Superimposed across every page of U.S. history, writ large, is R A C E: First Nations, African Americans, Chinese railroad workers, interned Japanese, Jewish refugees, Hispanics, Arabs and more. Often, the subtext is hubris and inhumanity to labor, motivated by pathological greed. African Americans, however, are the minority group that has most influenced U.S. politics.

The Democratic Party has long celebrated its genesis myth with Jefferson-Jackson dinners on Jefferson-Jackson Day. While both had positive attributes, Jefferson and Jackson were racists. (Last year, a number of states re-named the event, a move I applaud, despite the new name.) The Republican Party, on the other hand, coalesced in 1854 to fight extension of slavery to the territories and was astonishingly successful: Within four years, the Republican Party had majorities in almost every Northern state; and, within six years, it had a viable nominee for President,

Attempting, for some odd reason, to couch the election of 1860 in current terms, Abraham Lincoln's wikipedia describes him as a moderate from a swing state. Seeing someone who ran for POTUS in 1860 on limiting slavery as a moderate is difficult for me. Slavery had existed in what is now the U.S.A. from the 1600s. Within a week of Lincoln's inauguration, seven states formed the Confederate States of America. An attempt to keep the territories free was cause for civil war. In any event, the nation chose new party candidate Lincoln over Democrat Stephen Douglas, the latter being clearly the less liberal candidate (despite his shameless triangulating and flip flopping).

As of January 1, 1863, less than two years after Lincoln's inauguration, slavery in the United States had officially ended (Juneteenth and other lawlessness aside). In other words, the still-nascent Republican Party fulfilled its original, liberal mission, and far more, in under eight years from its inception. While the speed was humbling, momentum for a Party that opposed slavery to one degree or another had been building during more than two centuries of abolitionists. Sadly for those of us who are done done (sic) with duopoly, the Republican Party was the last newer Party--so far--to elect a POTUS. Moreover, barriers to success of a newer party today, such as ballot access, hostile establishment media and the amount of money needed for television ads, are greater than ever. Depending upon your proclivities, those realities may discourage or spur you. But, I digress....

Industry developed rapidly after the Civil War. American industrial laborers then worked for very low wages, ten to sixteen hours a day, six days a week, often in physically dangerous conditions. A labor movement for safer working conditions, including an eight-hour work day, began in the 1860s. After the Depression of 1873–79, industrial growth accelerated even more.

In 1876, the Workingmen's Party, later the Socialist Labor Party, was established. (It is the oldest socialist political party in the United States, and the second oldest socialist party in the world, still in existence.) During the economic slowdown between 1882 and 1886 (the year of the inglorious Haymarket Affair), socialist and anarchist organizations became active, including within the labor movement. Around the turn of the century, the Socialist Party of America (the Party of Eugene Debs) formed.

Many freed slaves and their descendants were staunchly loyal "Lincoln Republicans" (including Martin Luther King, Sr., before JFK). On the other hand, after Reconstruction, "the" South was both solidly Jim Crow and solidly Democratic, including most members of the KKK. The other Democratic strongholds were in the burgeoning industrial/labor centers in other parts of the country.

Beginning at about the same time as entry of the U.S. into World War I, African Americans, many of them still "Lincoln Republicans," began moving from the South's rural areas to cities in other parts of the nation, both to escape Jim Crow and to seek jobs. Throughout the "the Great Migration," which ended circa 1970, African Americans had more problems voting in the South than in the North. Therefore, Republican African Americans were not a great threat to Democratic political hegemony in the South, but Republican African Americans migrating into cities in other parts of the nation would have diluted Democratic strength. I imagine Democrats in those cities did not view kindly the influx of Republican African Americans into "their" political bailiwicks (seeking "their" jobs and membership in "their" unions).

Next: The Russian Revolutions of 1917