-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Aug. 3, 2000
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
FROM DEATH ROW: MUMIA TEARS AWAY BUSH'S "MANTLE OF
LINCOLN"
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
"Slavery is a blight on our history, and racism is still
with us. ... The party of Lincoln has not always worn the
mantle of Lincoln." Gov. George W. Bush, Texas. (excerpt
from NAACP speech, July 10)
With the pleas of half a dozen brave protestors shouting
about the "legal lynching" of the late Texas death row
inmate Gary Graham (Shaka Sankofa) ringing in the Baltimore
air, the nation's Republican presidential candidate
appeared before the NAACP national convention in an attempt
to demonstrate the ways of a "compassionate conservative."
In his 20-minute speech that invoked the names of NAACP
founder W.E.B. DuBois, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, and
other historical figures, Gov. Bush demonstrated, if not
great oratorical ability, that indispensable political
skill of talking without saying much of anything.
For who but the dimmest among us doesn't know that slavery
was a blight on our history," or that "Lincoln's party has
not always worn Lincoln's mantle?" Bush, speaking before a
predominantly Black group, did not mention "affirmative
action," the "confederate flag," "Amadou Diallo," "Gary
Graham," nor the "death penalty." He did refer to "school
choice," a code for public tax support for vouchers. The
national membership gave Bush polite and tepid applause.
Despite an invitation issued in opening remarks by NAACP
President Kweisi Mfume, Gov. Bush did not define the often-
touted term, "compassionate conservative." One wonders,
however, what is it? A "reasonable racist?" A "friendly
fascist?" A "doting despot?"It appears a "compassionate
conservative" is a conservative who smiles while saying
"no."
With regard to the "mantle of Lincoln" and the "party of
Lincoln," it appears that neither the mantle nor the party
of Lincoln were what we've come to think of as Lincoln.
Consider the insights of historian James McPherson who, in
his book The Negro's Civil War (1965/1991), notes the idea
of the Republican Party as anti-slavery and Lincoln as the
supporter of equal rights were seen as nonsense at the
time:
"The Republican party, nominally anti-slavery, was
officially opposed only to the extension of slavery into
the new territories. No major political party proposed to
take action against slavery where it already existed.
During the campaign, Democrats charged that if the
Republicans won the election, they would abolish slavery
and grant civil equality to Negroes. `That is not so,'
rejoined Horace Greeley, an influential Republican
spokesman. `Never on earth did the Republican Party propose
to abolish slavery.... Its object with respect to slavery
is simply, nakedly, avowedly, its restriction to the
existing states.' ...Lincoln himself had repeatedly voiced
his opposition to equal rights for free Negroes." [pp.3-4]
The "party of Lincoln?" "Compassionate conservative?" The
brilliant Frederick Douglass, although a Republican "field
hand" (his own words), bitterly attacked President Lincoln
during the height of the Civil War:
"I come now to the policy of President Lincoln in
reference to slavery. ... I do not hesitate to say, that
whatever may have been his intentions, the action of
President Lincoln has been calculated in a marked and
decided way to shield and protect it from the very blows
which its horrible crimes have loudly and persistently
invited... He has steadily refused to proclaim.complete
emancipation to all the slaves of rebels who should make
their way into the lines of our army. He has repeatedly
interfered with and arrested the anti-slavery policy of
some of his most earnest and reliable generals."
(McPherson, p.47)
Frederick Douglass was speaking in 1862, several years
before the war ended. While he was a Republican (as were
many Blacks of that period) he was not reluctant to
strongly criticize a Republican President--in wartime! Can
African-Americans today do any less?
Both major American political parties exist to serve
corporate interests, above all else, not the interests of
workers, or the poor, or the oppressed. Instead of the
sickening sycophancy that today passes for Black support of
political parties that don't support Black interests, we
should learn from the bold, outspoken Douglass. Criticize!
Viable, radical and revolutionary parties should also be
organized and energized to provide real, meaningful
alternatives.
- END -
(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to
copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
------------------
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
