America’s future.

Love her or hate her, wherever and whenever Palin ventures out in public, she’s still headline news — even though 99% of the political press corps is certain she’s not going to be a candidate in 2012. Being assigned to cover the non-candidate who won’t say whether or not she’s running is, understandably, a frustrating experience for reporters. Nobody can get an exclusive scoop on the Palin beat, you see, and the wizards of the national media resent being reduced to trying to assemble an article under such circumstances. Congratulations, therefore, to Sarah Boxer of CBS News for this insightful headline:

Palin, not even in the race, draws
double the size crowd as Romney

Darn it, why didn’t I think of that first? I was at Mitt’s rally Sunday in Concord and the CBS reporter is exactly right: Palin drew at least twice the crowd as the supposed New Hampshire front-runner, which rather tends to contradict the “experts” quoted on the front page of Sunday’s Manchester Union Leader:

At this point, Palin’s drawn-out flirtation with a candidacy has turned excitement over “The Sarah Factor” to “Sarah Fatigue” in some quarters.
“You tend to get a sense now that the times have passed by her,” said UNH political science professor Dante Scala. “People are looking elsewhere.”
Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Action, a conservative issues group, agreed.
“Some people have become so weary of her stringing the media along and stringing voters along as to whether she is or isn’t going to run, that they’re kind of over Sarah Palin at this point,” he said.
“Her coy game of, ‘I’m not telling anyone whether I’m running but I’m going to visit the early primary states,’ I think is turning people off, quite frankly,” said Smith.

See? That’s the kind of plainly biased story that makes people hate the media. (It isn’t exactly difficult to find political science professors who will say bad things about Sarah Palin, I’ll bet.) But I’m happy to report that, despite resentment toward the journalism profession, no reporters were beaten up by angry mobs at the Tea Party rally.

Also, my buddy Da Tech Guy checked with Manchester police and confirmed that no black people were lynched or assaulted at the event, no matter what Rep. Andre Carson may try to tell you. (It’s an awful thing when irresponsible people incite political hatred, y’know.)

Conservatives4Palin has an excellent round-up of today’s news. Meanwhile, I’ve got a midnight deadline to finish my column for The American Spectator, then I’ve got to check the Amtrak schedule and try to figure out how I’m getting back home. It’s been a great trip, and I hope it’s been worthwhile for the readers. If Sarah Palin hates me, that’s not your fault, and your contributions to the Shoe Leather Fund are still greatly appreciated.

PREVIOUSLY:


SARAH PALIN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

MANCHESTER, N.H.
UPDATE: Here’s a shot where you can see the crowd size (click to enlarge):

My rough eyeball estimate was about 800 people. There were lots of chants of “Run, Sarah, run!” BTW, this photo nearly got me the bum’s rush from security. I went up the stair backstage to get the photo and was then, um, asked by security to leave the backstage area. Hazards of the trade. But the point is — I got the photo.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin speaks (click to enlarge):

UPDATE: Backstage, Governor Palin autographs Ron Rivoli’s guitar:

UPDATE: Welcome, Conservatives for Palin readers and Students4Palin!

I’ll have more photos and videos later.

UPDATE: Da Tech Guy has more photos.

UPDATE: Here’s my interview with Mary Watson of Students4Palin:

At this point — about 3 p.m. ET — we’re working from the patio bar at Murphy’s. Also here are Dan Collins of the Conservatory and Jay Tea of Wizbang, who add their own commentary on today’s events.

UPDATE: Video interview with Jordan Porter and his father, Scott Porter, who drove from Maine to attend the Manchester rally:

PREVIOUSLY: We’re at Veterans Memorial Park, where a Tea Party Express rally featuring Sarah Palin is scheduled to get going at noon ET. Here are a few shots of faces in the crowd.

Jordan Porter, 19, and his father Scott Porter drove five hours from Machias, Maine, to attend the rally.

Mary Watson of Students4Palin.com is a law student at George Mason University and — in case you didn’t guess — a native of New Orleans.

Peter Southwick and Steve Brennan at the Organize4Palin tent. Steve says, “We are relentlessly gung-ho.”

Much, much more to come.

Palin’s Pressure on Perry

Writing about yesterday’s Sarah Palin rally in Iowa, I mentioned the theory that “Palin may enter the 2012 field because of her dissatisfaction with Perry’s campaign.” I resisted the temptation to examine the theory at length, because I wanted to discuss something I’d seen earlier — Dan Riehl’s discussion of the Palin-Perry issue:

For her part, Palin may factor in Perry’s standing in her own decision-making process. . . .
If she opts to run, it will be because she hasn’t heard what she believes she needs to in the upcoming debates, and/or doesn’t trust Perry to bear the standard.

Read the whole thing, because Dan has put his finger directly on something I had previously remarked in passing: Palin has specified September as her deadline for making a decision, and there are three debates in September — Wednesday at the Reagan Library in California, Sept. 12 in Tampa and Sept. 22 in Orlando. If Perry underperforms in those debates, Palin may see the front-runner’s weakness as an invitation to enter the race.

Did I say “weakness”? This morning at breakfast with Da Tech Guy, I picked up the Boston Herald and saw this Associated Press article:

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — He may have been 2,000 miles from the border, but Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s immigration record in Texas quickly became the focus in New Hampshire Saturday afternoon.
Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.
“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”
Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

Make of that what you will. But according to the article, some Tea Party activists in New Hampshire didn’t like Perry’s answer.

By the time you read this, Da Tech Guy and I will be in New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney’s appearance at a 6 p.m. Tea Party Express rally in Concord is expected to draw a big crowd, including many angry Tea Party protesters.