Black Americans in Congress: An Introduction

In 1870 the arrival on Capitol Hill of the first African-American Senator, Hiram Revels of Mississippi, and the first African-American Representative, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, ranks among the great paradoxes in American history: Just a decade earlier, southern slave owners held those same seats in Congress. Moreover, the U.S. Capitol, where these newest Members of Congress came to work—the center of legislative government, conceived by its creators as the “Temple of Liberty”—had been constructed by enslaved laborers.¹ This book chronicles the participation of African Americans in the federal legislature and their struggle to attain full civil rights in the nearly 150 years since Revels and Rainey took their seats.

The institution of Congress, and the careers of black Members who have served in both its chambers, have undergone extensive changes since 1870.² But while researching and writing this book, we encountered several recurring themes that led us to ask the following questions: What were the legislative priorities of black Members? What were the experiences of African Americans as they integrated the institution? How did they react to the political culture of Capitol Hill, and how did they overcome institutional racism? How did they search for, and ultimately attain, the means to exercise power? Lastly, how did the experiences of these individuals compare to those of other newly enfranchised Americans?

Shared Experiences of Black Americans in Congress

In striking aspects, the history of black Americans in Congress mirrors that of other groups that were new to the political system. Throughout African-American history in Congress, Members viewed themselves as “surrogate” representatives for the black community nationwide rather than just within the borders of their individual districts or states.³ African-American Members who won election during the 19th century, such as Robert Elliott of South Carolina and George White of North Carolina, first embodied these roles and served as models for 20th-century black Members, such as Oscar De Priest of Illinois, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. of New York, and Shirley Chisholm of New York.

Surrogate representation was not limited to black Members of Congress. For instance, nearly half a century after black legislators entered Congress, women Members, too, grappled with the added burdens of surrogate representation. In 1917 women throughout the country looked to the first woman to serve in Congress, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, for legislative support. Indeed, Rankin received so many letters she was forced to hire additional assistants to handle the workload. Hispanic-American Members and, later, Asian-Pacific American Members also had somewhat similar experiences speaking on behalf of a constituency that transcended their districts.⁴

As they entered Congress, the experiences of 20th-century African-American pioneers were similar in other respects to those of women, other minority groups, and indeed Members of Congress from all races and backgrounds, particularly on the question of which legislative style each individual chose to pursue. Would they conform to institutional norms to integrate themselves and rise to positions of influence? Or would they directly challenge those norms and appeal to public opinion?⁵ Known and admired by black Americans nationally, Representative De Priest and those who followed him were often sought out by individuals across the country, many of whom expected unfailing receptiveness to the long-neglected needs of the black community. In late 1934, the Atlanta Daily World memorialized De Priest, who lost re-election in his Chicago-centered district to Arthur W. Mitchell, the first black Democrat to serve in Congress. De Priest, the editors wrote, lifted his “voice in defense of those forgotten people he represented” in Chicago and nationally. Lionizing De Priest as a “gallant statesman and fearless defender” of black Americans everywhere, the editors expressed frustration with Mitchell, who explicitly noted during a speech to an Atlanta church congregation that he did not intend to represent “black interests” per se. Mitchell, the editors noted, “dashed the hopes of every Negro who sat within hearing of his voice, most of whom looked to him as their personal representative in the federal government.”⁶

Collectively, African Americans in Congress overcame barriers by persevering through a century of segregation, disenfranchisement, discrimination, and outright prohibition from Capitol Hill.⁷ After winning the right to participate in the American experiment of self-government, African Americans were systematically and ruthlessly excluded from it: From 1901 to 1929, there were no black officeholders in the federal legislature.

While seeking to advance within Congress and adapt to its folkways, each generation of black Members confronted racial prejudice (both overt and subtle), exclusion, and marginalization. Moreover, because there were so few African-American legislators at any one time, they were unable to form a potent voting bloc in order to influence legislation. Black Members of Congress also contended with increased expectations from the public and heightened scrutiny by the media. They cultivated legislative strategies that were common on Capitol Hill but took on an added dimension in their mission to confront institutional racism and represent the interests of the larger black community. Some 20th-century Members, such as Representatives Chisholm and Powell, became symbols for African-American civil rights by circumventing prescribed congressional channels and appealing directly to the public and media. Others pursued an institutionalist strategy: Adhering to the prevailing traditions and workways of the House and Senate, they hoped to shape policies by attaining positions of influence on the inside.⁸ Representative William Levi Dawson of Illinois, Powell’s contemporary, and others like him, such as Augustus (Gus) Hawkins of California and William H. (Bill) Gray III of Pennsylvania, favored the methodical, legislative style, diligently immersing themselves in committee work and policy minutiae.⁹

Next Section