Welcome to the Deep Dive. We have a really compelling
topic lined up for you today. We do. And it's
one of those things that, you know, at first
glance, it might sound a bit dry. Right. Like
something you just skim over in a dense textbook.
Exactly. Because we are exploring a fascinating
but surprisingly small data set that we pulled
from a Wikipedia article. And the article is
titled List of African -American United States
Senators. Yeah. And the actual data hidden inside
this list, it tells an incredibly complex story
about American history. It really does. It's
about political power and, well, the literal
architecture of our government. Because the story
embedded in this specific data set, it's anything
but a straight line of progress. It's characterized
by sudden starts, these agonizing stops. These
long stretches of complete silence. Exactly.
And then in the modern era, rapid bursts of change.
So looking closely at this relatively short list
offers a brilliant lens through which to understand
the structural evolution of the United States.
It really is the perfect mission for this deep
dive. Because to give you a sense... of the sheer
scale we are talking about. Let's look at the
baseline numbers. The numbers are staggering.
Since the year 1789, more than 2 ,000 individuals
have served in the United States Senate. 2 ,000.
Over 2 ,000. And it's often called the world's
greatest deliberative body, holding immense power
over treaties, Supreme Court nominations, federal
law. Right. But out of those 2 ,000 plus people,
across more than two centuries, exactly 14. have
been African -American. 14. Just 14. That is
less than 1 % of all the senators in American
history. Which is an incredible hook when you
really think about it. It is. So today we're
going to explore the trailblazers who make up
that tiny fraction. We'll look at the mechanics
of the historical gap between them and the milestones
that define the current political landscape.
And to understand how we arrive at that number
of 14. We really first have to establish the
early reality of the American political system.
Set the context for us. Right. So the Senate
is the upper house of Congress. representing
the legislative branch of the federal government.
For the first several decades of the United States,
African -Americans were systemically locked out
of this institution. Completely locked out. Completely.
During the founding era and well into the 19th
century, millions of African -Americans were
enslaved. Yeah. And those who were free were
largely consigned to a status of second class
citizenship with virtually no voting power. There
was zero federal elective representation. So
the entire. legal foundation of the country had
to change fundamentally before this list could
even begin. It did. And that fundamental change
arrived in the aftermath of the American Civil
War, specifically with the ratification of the
15th Amendment in 1870. Right. This amendment
explicitly prohibited federal and state governments
from denying any citizen the right to vote based
on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition
of servitude. Which was a massive shift. A massive
constitutional shift that cracked the door open
for the very first chapter of our story. OK,
let's unpack this, because that brings us to
the Reconstruction era, which was a period of
profound firsts, but also deep, deep resistance.
Very deep resistance. So we travel back to the
year 1870, almost immediately after that 15th
Amendment is passed. Hiram Rhodes, Rebels of
Mississippi, makes history as the very first
African -American to serve in the United States
Senate. Yes. But getting him officially seated
in the chamber. involved this massive political
and legal fight. It was a huge fight. The environment
in Washington was highly volatile. And to understand
the mechanics of this fight, it helps to remember
how senators were chosen at the time. Right.
Because it wasn't like today. Exactly. Today,
you and I, we vote directly for our senators
on a ballot. But prior to the ratification of
the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators were elected
by their state legislatures. Right. So the Mississippi
State Legislature, which had just seen an influx
of newly enfranchised black voters elected. Republican
representatives, chose Revels to fill a Senate
seat. And this was a seat that had been left
vacant during the Civil War. Oh, this detail
is fascinating. He was tapped to succeed Albert
G. Brown. Right. Yes, a politician who had vacated
the seat when Mississippi seceded from the Union.
I mean, the poetic justice there is. A black
man taking a seat abandoned by a supporter of
the Confederacy. it is hard to overstate how
significant that was. It was incredibly symbolic.
But when Rebels arrived in Washington to take
the oath of office, he hit a wall. What was the
actual argument used by his opponents to try
and keep him out? Yeah. Because they couldn't
just say they didn't want him there. No, they
needed a legal pretext. Several Democratic members
of the Senate launched a fierce opposition campaign
using a highly technical yet deeply rooted legal
argument. They cited the infamous 1857 Supreme
Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford. Wow. The
Dred Scott decision. Yes. The Dred Scott ruling
had declared that black people, whether enslaved
or free, could not be considered American citizens.
Okay. And the constitutional requirement to be
a senator is that you must have been a U .S.
citizen for at least nine years. Oh, I see where
this is going. Right. His opponents argued that
because of the Dred Scott decision, Rebels had
only legally been a citizen since the passage
of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, or the 14th Amendment
in 1868, meaning he fell short of the nine -year
rule. That is wild. They were actively using
a pre -Civil War pro -slavery Supreme Court ruling
to block integration in 1870. They absolutely
were. How did the chamber ultimately resolve
that standoff? It was a complete spectacle. The
Senate galleries were packed to capacity with
onlookers waiting to see how the chamber would
vote. Supporters of Revels, like Senator Charles
Sumner of Massachusetts, argued fiercely that
the Civil War and the subsequent constitutional
amendments had fundamentally nullified the Dred
Scott decision. Nullified the whole underlying
logic? Exactly. And ultimately, The majority
of the Senate voted to seat him. Revels took
his oath and served for a little over a year.
And that momentum really seemed to be building
because, well, just a couple of years later,
in 1872, another African -American man, PBS Pinchback,
was elected to the Senate by the Louisiana state
legislature. Yeah, it was Pinchback. But his
outcome was entirely different. It was. Pinchback's
situation really demonstrates how fragile these
early victories were. His election was aggressively
challenged by white Democrats in Louisiana who
contested the legitimacy of the state legislature's
vote. They just refused to accept it. Right.
The dispute over his credentialing dragged on
for years in Washington. And ultimately, the
Senate voted to deny Pinchback his seat. He never
officially served. That is such a harsh reminder
to keep in mind. Similarly, winning the vote
at the state level wasn't a guarantee of holding
power. Not at all. But we do see one more major
breakthrough in this early era. In 1875, Blanche
Bruce is elected by the Mississippi State Legislature.
That's right. And he becomes the first African
-American senator to serve a full six -year term.
Plus, there is an incredibly profound biographical
detail about Bruce. Yes. Out of all the thousands
of people who have ever served in the U .S. Senate,
Blanche Bruce remains the only senator in United
States history to have been a former slave. Just
think about that. Going from being legally classified
as property to serving a full term in the highest
legislative body in the country within a single
lifetime. It highlights the accelerated, almost
dizzying pace of change during Reconstruction.
During his tenure, he advocated for the civil
rights of African -Americans, Native Americans,
Chinese immigrants. He's a true pioneer. He was.
But unfortunately, the structural forces of the
era were working against that momentum because
after Bruce left office in 1881, the representation
simply vanishes. Yeah, the great gap. Mississippi
had sent the first two black senators to Washington
and then the door just slams shut. Completely
shut. We enter this massive decades long gap.
What were the specific political mechanisms that
caused black representation to drop to zero for
nearly a century? If we connect this to the bigger
picture, we have to look at the systematic dismantling
of Reconstruction in the South. Right. In 1876,
federal troops were withdrawn from the South
and the political tide rapidly turned back toward
white supremacy. State by state, Democratic -dominated
legislatures began passing new constitutions.
And these were specifically engineered to disenfranchise
black voters. Exactly. They were bypassing the
15th Amendment through technicalities. These
were the mechanisms of the Jim Crow era. Precisely.
Starting heavily with the Mississippi Plan of
1890, states instituted poll taxes requiring
people to pay a fee to vote. They implemented
notoriously subjective literacy tests, where
white registrars could pass or fail anyone at
their discretion. Just entirely arbitrary. And
they used grandfather clauses, which stated you
could only vote if your grandfather had the right
to vote prior to the Civil War. Which naturally
excluded all descendants of enslaved people.
Exactly. By 1908, every single former Confederate
state had adopted similar measures. And remember,
because state legislatures were still the bodies
choosing U .S. senators and black citizens were
entirely removed from the state voting process.
Black representation in the Senate was structurally
impossible in the South. It was. This total exclusion
persisted until the Civil Rights Movement and
the enforcement power of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965. So with the South completely locked
down by these state constitutions, the fight
for representation essentially had to shift geographically.
It did. And that geographic shift brings us to
Massachusetts in the late 1960s. I really want
you to think about the timeline here. From Blanche
Bruce leaving in 1881 until 1967, there is not
a single African -American voice in the United
States Senate. A massive gap. Almost 90 years.
Then Edward Brooke, a Republican, arrives in
Washington. Edward Brooke's election is a huge
milestone because the rules of the game had fundamentally
changed. As we noted earlier, the 17th Amendment
was ratified in 1913. Right. And that transferred
the power to elect senators from state legislatures
directly to the voting public. So when Edward
Brooke won his election in 1966 and took office
in 1967, he became the very first African -American
elected to the Senate by direct popular vote.
But how was a black Republican able to build
a winning coalition in a majority white state
like Massachusetts? During the height of the
civil rights era, that seems so counterintuitive.
Brooke was a uniquely compelling political figure.
He had already built a strong statewide profile
serving as the attorney general of Massachusetts.
He gained a reputation for fighting corruption
and organized crime. So he had that law and order
appear. Yes. He positioned himself as a moderate,
appealing to both white suburban voters and minority
communities. He built a cross -party, cross -racial
coalition, which is exactly what a candidate
needs to win a statewide popular election. And
he was reelected, right? He was. He served two
full terms, proving that an African -American
candidate could succeed on a statewide ballot
in the modern era. But even with Brooks' success
proving it was possible, the Senate reverted
back to having zero black members for another
14 years after he left office in 1979. Here's
where it gets really interesting. The next major
wave of breakthroughs doesn't happen evenly across
the country. It centers on one specific geographic
anomaly. Illinois. Yes, Illinois. And to be even
more precise, it centers on Illinois' Class 3
Senate seat. Now, for those who might not know
exactly how the Senate seating works, what is
a Class 3 seat? The United States Constitution
divides the 100 Senate seats into three classes.
This staggered system ensures that only about
one third of the Senate is up for reelection
every two years. To prevent the entire chamber
from turning over in a single election cycle.
Exactly. Every state has two senators and they
are always in different classes. In Illinois,
their class three seat became this incredible
engine for historical milestones starting in
the 1990s. And the first of those milestones
belongs to Carol Moseley Braun. Yes. When she
won her election and entered the Senate in 1993,
she shattered a massive glass ceiling. She became
the very first African -American woman to ever
serve in the United States Senate and also the
first African -American Democrat in the chamber.
Her campaign was a grassroots phenomenon. She
was an underdog who challenged an incumbent senator
in the Democratic primary and won. She was driven
by a surge of support from women and minority
voters in Chicago and across the state. She served
one term, but the legacy of that specific class
three seat was just beginning. It really was.
Because a few years later, in 2004, a relatively
unknown state senator named Barack Obama. won
the election for that exact same Illinois seat.
And we all know where his trajectory led in 2008.
He makes history as the first African -American
senator to be elected president of the United
States. And his elevation to the presidency creates
a vacancy. In the Senate. Right. And that vacancy
creates a unique domino effect. Under Illinois
law, the governor has the power to appoint a
temporary replacement when a Senate seat becomes
vacant. So the governor appointed Roland Burrus.
An African -American politician who had previously
served as the state's attorney general. Yes.
By taking over Obama's seat, Burris became the
first African -American in history to succeed
another African -American in the Senate. It's
just an incredible trio holding that one seat.
Braun, Obama and Burris. The demographics of
Illinois, particularly the heavy concentration
of black voters in Chicago resulting from the
Great Migration, created a political environment
where a black candidate could build a formidable
statewide base. Right. But I want you to imagine
looking at a map of the United States outlining
black representation in the Senate during the
entire late 20th century up through about 2010.
The map is almost entirely blank. Just completely
empty space for most of the country. You have
an isolated pocket in Massachusetts. and an isolated
pocket in Illinois. The rest of the country has
no representation on this list. That geographic
isolation really drives home how concentrated
these political breakthroughs were. It was not
a nationwide wave of integration. And when Roland
Burris finished his brief appointed term in 2010,
the Senate actually went back to having zero
black members for the next two years. Unbelievable.
But then we reach 2013. And the dam finally breaks.
It does. What shifted in the political landscape
to allow so many new voices to enter the chamber
in such a short window. What's fascinating here
is that the initial surge in 2013 was actually
driven by the appointment process rather than
the general election cycle. Oh, really? Yes.
In South Carolina, Republican Senator Jim DeMint
resigned and Governor Nikki Haley appointed Congressman
Tim Scott. to fill the vacancy. Then up in Massachusetts,
Senator John Kerry resigned to become secretary
of state and Governor Deval Patrick appointed
Mo Cowan, a Democrat, to fill that seat temporarily.
Because both of these appointments happen early
in the year, 2013 marked the very first time
in United States history that two African -Americans
served in the Senate simultaneously. That is
a massive turning point. And there is also a
notable piece of history regarding Mo Cowan's
appointment specifically. Governor Deval Patrick
was Massachusetts' first black governor. Right.
That made Cowan the first black senator ever
appointed by a black governor. It's a great detail.
Cowan's tenure was brief, serving only until
a special election could be held. But the overall
momentum was undeniably shifting. Later that
same year, in late 2013, Cory Booker, the Democratic
mayor of Newark, New Jersey, won a special election
to the Senate. He became the first black senator
elected since Obama. Yes. And the pace of these
milestones accelerates drastically from this
point forward. We completely stop seeing those
echoing decades long gaps. In 2017, Kamala Harris
arrives in the Senate representing California.
She becomes only the second black woman in the
chamber's history. But she also brings a new
intersectional milestone, becoming the first
Indian American senator. as her mother emigrated
from India and her father from Jamaica. And of
course, she eventually leaves the Senate in 2021
to become the first female and first African
-American vice president of the United States.
Exactly. So during this contemporary period,
we really start to see things open up. We do.
We see the archetype of who a black senator is
and where they can win. begin to diversify rapidly.
Breaking those geographic barriers. Exactly.
For decades, the successful path seemed limited
to Northeastern or Midwestern states with strong
Democratic strongholds. But you have Tim Scott
building a successful conservative coalition
in South Carolina. And then in 2021, Raphael
Warnock, a Democratic pastor, wins a highly contested
election in Georgia. Warnock becomes the very
first black Democrat to represent a former Confederate
state in the Senate. Yes. When you recall the
sweeping systemic disenfranchisement we discussed
from the 1890s, Warnock's victory in a deep South
state represents a profound historical closure
to that era. A full circle moment. And the representation
continues to broaden across demographics as well.
In 2023, following the death of Dianne Feinstein,
LaFonza Butler was appointed to represent California.
Making her the first openly LGBT African -American
senator. Which brings us to the current landscape.
As of 2025, we are witnessing a high watermark
for representation. There are a record five black
senators serving at the exact same time. Looking
at the 2025 roster gives you a clear picture
of how much the map has expanded. You have Tim
Scott in South Carolina, Cory Booker in New Jersey,
and Raphael Warnock in Georgia. Joining them
are two newly elected senators, Lisa Blunt Rochester
representing Delaware and Angela also Brooks
representing Maryland. And within that 2025 landscape,
there are two major historic firsts occurring
right now. First, with the arrivals of also Brooks
and Blunt Rochester, we are seeing the first
instance in American history where two black
women are serving together in the Senate simultaneously.
A huge milestone. And second, Tim Scott has reached
a major tenure milestone. He is now the longest
serving black senator in U .S. history. Furthermore,
his seniority has allowed him to break another
barrier, becoming the first black senator to
chair a full committee. Specifically taking the
helm of the powerful Senate Banking Committee.
Right. And that ability to accrue enough seniority
to chair a major committee is a crucial indicator
of normalized political power. Because it's not
just about getting in the room anymore. Exactly.
It shows that these senators are not just arriving
in Washington. They are holding their seats long
enough to influence the core machinery of the
legislative process. We have covered a tremendous
amount of ground here and touched on various
paths to power. Let's break down the actual math
of how these 14 individuals reached the Senate.
So of the 14 total African -American senators
in U .S. history, nine of them were popularly
elected by the voters of their respective states.
Two of them, Hiram Rhodes Revels and Blanche
Bruce, were chosen by state legislatures back
in the 1870s before the 17th Amendment changed
the election process. And three were appointed.
Right. Three of them were appointed by state
governors to fill unexpected vacancies and were
never subsequently elected to those seats. That's
Roland Burris in Illinois, Mo Cowan in Massachusetts,
and LaFonza Butler in California. Looking at
the modern elections themselves, there is a relatively
new phenomenon emerging. We are starting to see
more head -to -head races where both major party
nominees for a Senate seat are African -American.
Yes, the first time that dynamic occurred was
in the 2004 Illinois race when Democrat Barack
Obama ran against Republican Alan Keyes. And
we have seen it happen several times since. Mostly
in the South, interestingly. Yes. In South Carolina,
Tim Scott faced black Democratic challengers
in 2014, 2016 and 2022. And in the highly publicized
2022 Georgia race, Democrat Raphael Warnock ran
against Republican Herschel Walker. It's becoming
slightly more common. The fact that both major
parties are simultaneously elevating black candidates
to the top of the ticket in statewide races indicates
a significant maturation of the political landscape.
Yet, despite these recent surges and a normalization
of these campaigns, a stark reality remains when
you look at the geographic footprint of this
list. Out of all 50 states in the union. Only
nine have ever sent a black senator to Washington.
Only nine. Those states are California, Delaware,
Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
New Jersey and South Carolina. This raises an
important question. What does this slow, highly
concentrated pace of integration reveal about
the fundamental structure of the Senate? It's
a very different game than the House. Exactly.
By design, the Senate represents entire states,
whereas the House of Representatives represents
smaller, localized congressional districts. It
is historically much easier to elect a diverse
candidate in a heavily concentrated district.
Right. To win a Senate seat, a candidate must
build a massive statewide coalition that crosses
racial, geographic, and often party lines. Which
takes incredible resources and broad appeal.
Yes. The fact that it has taken so long for black
candidates to successfully build those coalitions
in more than just a handful of states highlights
the deeply entrenched political and demographic
hurdles that exist on a statewide level. Hurdles
which often look very different than the general
population of the country as a whole. So what
does this all mean when you step back and view
this 150 year arc? It is a breathtaking narrative
of American power. It begins with Hiram Rhodes
Revels in 1870, facing down politicians who literally
tried to use the Dred Scott decision to deny
his citizenship. Right. It moves through the
agonizing decades of the Jim Crow era where the
legislative door was structurally bolted shut.
It highlights the isolated, brilliant political
maneuvering in Massachusetts and Illinois. And
it arrives at 2025 where five African -American
senators are sitting in the chamber. chairing
committees and driving national policy. It really
is a sweeping history. It serves as a potent
reminder to you that political history is rarely
a steady, predictable incline. It is forged through
sudden bursts of momentum, long periods of quiet
resistance and the tireless building of new coalitions.
That captures the journey perfectly. But before
we wrap up, I want to leave you with a final
thought to mull over. Returning to one of the
biggest structural shifts we discussed today.
OK. We talked about the 17th Amendment of 1913,
which transferred the power of electing senators
from state legislatures to the direct popular
vote. It was intended to reduce corruption and
give power back to the people. Right. But consider
the current political climate. Given the intense
partisan battles, the stark polarization and
the highly debated district mapping we see in
modern state legislatures across the country
today. What if the 17th Amendment had never been
passed? Oh, wow. If our state legislatures were
still the bodies retreating behind closed doors
to handpick our U .S. senators right now, would
the number of African -American senators today
be higher or would it be lower? I encourage you
to ponder how the seemingly mundane mechanical
rules of how we vote fundamentally shape the
human face of our government. That is an incredible
alternate history to think about. And it really
forces you to look at the machinery of our elections
in a completely different light. Thank you for
joining us as we explore the rich, complex history
of African -American representation in the United
States Senate. We hope you gain some surprising
insights and a deeper understanding of how this
institution has evolved. Until next time. Keep
diving deep.