The Shameful Easter Massacre of 1873

This coming Sunday is Easter, and I would like to post something uplifting and inspiring about that extra-special day for Christian believers. But I am writing this about a shameful event that occurred in Louisiana on Easter Sunday 1873.  

The Basic Facts of the Easter Massacre of 1873

In 1869, a new parish (county) was formed in north-central Louisiana. It was named Grant Parish after the U.S. President, and the small town that served as the parish seat was named Colfax, after the sitting Vice President.

The majority of the citizens in the new county were Black Americans, and more than half of the voters in the contentious election of 1872 were Black. But the Whites, almost certainly incorrectly, claimed a landslide victory.

Fearful that the Whites might try to take over the local parish government, in April 1873, an all-Black militia took control of the local courthouse of Grant Parish in Colfax. Many local Blacks gathered there in support and for protection.

Shortly after noon on Easter Sunday (April 13), a mob of around 300 White men, most former Confederate soldiers and members of the KKK and the similar White League, surrounded the courthouse.

In the subsequent battle, which included the Whites firing a cannon at the courthouse and then setting it afire, three Whites and perhaps as many as 150 (or more) Blacks were killed.

In the 1920s, local officials erected a monument honoring the three White men who died in the attack, calling the battle a riot. Then in 1951, officials marked the site, mistakenly saying that it “marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South.”  

In the words of historian Eric Foner, “The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre taught many lessons, including the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority.”

A Serious Problem Raised by the Easter Massacre

Perhaps I had never heard of the Easter Massacre of 1873 until I read the second chapter of Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove’s superlative 2018 book, Reconstructing the Gospel: Finding Freedom from Slaveholder Religion.

That chapter, titled “Immoral Majority,” begins with these words:

Eight years after the end of the Civil War, on Easter Sunday 1873, the white men of Grant Parish, Louisiana, were conspicuously absent from their families’ dinner tables. It is unclear how many of them had attended church that morning, but by noon some three hundred souls were assembled with rifles in hand outside the Colfax Courthouse.

I have been unable to find reliable information about the percentage of Whites in the 1870s who were members of a Christian church. That percentage was likely smaller than it is today, but even if it were only 33%, that would mean at least 100 were a part of the Colfax Massacre.

And even if only half of the Christian men in Grant Parish attended Easter Sunday worship services in 1873, still that would mean that perhaps 50 were directly involved in the killing of 150 or more Black men that day.

What was the response of the churches to that Easter Sunday Massacre? I could find no information about that. Sadly, most members and maybe even their pastors may have approved of what they did.

A 2018 book about the Colfax Massacre is titled Unpunished Murder, and the author writes that those involved in that event “went on to live prosperous lives.” None of the Whites who participated in the massacre were ever convicted of any crime.

Now, 148 years later, Whites in the South, and especially in Georgia, seem to be doing what they can to suppress Black voting rights. And, sadly, many of those Whites will go to church on Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who loved and died for all people equally.

I pray that on Easter Sunday as we Christians celebrate the resurrection of our Lord, we will all take to heart Jesus’ challenging words: “Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter.” (Matt. 7:21, CEB).

_____

In addition to Wilson-Hartgrove’s book, here are others directly related to this post:

Lawrence Goldstone, Unpunished Murder: Massacre at Colfax and the Quest for Justice (2018).

Charles Lane, The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction (2008).

Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (1988).

Remembering Great-Grandmother

This blog post is about two great-grandmothers: Rachel Seat, my great-grandmother who was scarcely known beyond the county where she lived most of her life, and writer Michelle Duster’s great-grandmother, the world-famous Ida B. Wells. 

Ida B. Wells (c.1917)

My Great-Grandmother: Rachel Clark Seat

Although I have claimed to faintly remember Great-grandmother Rachel, I may remember mainly the picture of me sitting on her lap in 1941 (see picture on right) and what my parents told me about her.

Rachel Clark was born in Perry County, Illinois, in 1852 and in her tenth year migrated with her birth family to Worth County, Missouri, where I was born 76 years later. 

Great-grandmother Rachel married William Littleton Seat in November 1870, the month after her 18^th birthday. Sadly, he died before they had been married ten years—and before Rachel’s 28^th birthday. At the time of his death, they had four children and one on the way.

Rachel was a widow for over sixty years, dying in the summer of 1941. In addition to five children, she was the grandmother of at least eleven, and I don’t know how many great-grandchildren there were/are—but I am happy to be one of them.

Michelle Duster’s Great-Grandmother: Ida B. Wells

Michelle Duster was born 101 years after her great-grandmother, Ida B. Wells, whose birth was ten years after my great-grandmother Rachel, in 1862, the year the Clark family migrated from Illinois to Worth County, Missouri.

Ida died 90 years ago today, on March 25, 1931, ten years before my great-grandmother. But even though Ida’s lifespan was twenty years shorter than Rachel Seat’s, her accomplishments far exceeded what my great-grandmother could ever have imagined.

Early this year, Ms. Duster’s book about her illustrious great-grandmother was published under the title Ida B. the Queen: The Extraordinary Life and Legacy of Ida B. Wells. It is an informative book that is quite visually appealing because of its extensive artwork and other images. 

No one would have the slightest reason to write a book about my great-grandmother, although my Aunt Mary Seat did write a six-page, unillustrated story about her (and available for viewing/reading here).

The Life and Legacy of Ida B. Wells

In July 1862, James and Elizabeth Wells, who were both enslaved on a farm in Holly Springs, Mississippi, became the parents of their first child, whom they named Ida. She was a precocious child, and she learned to read at an early age—and read the newspaper to her father and his friends.

When she was 16, Ida’s parents and her youngest sibling died of yellow fever. Ida was determined to keep her surviving five siblings together. She studied hard and passed the test to become a teacher in a rural Black school. For two years she provided for her siblings in that way.

That was in 1878, just two years before Grandma Rachel became a widow and had five of her own children to take care of from January 1881. So, Ida was providing for her siblings by teaching school in the same year my great-grandmother was working in her neighbors’ fields for 50 cents a week.

And at the same age Grandma Rachel became a widow, Ida became the one-third owner of a newspaper and a journalist in 1889. Five years later she published her first book, Southern Horrors: Lynch Laws in All Its Phases.

For forty years before her death on March 25, 1931, Ida worked as a writer and activist, combatting the evils of lynching and other forms of racism as well as sexism. She was a tireless, and effective, advocate for the social equality of Blacks and of women.

Had she known about Ida B. Wells at the time of her death, Grandma Rachel probably couldn’t have fathomed the outstanding social impact of a little Black slave girl born in Mississippi, whose entire life was within her (Rachel’s) lifespan.    

Ida’s courageous fight for social justice has been recognized in various ways, including the USPS issuing a Black heritage postage stamp in her honor in 1990, Chicago changing a street name to Ida B. Wells Drive in 2019, and her being awarded a Pulitzer Prize Special Citation in 2020.

Thank God for the extraordinary life and legacy of Ida B. Wells!

_____

Here are some notable books by and about Ida B. Wells (in addition to Duster’s 2021 book):

* Crusade for Justice: The Autobiography of Ida B. Wells (1972, edited by Ida’s daughter Alfreda Duster; 2020, with Afterword by Michelle Duster)

* Ida in Her Own Words (2008, edited by Michelle Duster)

* The Light of Truth: Writings of an Anti-Lynching Crusader (2014, by Ida B. Wells)

Voting Rights vs. Voting Wrongs

Ten days ago, I posted an article about the disagreement between the U.S. Democrats who stress social equality and the Republicans who stress religious freedom. This post is about the Republicans’ emphasis on “voting integrity” and the Democrats’ emphasis on voting rights.  

The Ongoing Charge of Voting “Wrongs”

As you all know, the vast majority of Republicans, led by the former President, claim that President Biden was elected because of voter fraud. They insist that the election was “stolen” and the voting “wrongs” of 2020 must be corrected by new voting legislation.

In an Economist/YouGov poll taken two weeks after last November’s election, 88% of Trump voters said that Biden did not legitimately win the election. He won because of voter fraud, which I am calling voting wrongs.

Perhaps that percentage is lower now, four months after the election, but a poll taken of the CPAC attendees at the end of February indicated that 62% of them thought the most important issue facing the nation is “election integrity,” that is, elections free from fraud.

Accordingly, more than 250 bills have been introduced in state legislatures to revise voting laws. All of these are ostensibly for the purpose of eliminating voting wrongs such as were seen, it is claimed, in the 2020 election.

The March 13 issue of The Economist has a major article about the “election wars” in the U.S. It is titled, “Heads we win, tails you cheated,” expressing their view of the Republican position.

Incontrovertibly, a large segment of U.S. citizens is far more concerned with eliminating voting wrongs than protecting voting rights. This widespread concern must be taken seriously.

The Ongoing Demand for Voting Rights

In spite of the charges of voting wrongs by the Republicans and largely because of what is seen as a concerted effort to constrict/suppress voting rights, the Democrats in Congress are actively working for expanding those rights.

In the House, the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1) was passed on March 3 by a vote of 220-210, with all the Republicans and one Democrat voting Nay.

To no one’s surprise, President Biden is in favor of the House-passed bill becoming the law of the land. He stated, “The right to vote is sacred and fundamental—it is the right from which all of our other rights as Americans spring. This landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect that right.”

On March 4, the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson summarized major provisions of H.R. 1:

The measure streamlines voter registration with automatic and same-day voter registration. It restores the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision. It allows early voting and mail-in voting. It curbs dark money in elections and ends partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent redistricting commissions to draw state districts. It gets rid of insecure paperless voting.

Nevertheless, on March 3 before the House vote, former Vice President Pence wrote in a piece titled “Election Integrity Is a National Imperative” that H.R. 1 “would increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections, and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters.”

Citing Pence, among others, the editorial board of the Washington Post wrote on March 4, “Republicans’ rhetoric on H.R. 1 is apocalyptic. Are they that afraid of democracy?”

It certainly seems so. The next day, Dana Milbank, a noted Washington Post opinion journalist, posted “Republicans aren’t fighting Democrats. They’re fighting democracy.”

The Ongoing Need to Protect Democracy

Make no mistake about it: the Democrats who passed H.R. 1 are mainly seeking to protect democracy. They are NOT for any sort of election fraud, such as  

                 * people voting more than once in the same election   
                 * dead people voting  
                 * non-citizens voting for nationwide or statewide candidates 
                 * some ballots being destroyed or not counted 
                 * some ballots being counted more than once 
                 * voters being registered in illegal ways or more than once

They just want every citizen to have the right to vote. That is foundational for democracy.

_____

* Here is the link to the maiden speech of Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) on March 17. In that address, he speaks out strongly in support of H.R. 1, which is now S. 1, and ardently appeals for the protection of democracy by the passage of the voting rights bill. I hope you will take the time to listen to Sen. Warnock.

Death Control for Alzheimer’s/Dementia Patients?

Ten days ago, I wrote about “death control,” encouraging legislation for and use of medical aid/assistance in dying, often referred to as MAID (or MAiD). But as I wrote then, MAiD cannot legally be used for those suffering from severe dementia such as caused by Alzheimer’s disease.  

The Prevalence of Alzheimer’s/Dementia Patients

Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of acute dementia is a prevalent problem in this country, and in many countries around the world.

In the U.S., “The Alzheimer's Association leads the way to end Alzheimer's and all other dementia—by accelerating global research, driving risk reduction and early detection, and maximizing quality care and support.”

On their website, the Alzheimer’s Association reports that currently more than 6,000,000 Americans are living with Alzheimer’s.

There can be no doubt but that Alzheimer’s/dementia is a prevalent health problem—and one that is made worse because at present there seems to be no sure way to prevent its onset or to cure it once it begins.  

The Sadness over Alzheimer’s/Dementia Patients

We don’t/can’t know what sadness an Alzheimer’s/dementia patient himself/herself feels, but clearly, the family/friends of such patients repeatedly feel great sadness, as I have personally experienced.

My mother passed away in February 2008 at the age of 94. She was never diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s, but for several years her dementia grew worse and worse. It was a sad time for her family, especially for my father who cared for her at home until his hospitalization and death in July 2007.

Maybe it was about a year before she died that I realized the seriousness of, and the sadness of, my mother’s condition. I made the two-hour drive from my home to visit her at her home in northwest Missouri. That morning, my sister, who lived a five-minute walk down the road, came over to visit.

After the three of us had a convivial chat, my sister left to attend to other matters. Right after she left, my mother cheerfully said to me, “That was a nice lady. Who was she?”

At that point, the sadness spurred by talking with a dementia patient hit me as never before. Still, I tried to visit my mother as much as possible and my sister saw her almost daily.

Perhaps you have heard the story of the man who went to the care facility where his wife, suffering from severe dementia, was a resident. Her illness had progressed to the stage that she no longer knew her husband, so someone asked the man, “Why do you keep going to visit her?”

The man’s answer, “She may not know who I am, but I know who she is!”

That is what my sister and I felt about Mom.

MAiD for Alzheimer’s Patients?

In two recent blog posts, I have written about using MAiD, medical assistant/aid in dying. But that is not now, and maybe never will be, an option for Alzheimer’s/dementia patients.

Both for the sake of the patients and for the sake of their families, it would seem that some form of death control would be desirable. But at this time, it is not legal and does not seem feasible—and it may never be.

As I have previously explained, MAiD makes it possible for a terminally ill person to choose to die.

That decision, though, must be the patient’s own choice and can be no more than six months before their death as prognosticated by competent doctors. For Alzheimer’s/ dementia patients, however, it is either too soon to make that fateful choice or too late for them to be able to do so.

So, what can/should be done? At this time, perhaps all that can be done is to provide for the comfort of the patient and then to practice “passive euthanasia.”

That is, whenever someone with acute Alzheimer’s/dementia develops a serious illness, see that their pain/suffering is mitigated as much as possible and then allow nature to take its course, rejecting medical means to keep the patient alive.

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

The U.S. Democrats want equality. The Republicans oppose equality because they want to protect religious freedom. But does equality vitiate (= destroy or invalidate) religious freedom? Or does/should religious freedom vitiate equality? Those are questions now confronting the polarized U.S. Senate. 

From BreakPoint's website, 
which strongly opposes the Equality Act

The House-Passed Equality Act

On February 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a far-reaching measure that has been decades in the making and would prohibit public discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Prior to the House vote, on Feb. 19 Pres. Biden issued this official statement: “The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and lending systems.”

Leaders from groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign argue that the Equality Act ensures that gay and transgender Americans are no longer fired, kicked out of their housing, or otherwise discriminated against due to their sexuality or gender identity.

The Equality Act of 2021 was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 224-206. Every Democrat in the House voted for it, but only three Republicans did.

The Senate-Opposed Equality Act

As things stand now, the Equality Act is not likely to be passed by the U.S. Senate. That is because of the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. Far more than 40 of the 50 Republican Senators are opposed to the House-passed bill.

Perhaps the main reason for the Republican opposition is their unwillingness to approve anything favored by Democrats. But the primary reason given publicly for their opposition centers around “religious freedom” concerns.

If full equality of LGBTQ persons becomes the law of the land, religious leaders and/or institutions can no longer discriminate against, or denounce, such people.

Such discrimination or denouncement is based on religious beliefs that homosexual activity and gender transitioning are contrary to God’s will, the Bible, and/or traditional religious practices.

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

I have been a long and persistent advocate for religious liberty. People should be free to hold religious beliefs and to engage in religious activities without interference by others, including—or especially—governmental interference.

But what if one’s religious beliefs/practices infringe upon the civil rights of other people? Shouldn’t the civil rights of all take precedence over the religious rights of some?

The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That was a good and important bill that has helped eliminate much—but, unfortunately, not all—harmful discrimination in this country.

But there were those who thought that that bill impinged upon their freedom of religion.

For example, ultra-conservative Bob Jones University in South Carolina, which thought that the Bible opposes the mixing of the races, as most Southerners thought from before the Civil War, continued to oppose racial equality until the year 2000.

In a radio broadcast on Easter Sunday in 1960, Bob Jones Sr., the school’s founder, explained: “If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible.”

Jones had the right and the constitutional freedom to make such a statement. But the government had the right to champion the civil rights of all citizens, and eventually Bob Jones University had to enroll Black students and then even permit interracial dating.

Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr. didn’t have to change their religious beliefs, but they did have to change their school’s practices because of its negative impact on other people.

Isn’t it the same now with regards to LBGTQ people? People should be free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. But in practice, civil rights, the right of full social equality, must be upheld for all people.

Equality doesn’t vitiate religious freedom. But the religious freedom of some must never be allowed to vitiate the civil right of equality for all.

_____

Here are some pertinent online articles that deal with the central issue of this post:

Equality Act stirs passions about the definition of religious liberty and RFRA’s role (Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global, March 8)

LGBTQ rights bill ignites debate over religious liberty (David Crary, Religion News Service, March 8)

What’s in store for the Equality Act, and why do some religions want a revision? (Yonat Shimron, Religion News Service, Feb. 26)

Do No Harm Act (Human Rights Campaign, Feb. 25)

So, What about Death Control?

“Thinking about Death” was the title of my Feb. 23 blog post, and it was partly about what I am calling “death control.” Since that is such an important, and controversial, issue, I am writing again about that matter.  

Death Control is Not Euthanasia

First, it is important to note that “death control” is not euthanasia, which is illegal in every state in the U.S.

One page on The CompassionAndChoices.org website (see here) states this clearly: “Medical aid in dying is fundamentally different from euthanasia.” Here’s why:

Euthanasia is an intentional act by which another person (not the dying person) administers the medication. In contrast, medical aid in dying requires the patient to be able to take the medication themselves and therefore always remain in control.

Thus, if used soon enough, MAID (medical aid [or assistance] in dying) can be used by people suffering from cancer, ALS, MS, or other progressively debilitating diseases—but not with those suffering from acute dementia. (This latter is a very sticky issue that I will think/write more about later.)

Death Control is Not Suicide

The term “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS) has long been used, and terminally ill people who have taken means to end their lives have often been said to have committed suicide. But increasingly, that is being seen to be a negative/judgmental term that should be avoided.

Citing the same CompassionAndChoices webpage, many leading medical organizations “have all adopted policies opposing the use of the terms ‘suicide’ and ‘assisted suicide’ to describe the medical practice of aid in dying.”

Here are some differences between MAID and suicide (h/t to suicideinfo.ca):

** Suicide is often carried out alone and in secrecy, leaving loved ones with devastating grief; MAID involves decision-making informed by medical personnel and usually includes loved ones.

** Suicide is usually due to mental pain: distress, loss of meaning and purpose in life, and psychological burdens considered too heavy to bear any longer; MAID is chosen by those whose death is apparently inevitable in a matter of several weeks or a few months because of serious physical illness.

** Suicide is often carried out in violent ways (such as by self-inflicted gunshot); MAID uses non-violent means provided by trained professionals.

So, What is Death Control?

Death control means terminally ill people having the right to choose ending their life at the time and place of their choice—and with grace and dignity. Making such choices legal and practicable is the purpose of these organizations:

Compassion & Choices 
Death with Dignity National Center 
Final Exit Network

Among other things, these organizations are seeking to increase the number of states where MAID is legal, and that is a good and important work. Several states are considering such legislation at the present time; sadly, Missouri is not. (See this map for the situation in all states.)

Last week there was an intriguing obituary in a New York newspaper: “Martha Schroeder died with dignity at home on the afternoon of February 25, 2021. She was 90 years old. Her fear of losing control to dementia and blindness was peacefully put to rest.”

Although there is currently a MAID bill before the New York legislature, assisted death is not yet legal in that state. But if, and when, such legislation is enacted, in N.Y. and states across the country, perhaps an increasing number of obituaries will report people dying with dignity—and by MAID.

Such death control seems to be a desirable, humane, and compassionate way to deal with the lingering suffering of terminally ill patients and the futile expenses of keeping people alive in spite of an extremely low quality of life.

For all of us, death is inevitable. But since for many terminally ill people death with dignity is something that can be controlled, why don’t we actively seek to make that a possibility for those who desire to make that choice?