Should this man be elected?

During a political debate for national office, the Republican candidate said, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Indeed, as the press digs back into the candidates past they find another “skeleton,” his views on interracial marriage.In a speech given about a year earlier, the candidate had said, “There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married.”

He went on to say that “separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.”The candidate further expounded on his method of separating the races, “colonization” and was quoted as saying, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

In today’s environment, the media, particularly the material starved 24 hour news channels, would go into a “feeding frenzy” and bombard the public with their version of this story on a 24/7 basis.It doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what would happen to this candidate.The candidate would be branded a “racist,” or worse, and would soon be an “ex candidate.”

But, at that time, God blessed this Nation with the freedom from a media that could permeate the vast majority of America’s homes within hours with their carefully chosen 30 second “sound bites.” Sound bites designed to seemingly control public opinion rather than report the news. In that day and time, the media had to write a convincing story, one convincing enough so that enough of the American people read it, believed it, and cared enough about it “to pass it on.”

The Ole Seagull wasn’t there.But, evidently a lot of Americans that were there believed that the country was facing bigger issues such as a possible civil war, and the growth of slavery because, in 1860, the candidate that uttered those words, Abraham Lincoln, went on to be elected the 16th President of the United States.

History solemnly testifies as to how Lincoln, in spite of his personal views on interracial marriage, colonization, or the “political and social equality between the white and black races,” performed as to the major issues of succession, the war to preserve the Union, and slavery.In a letter to Horace Greely, in 1862, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”Even his personal abhorrence of slavery did not take precedence over the bigger issue of saving the Union.While solving the bigger issue however, slavery was abolished and our nation paid a “bloody penance” for permitting the expansion of the slavery of blacks, from its origin and rampant practice by the black tribes in Africa, to our new nation.

In selecting our nations leaders today would it not be wise to select leaders like Lincoln, who, on the whole, have the ability to handle the bigger issues facing our nation such as the economy, potential wars with Korea and Iraq, home land security, illegal immigration, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all Americans rather than just the few?Lincoln’s warning, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” still resonates through the eons of time as does his blessing, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

About Gary Groman aka The Ole Seagull

Editor of The Branson Courier
This entry was posted in Editorials. Bookmark the permalink.