Black or Woman: Who Has Better Chance to Be the Next President of USA
70The next year is pegged to be one of the most interesting in the history of American politics. One of the most compelling facets of this next election race is the almost inevitable run-off election between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democrat’s presidential bid. There’s no doubt that it’s exciting to finally see some diversity in presidential politics, in this case between a black man and a white woman. But what is also riveting about this election is that we could also see a change within American politics at a very base level. Because if Hillary Clinton wins, it will change the pattern established for 150 years in American politics: that black men have succeeded to political positions of power before women.
Yes, you read that right. Black men were granted the right to vote more than fifty years before women of any race were afforded that right. The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution gave black men the right to vote in 1870, although blacks continued to fight to exercise that right in certain parts of the United States until well into the 1960’s (predominately in the southern states). Women fought for the right to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment to the constitution became law and guaranteed that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on Account of sex”.
Regardless of later struggles (the successful Civil Rights Act and the unsuccessful Equal Rights Amendment), black men had the right to vote throughout the US for more than fifty years before women of any race were afforded that right. This alone is, perhaps, an indication of the strength of the patriarchal and male dominant leaning sector of the American public that believes in the superiority of men over women. It would appear that this sector is even stronger (although perhaps less vocal) than the racially prejudiced sector of the American public which is inclined to believe in the inferiority of races other than Caucasian.
Both of these misguided ways of thinking are prejudices that should have been completely eradicated by now. But unfortunately these are statements based on historical facts, and can be supported by even further evidence that shows that black men have ascended to power in America sooner than women.
The first black was elected to the Senate 62 years before the first woman. The first black senator (male or female) was Hiram R. Revels, a Republican man from Mississippi, who was elected to office in 1870. The first woman elected to the Senate was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas who was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her husband in 1931. Ms. Caraway then sought and won election on her own in 1932. Rebecca Felton of Georgia, often cited as the first female US senator, was appointed to the U.S. Senate to fill a temporary vacancy in 1922 and served only two days. But even Ms. Felton’s temporary appointment comes 52 years after the election of a black man to the same position.
The pattern continues in the House of Representatives. In 1916 Jeannette Rankin was elected to the House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana, becoming the first female member of Congress. This was quite remarkable at the time, considering that the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women the right to vote was not ratified until 1920. Therefore, during Rankin's first term in Congress (1917-1919), many women throughout the country did not have the right to vote. Conversely, Joseph Hayne Rainey was the first black man to serve in the House of Representatives. A former slave, he served from 1870 to 1879 and was elected a full 46 years before a Rankin was elected as the first US congresswoman.
Based on these facts, it would seem that the American public has been more accepting of a male leader of any race than it has been of a woman, and following that line of thinking the American public is more likely to desire and accept Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton as its President. Because by history’s account, it would be not only a milestone for a woman to become president, it would also be unlikely for her to do so before a black man.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I truly think that people who vote for Hillary are those who remember how great the economy was under her husband, and they will be voting for the "dynamic duo", not just her. I guess being raised in the south, I'm skeptical that a black man could ever become President.
Hi Layne, Thanks for answering my request. Lots of information & comparison to the current situation plus men versus women & black. However I agree with Dafla. I also think Hillary will & should win because she has lots experience. Country will prosper if she becomes president same like during her husband economy was great. I hope more hubbers should express their views too.
GREAT Hub!! Welcome to HubPages Layne!! Thank you for the wonderful historical reminders!! I am an Obama fan!! It's an integrity thing!! Keep writing!! Blessings, Earth Angel!!
This is really focusing on one historical accident -- the Reconstruction -- and making a much bigger trend out of it than it really was. After the Civil War, the North was (depending on how you look at it) either trying to enlighten the South in a hurry or humiliate them as much as possible. Either way, the best way was to disenfranchise / drive away the veterans fighting for the Confederacy and bring former slaves and carpetbaggers into positions of power.
Black men were really just a pawn in that game, and when the political expediency of imposing Reconstruction on the South went away, so did their suffrage. To put it in perspective, landless white men did not get the right to vote until 1856 -- only 14 years before the 15th amendment (giving all races the righ to vote) was passed. So really, equal voting rights for blacks were a historical anomaly coming from the Civil War and quite likely would have had to wait until the civil rights movement of the 1950s to be achieved had abolition been accomplished by more peaceful means.
More broadly, women were one of the key driving forces behind the Abolition movement -- and this political organization helped organize later suffrage movement as well. In a way we could look at it as a hidden political force mustering its efforts against the great injustices (slavery) before the smaller ones (gender). Women had already influenced policy long before getting the right to vote -- from Abigail Adams to Carrie Nation and many others.
And finally, we have already had a woman president -- Edith Wilson, who ran the US while her husband Woodrow was recovering from a stroke. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Wilson for more info. That's not to say that some presidents did not have -- imputed or real -- African ancestry either (5 or 6 according to http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=37 This tells us little about the Hillary / Obama race -- who should or will win, however, so I would advise folks to focus on the issues rather than worrying about precedents.
Dammit, it screwed up my URLs. Proper ones:
Thanks for your comments Alex. Unfortunately, the links you provided in your comment did not work, but I searched "Edith Wilson" and found the following from another wikipedia entry:
His [Woodrow Wilson's] health failed in September 1919; a stroke left him partly paralyzed. His constant attendant, Edith Wilson took over many routine duties and details of government. It was Ms. Wilson who, (probably), commuted the death sentence of Robert Stroud to life imprisonment, (at the request of his mother). But she did not initiate programs or make major decisions, and she did not try to control the executive branch. Edith also strongly opposed allowing Vice President Thomas Riley Marshall to assume the powers of the presidency. She selected matters for her husband's attention and let everything else go to the heads of departments or remain in abeyance.
Alex, I would hardly call this the first woman president. And, while I appreciate your comments concerning constructionism, the fact remains that -whatever the impetus- these men were elected. They were not appointed, and they did not fall into temporary pseudo-power by virtue of a partially paralyzed husband. And I must remind you that Edith Wilson's touch with pseudo-power came in a year when she was not even allowed the right to vote in the US.
You mention Abigail Adams and Carrie nation as examples of influential women. Abagail Adams, another wife of an American president, can certainly be lauded as a woman of great character. But were it not for her position as First Lady, I don't believe she would have had the same weight in a historical context. Carrie Nation? Carrie Nation was a radical abolitionist who took to destroying saloons with a hatchet and "applauded the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 because she believed that he secretly drank alcohol and that drinkers always got what they deserved". Your attempts to show that women had achieved a level of power before they were granted the right to vote or had achieved elected status in the US are not convincing.
Of course all of us should look at the issues involved in the presidential election, that is the most important thing. However, this was not the point of the article. The point was to highlight the history surrounding women and black men in American politics. However they got there, and however they will get there, black men have succeeded before women of any race.
I'm so glad you added to the discussion.
This is a really interesting perspective on the history of American politics. I enjoyed it.
they both will lose, they are not leaders of this great land, i am dissapointed in the democratic party, i wish they can choice real people that are mature enough to lead, however theyarenot
I have been looking for a research article that came out in the early 2000's regarding a national study conducted regarding the question of black man verses white women - who will become President first in the USA. Research results confirmed that Americans are more likely to vote for a Black Man to become Presendent than a White Women. This research came out long before the Hillary Obama match up, and I cannot seem to find its' origins. It is not an emergency - but now I am just curious. If anyone can site it please post.
I prefer Hillary than Obama because Clinton, her husband was good as president and by electing his wife you hit two bird at the same time.
I am worried about having a black president.. not that I don't want a black president, because I really don't mind.. I am just afriad it will bring more problems to us with the close minded people that are not going to stand for it...
I would hope people aren't casting votes to make or thwart history, but to choose the candidate who best represents their needs. That said, I prefer Obama. Ultimately I prefer Gravel, but that's just wishful thinking.
Dafla's comment really pissed me off about being skeptical of a black man being president. What an ignorant thing to say, I hate it that racism is still a trait being handed down by parent's today. And by the way, Obama is just as much WHITE as he is black for all the dumbasses out there. But of course those who are ignorant can not take the time to truly research a persons background, instead just judging them on there apparent skin color. To quote someone else "I wonder what they would say if we were blind people?" "What if picasso only used one color?" "I hope that one day we live in a nation when people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character!"
Yeah Bobby - I have first hand experience of ignorant people like Dafla. I am mixed race like Obama, and it's amazing half-witted people who care so much about race love to ignore the white half of people like me. It's called the one drop rule by the way.
Just laugh at them, I do because they are immensely stupid. Mostly it is under-achieving stupid people that feel they can use team race as a personal pick-me-up. You know - the I am white so no matter how STUPID I am, I can ride on the shoulders of the clever white people that went before me brigade. Just laugh - look like this - ha ha ha ha ha ha. The best way to handle these stupid people (black, white and brown) is to leave them behind. They'll be too busy blaming others for their shortcomings to figure out - the train has left the station.
The Democrats have two excellent candidates. The White House is there for the taking. Either win is historic. Personally I feel that Barack as President would help heal both America itself and its global reputation. In my experience, US citizens have been mostly disfunctional about race, America has an opportunity which it should take now and elect a non white president because, as a meritocracy, it should elect the most capable person for the job. Women have nothing prove in the West, they have equality, legally, educationally and in the workplace. Electing a president on purely on the basis of either gender or race would be a mistake. Barack Obama is simply the most capable person for the job,.
Time has not stood still. we are not the same people we were when Clinton was in office. Don't get me wrong it was a great time for us all. But we cannot get back the splender in the grass. That was around 1992. Now were in 2008. What we had in the past is not enough for the future. We have to move to better and new idea's. I have watch hillary at some of her early debate's. I saw her writing when Obama got loud cheers. Then I watch as she repeated the same words that got Obama cheers at the next debate or speech.
helenathegreat says:
2 years ago
Wow, that's a really interesting way to look at the Barack versus Hillary issue. I hadn't realized that pattern existed before.