Civil Rights Bill of 1875: Antidote to Slavery or Freedom?

James T. Rapier’s speech to Congress in support of the Civil Rights Bill of 1875 suggested that the supposedly republican nation ought to practice what it preaches. Written into the Constitution’s Fourteenth amendment is the provision that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the country and the state. Rapier expected that all African Americans be treated as ordinary citizens, but instead they were treated as the lowest of the low such as in a Caste System. Some of his arguments were that freedom cannot be divided between being free and being a slave and that inferiority is maintained by suppression of quality education and that the dark color of skin constitutes a crime in the minds of the white men.
First, the Alabaman Senator argued that man cannot be half free and half slave. He questioned why, in America, can he enjoy political rights while being denied civil ones. He was protected while in Congress, but not on the road to get to Congress. He could “legislate for a free people, while his own chains of slavery [hung] about him.” Ratification of the Civil Rights bill would allow him and his race to be completely free from discrimination and the “half-time” slavery, or so it seems.
The distance between the educated white and the suppression of quality education perpetuated inferiority of race for the African Americans. Rapier noted that the colored man was “cut off from every avenue that [lead] to the higher grounds of intelligence and usefulness and then [was] challenged…to a contest upon the highway of life to decide the question of superiority of race.” In Rapier’s experience he “always found more prejudice existing in the breast of men who [had] feeble minds and [were] conscious of it, than in the breast of those who [had] towering intellects and [were] aware of it.” His cry was for equal opportunity in seeking and obtaining higher education.
Rapier contests that the African American was accused with the crime of color. He questioned Congress if they had ever reflected that this was “the only Christian country where a poor, finite man must be held responsible for the crimes of the infinite God whom they profess to worship,” the crime of color. According to the majority of the white men, the color of the skin was the determining factor that kept men inferior intellectually and morally.
To sum up, Rapier was an advocate of the Civil Rights Bill that resulted in the endeavor to regulate the conduct of individuals and to compel private businesses to accept all people without discrimination. The bill was in force for eight years before it became unconstitutional.
What do you think? Was Rapier right?

Altruism: Help or Hinder?

“[The] old people felt rich because they were free”, and “we are poor in spirit because we are not free”, was the cry of Clyde Warrior of the Ponca tribe in 1967. He draws a distinction between those Native Americans before the addition of government assistance and those of today who are the casualties in the thrall of government social programs. As a result, his people have lost the ability to be industrious and responsible and furthermore have turned to crime, alcohol and self-destructive acts. Warrior proposes a solution in three parts; that the Native Americans demonstrate their competence, exercise free choice and learn through their own mistakes.

First Warrior suggests that his people demonstrate their competence through exertion and effort. They must have the responsibility in the ultimate sense of the word or they fall to the incompetent pit of hopelessness. Warrior declares, “Our children are learning that their people are not worthy and thus that they individually are not worthy.” Those who feel unworthy turn to self-destructive acts. Work and industry set the stage for realizing achievement. As the individual performs and completes worthy tasks he gains a strong sense of personal adequacy and competence.

Secondly, the Native Indians ought to be free men and exercise their right to choose. To choose is to have power. How they will make their living, raise their children, or how they will improve their communities and situations will be up to them. Similar to the first proposal, responsibility coupled with free choice will aid them to be prosperous and industrious to the degree that will help them to be free.

Finally, with competence and the freedom to choose come the inevitable consequences of failure. Warrior advocates a people who can make their own mistakes and learn from them as a process to success and freedom. He says, “Failures must be Indian experiences because only then will Indians understand why a program failed and not blame themselves for some personal inadequacy. A better program built upon the failure of an old program is the path of progress.” Wisdom is gained through mistakes.

Warrior’s solution to the Native American social ills is not found in more government assistant programs. It cannot be resolved by others, but must be determined by the Native Americans themselves. Through their experimenting upon competence, their freedom to choose and profiting by their own mistakes, will they eventually ascertain what is needed to help their own circumstances and their communities. The order of Warrior’s solution begs the question if profiting from mistakes ought not to be the first part of the solution. Can our society allow the Native Americans to make mistakes and profit by them? Are we too altruistic to allow that kind of freedom and growth?