« Flattery Will Get You Somewhere | Main | Conspiracy Theories »

By Another Name

06 Jun 2008 02:43 pm

blackmon.png

Yesterday, I picked up Douglas Blackmon's book, Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. It's fantastic so far. But what's really striking about the subject is that despite how central the story of racial conflict is to the story of America, and despite how well-known certain key episodes in that history are, the shocking story that Blackmon has to tell here is virtually unknown.

I assume that this kind of thing forms part of the basis of black-white gaps in perception in the United States. The white version of American history certainly admits to the existence of racial oppression, but it's a very optimistic "up from slavery" story where the key figures are the heroes and the key episodes are the ones in which the good guys lost. But for fifty-five or sixty years following the collapse of the Confederacy, the cause of racial equality suffered nothing but setbacks. African-Americans are no doubt largely ignorant of these obscure episodes in a formal sense, but since it's literally part of their family background the history of backsliding and abandonment is going to color the black community's perception of progress made thus far.

It's one thing to recognize that America once tolerated great injustices and then put a stop to them. It's another thing entirely to recognize that the injustices came back and the whole period in which they did so has been expurgated from our official narrative.

Share This

Comments (63)

Don't forget the oppression suffered by other minority groups at this time (Hispanics, Asians, Indians)! They were quite bad and they suffer from the spotlight but on black white relations.

"African-Americans are no doubt largely ignorant of these obscure episodes in a formal sense,"

Actually, I think you're wrong in large part. Associate with African Americans, even relatively poorly educated ones, and you'll find that they know facts about African American history that you knew nothing about. There really are two historical Americas. They're getting closer, but there's a long way to go.

I watched a tablefull of white college students fume as a black professor laid out a series of racist incidents and institutional practices that dated to before my birth, let alone the students'.

At the end of it, one of them said that he didn't appreciate being called a racist. But no one had said anything like it.

You can't do history without telling a story, and people are going to identify (or not) with figures in that story for reasons of their own identity. The narrative need not be "official." It is sufficient that the narrative please the audience. Otherwise, it will be rejected.

An "up from slavery" narrative will be rejected by blacks who've suffered things I never have. But talking about more recent forms of institutional racism can alienate those who identify with authority. In this way, the race-based assignment to roles in power reproduces itself, even in the way we imagine the process and the past.

I guess this is a fancy way of saying that this is an emotionally-charged issue that's hard to be rational about.
.

I've often felt the entire Reconstruction era leading up to the 'restoration' of White Supremacy in the South is the great hidden period of U.S. history -- that is, among people who are even tangentially aware of U.S. history at all.

It includes some of the most dramatic, inspiring, and horrifying episodes of our history, including posing such dramatic questions as whether we could have achieved democracy a half century before we did. Guerrilla warfare waged by Klan predecessors, funded by rich Democrats against black Republicans and white Populists. You even had an armed coup d'etat against an elected government (the city council of Wilmington, 1898, then the biggest city in North Carolina).

It seems to have such a clear lineage to the later Civil Rights struggle that it seems like it would be frequently referred to as part of that story -- yet I don't know if the leading figures in the Civil Rights struggle themselves viewed the Reconstruction / 'restoration' as a precursor stage. If I had to guess, I'd assume they didn't.

Left unpondered by Matt: the reinslavement started when Democrats insisted that the occupation of the south be ended in 1877.

Hmm. Anyone want to guess what will happen in Iraq if people like Matt get their way again?

Of course, it will all be blamed on Bush. Accountability is not one of the strong suits of the left.

I remember watching an interview with an African-American historian who framed it in terms of the Civil War taking 100 years to end.

Of course, it will all be blamed on Bush.

Right, 'cause ending someone else's failure means taking the blame for it. You know, I think that sticking with Bush's failure in Iraq sounded more necessary when failure's biggest fans just called all alternatives to said failure "surrender."

Stupidity should have the decency to at least be poetic.
.

Tulsa riots. Genocide on American soul. 3000 killed in one day because a black man was said to have winked at a white woman.

Some of the survivors are still alive.

@JR: Who exactly would enslave the Iraqis if the U.S. were to withdraw? Or is it just convenient for your case to draw faulty historical parallels?

Not all occupations are equal, kiddo.

"Anyone want to guess what will happen in Iraq if people like Matt get their way again?"

Iraqis will get what they want rather than what James Robertson wants?

"Of course, it will all be blamed on Bush."

Apparently the right loves to blame the victim in all cases...

That was hardly the only armed coup, El Cid.

Sundown Towns by James Loewen is the same sort of book. If you've ever wondered 'how come my town is all white?' and imagined the answer to be something along the lines of 'people like to stick to their own,' Loewen is out to prove that its the result of coordinated actions over the years to create all-white communites, in the north and the border states.

(The 'traditional south' as Loewen calls it in the book, didn't do segregation at such a macro level.)

There was a 75 year period of quasi-legal lynching in this country - where a black man, woman or child could be killed in the most brutal of ways for the smallest of "infractions" (such as looking the "wrong" way at a white person). Thriving black towns and communities were literally wiped away, all of which led to two great migrations from the south to northern or western cities.

You're right that many black people may not know the full-extent of what happened during this period, but they know what happened to their parents and their grandparents and their great-grandparents.

Condi Rice was so right:

"What I would like understood as a Black American is that Black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them--and that's our legacy,"

Victimology.

Obama and his father both attended Ivy League schools, probably free. Most native born Americans could never dream of such a thing.

The slaves and their descendants in the American south after the war lived high on the hog compared to their brethren back in West Africa. Hell, West Africa is still a hell hole.

And it went on after WWII clearly. The most well known are things like Jim Crow. But some of the most devastating bits, like the discriminatory loan programs where African-American tax-payers (in part) subsidized the creation of the white suburbs and the explosive growth of the white middle class, are largely unknown.

You know, I'd kind of like to run with James Robertson's suggestion, and present to your average Southern Republican that we have to keep the troops in Iraq in order to make up for having withdrawn the Union occupation of the South. Let's give it a shot and see how it flies.

The slaves and their descendants in the American south after the war lived high on the hog compared to their brethren back in West Africa.

Which ain't saying much.
.

Take a look at the 1940 Census sometime and look at the income and educational attainment of white men ages 25-54 vs. black men in that same age range. It's almost like it's from two different income distributions, with the median white male earning more than 85-90% of black males.

Educational achievement was also incredibly skewed, with average amount of education for black men at around 6 years to 10 years for white men (not to mention the likely major differences in school quality).

You know, I always have to laugh at guys like James Robertson is being cute about, essentially trying to blame the compromise of 1877 on the post-1960's Democratic party. Just shows his own ignorance, or his overt attempt to deceive, of course. In the 60's, the segregationists started leaving the Democratic party and were promptly taken up by the Republican party. I don't know if James has heard of the "Southern strategy," but I suspect he has. Those defecting Southerners now constitute the backbone of the Republican "base," as the Republican party is quickly ceasing to be a national party, and is becoming the party of the South. In short, the intellectual and moral descendants of the "Democrats" of 1877 are the current Republican base. But I suppose that that's too complicated, or too true, for James Robertson.

Yeah, Del, you're right. Black people should just shut up and stop playing victim. It could be worse. I mean, they could have never been taken into slavery, and then they would be stuck in that stinky West Africa. They should consider themselves lucky. Slavery, lynchings, and institutionalized discrimination is a small price to pay to get a few blacks into Ivy League schools. For free, even!! Those lucky bastards.

I'm reading it too, and it's mind-blowing. I keep having to put it down because it quickly induces rage. The brutality never stops.

While I don't disagree that this is an area of history that people should be more aware of, I think that the ignorance of the general public is not peculiar to this historical topic. In fact, I think that Americans of all races have a general knowledge that lynchings and institutionalized racism were rampant during this period, even if they lack the particulars of what happened when and to whom. In fact, that knowledge is far more ingrained in the American conscience than most other historical facts, and is far more influential, since people discuss these issues frequently (again, not in any great detail) and they continue to affect policy.

There are of course many whites who don't like to dwell on this topic, because they feel, understandably I think, that they are being accused of the sins of assholes who are mostly dead (including that hypocrite Jefferson). They, I should say we, since I include myself in this category, also feel that overemphasis on this history enhances the victimhood mindset that continues to hobble black americans.

And it went on after WWII clearly. The most well known are things like Jim Crow. But some of the most devastating bits, like the discriminatory loan programs where African-American tax-payers (in part) subsidized the creation of the white suburbs and the explosive growth of the white middle class, are largely unknown.

Yeah, "victimology," del. Those poor white folks. Damn shame how they were enslaved for so long, made to ride in the back of the bus, made to attend inferior schools for decades, forbidden to go to the state law school, etc. None of them could even afford to go to Harvard, which was full of blacks paying no tuition. Poor, poor, whites, who just can't afford Harvard, leaving only the minorities there. Those whites, they're the real victims, aren't they, del?? Now that's a real reality based view you've got there.

Bonus points for using the phrase "high on the hog" to describe how good the slaves had it.

. . . the shocking story that Blackmon has to tell here is virtually unknown."

I haven't looked at the book yet, but as a historian of the American South it sure doesn't sound unknown to me. There's a pretty extensive literature on peonage, convict leasing, etc., and I talk about it a lot, both to my students and at workshops for schoolteachers. A book appeared thirty years ago called The Shadow of Slavery: Peonage in the South; its author is currently the President of the Organization of American Historians--not an obscure guy. I think the argument can be overdone [African-Americans may not have been "free" after slavery, but they were a lot freer than before--free to move out of the South, free to organize apart from white control, etc.], but if Blackmon's story is "unknown," it's chiefly unknown to people who don't pay much attention to what African-American and southern historians have been doing for, say, the last generation. Sigh.

While I don't disagree that this is an area of history that people should be more aware of, I think that the ignorance of the general public is not peculiar to this historical topic. In fact, I think that Americans of all races have a general knowledge that lynchings and institutionalized racism were rampant during this period, even if they lack the particulars of what happened when and to whom. In fact, that knowledge is far more ingrained in the American conscience than most other historical facts, and is far more influential, since people discuss these issues frequently (again, not in any great detail) and they continue to affect policy.

There are of course many whites who don't like to dwell on this topic, because they feel, understandably I think, that they are being accused of the sins of assholes who are mostly dead (including that hypocrite Jefferson). They, I should say we, since I include myself in this category, also feel that overemphasis on this history enhances the victimhood mindset that continues to hobble black americans.

laborlibert: I guess what I feel is completely absent from peoples' casual knowledge of the Civil War to 'restoration' period is any feeling that anything was in flux, that there were any great and dramatic things at play, particularly for African Americans, rather than being vaguely imagined as a stagnant period of undevelopment, lynchings, and terror. How close we seemed to achieving some true advancement, which was then set back by violence and terror, seems to me even more dramatic than the idea that it was just all horrifically rotten until the Civil Rights era.

Easy there, David. I don't think Matt was saying that this author discovered something that historians haven't been saying for decades. He's just saying its unknown to the general populace. Of course it doesn't doesn't sound unknown to you. Like you stated, you're a historian of the American South.

it's chiefly unknown to people who don't pay much attention to what African-American and southern historians have been doing for, say, the last generation. Sigh.

Well, yes. Probably there are a lot of things that most historians know that most people don't know -- hopefully these things can become more widely known in the general culture.

Well, can anyone tell me what the current teaching about Reconstruction in high schools is?

Forty-five years ago, Andrew Johnson was good, the Radical Republicans bad, "carpetbaggers" bad, and radical reconstruction a disaster. (I wonder how the chapter of J.F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage in praise of the Senator who prevented Andrew Johnson's impeachment would read today?) I have followed the now-accepted revision of that view among professional historians, but wonder to what degree the high-school texts and teachers have followed.

"Left unpondered by Matt: the reinslavement started when Democrats insisted that the occupation of the south be ended in 1877.

Hmm. Anyone want to guess what will happen in Iraq if people like Matt get their way again?

Of course, it will all be blamed on Bush. Accountability is not one of the strong suits of the left."

Classy. Everything has a modern day partisan political purpose to it. The moral bankruptcy of the American right continues.

Oh yeah and in the 1870's, on average, the Democrats were the RIGHT. I could say something now about the right's continuous hatred of people with dark skin but I won't.

Matt, didn't you know this already? I taught the history you speak of above to my students in my 8th grade social studies class.

Black people were lucky to be enslaved and then re-enslaved --

If that hadn't happened, an inadequate black male like Barack Obama never would have been given the unfair advantages that allowed him to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton!

Black people were lucky to be enslaved and then re-enslaved --

If that hadn't happened, an inadequate black male like Barack Obama never would have been given the unfair advantages that allowed him to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton!

I still remember being taught Reconstruction, I think we spent a day or two on it, and quickly moved into Spanish-American War. I can barely recall anything I learned except Carpet Baggers is bad, and the Slaves were free to be poor on their own.

Basically, I'm part of the Ignorant Masses that was not informed, and feeling stupid for it. This is Colorado in the 90s when I was in HS. I can't guess why we don't spend time on events like these, but it needs to be fixed.

Sorry for the double post --

If I weren't constantly being oppressed as a woman by elitist black Harvard lawyers, I would be able to learn how to use the internet.

“They, I should say we, since I include myself in this category, also feel that overemphasis on this history enhances the victimhood mindset that continues to hobble black americans.”

Part of the problem here might be that the average white guy, particular over the age of 40, doesn’t spend too much time talking with his black counterpart. But I find it hard to believe that the average black person believes that the racism of the post-Reconstruction era has anything to do with their lives today. Sure, there are plenty of black college professor types with books to sell that may at least act like they believe this but they are a blatant exception. I would imagine that the average black person today, is more concerned about the racism that exists today.

Then again, as a 29-year old history teacher, I don’t like the words “history” and “overemphasis” in the same sentence.

Wait, there's an Organization of American Historians?

That's pretty damn Obscure!

A good history about what was long a forgotten part of American's past:

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution
by Eric Foner

"Wait, there's an Organization of American Historians?

That's pretty damn Obscure!"


Yes. And they suck!


They aren't even half as cool as my group! The American Historical Association, where all of the sexy American historians hang out.


And I swear, if those OAH losers don't stop stealing our fancy pens and replacing them with those cheap-ass Bics at every damn conference that we attend together, we are so going to pummel them!!! Just like the American Army did at.....ah, never mind. They know what they are doing is wrong. It's their own damn fault that we were able to get the cooler url, you snooze, you lose.

Riandog has a point. Sometimes the past is so painful that a necessary forgetting is necessary for you to live today. Still it would be nice if elite journalists and politicians knew this stuff. I think Pat Buchannan should read it.

It's one thing to recognize that America once tolerated great injustices and then put a stop to them. It's another thing entirely to recognize that the injustices came back and the whole period in which they did so has been expurgated from our official narrative.

*************************************************

"Expurgated"?

Every high school history book tells the story of how the black slaves were freed, but then were treated as second-class citizens. There wouldn't have been any need for the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s if that hadn't happened. Do you REALLY think basic American history texts ignore the Civil Rights movement and the reasons it came to be?

If you want to talk about the nasty details of how techniques of Jim Crow laws, lynching, violence, debt-peonage, intimidation and disinfranchisement were used to keep black people down from Reconstruction to the 1960s I might agree that most people don't know them. But to pretend that basic history books used in public schools have *expurgated from the official narrative* the fact that black people were treated very poorly during this period is a bunch of crap. My kids history texts didn't do that

David in Nashville,
This book is indebted to the previous one which you cite, but this one is based on many new sources.

But I find it hard to believe that the average black person believes that the racism of the post-Reconstruction era has anything to do with their lives today. - Raindog

Hunh?

I'm not much older than you and I'm married to a woman who was the first one in her family (on her mother's side) to be born in a "white" hospital. And she only was born their because her father was Jamaican (and this was in South FL which was one of those parts of the South where being African/Carribean meant that you counted as "white" as far as Jim Crow was concerned, except for that you could marry a Black person without falling afoul of anti-miscegination laws) and happened to be friends with a doctor on staff at said hospital.

My MIL's family wouldn't visit my MIL in the hospital because they were too afraid of what might happen to them.

The virtual enslavement of blacks (and it was arguably worse than slavery as at least slave-holders had a vested interest in their "property") lasted right up until almost recent times. Any African-American even a few years older than you or I lived, at least in part of their life, as very much a second class citizen.

Even today you have people like Tweety refering to Blacks as distinct from "us" ... default American still = white American ... which is more demoralizing than any "victimization mindset" the media supposedly promotes.

Certainly there are people in my wife's shul who all the time say "why can't Blacks get over Jim Crow" even as the go on and on about anti-Semitic events that occured well before the end of Jim Crow.

And BTW ... yes, many white people are woefully and willfully ignorant as to the depths to which segregation ended up being de facto slavery. Even though MLK, for instance, explicated this quite often ... and also about how/why it was done -- to feed the poor whites Jim Crow, as MLK put it.

pedantic note:

3000 people did not die in the Tulsa riot.

the official death toll was 39 (13 white). the actual death toll was probably in the 100-300 range (depends upon how many died in the fires).

I'm a white rural Southerner, with a Confederate ancestor buried at Arlington, and I oppose the use of Confederate flags and regalia because they were used as the emblems of the Jim Crow/Lynching era.
My beef with the 'Sons of Confederates''Heritage not hate' crowd, who claim to only be upholding history, is that they ignore the sorry treatment of blacks AFTER the Civil war, up until the Civil Rights era in the '60s.
The people who systematically oppressed the blacks used these historical emblems, and they are still using them. Only now they are Republicans.
And the economic effects of the Civil war didn't really begin to disappear until my life time, in the '60s. (Did you know that until the middle of the second world war, freight rates on rail were set at twice the going national rate, as a sort of lingering punishment? see http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cescott/freight.html)
There is a lot a blame to go around; the Abolitionists lost interest in the freed slaves, the national government sold them out to keep political peace, and the southern ruling class kept poor white in line with fear of blacks taking their jobs, while keeping wages low...But don't claim that the effects of discrimination are that far back in the past.
Discrimination against blacks is still sadly endemic.

And that should have read "freight rates on rail IN THE 13 STATES OF THE FORMER CONFEDERACY".
The South also had a number of economic punishments levied on it,usually hurting the poorest the most.

I really don't see how explaining to American students how broken the government was, at all levels, in the post-civil-war era, when it came to African-American policies, is at all unhelpful. It seems to be that it is important to make everyone understand that the government and mindset of the people today is a modern creation, present for the simple reason that we insisted on it.

Equal treatment under law and the idea that we could elect African-Americans to public office without risking an armed coup is not a "given," or even something that the USA had since its creation. It is something that took decades to ensure.

On the other hand, I am free to entertain arguments from others who would claim that there is civic value in creating a mythology that didn't actually exist, for the purpose of forging a stronger national identity.

I guess I have the advantage of actually reading the book. It's not about oppression. It's about actual slavery, and the extent to which the actual slavery aided a condition of legally sanctioned serfdom.

As good as Foner's book is, it's not the same story. Blackmon's begins where Foner's ends, at the end of reconstruction.

Again, this book is not about Jim Crow, and it's not about lynching, it's about the persistence of actual slavery.

I have to disagree that this period of what this author calls re-enslavement has been expunged from the record. In fact, it is the era and regime of Jim Crow, which was the focus of the civil rights movement and of Brown v. Board of Ed of 1956. Maybe blacks and whites have forgotten, but in the 1950s and 60s, our public discourse was filled with this issue and later, was central to the backlash. Some teachers in inner-city schools and scholars even referred to the civil rights movement as the second reconstruction. The "white backlash" and silent majority and southern strategies could be seen as the second Jim Crow era. That's exaggerated in my view, but the thought was out there. I don't see this as a forgotten period, at all.

I guess I have the advantage of actually reading the book.

Book!
(sputters)
Sir, this is a comment thread...

I want this book, and recommend the now out of print
"So Long to Uncle Tom" by J.C. Furnas (Alibris or one of those guys can get it), 1956. Postmodern before there was such a thing, and quite aware of the reality of slavery. Uses the novel (and it's many and wonderfully weird versions on the 19th cent stage) as a lens to examine the literary and journalistic record of slavery, the Underground Railroad, and many of the tropes of 'history', as taught in, say, grade school.

Victimology.

Obama and his father both attended Ivy League schools, probably free. Most native born Americans could never dream of such a thing.

Of course, Obama's father was not African-American, and Obama is not exactly African-American in the traditional sense (that is, a descendant of black American slaves). Rather, he is the descendant of a white American and an African-African.

So he is not the most representative person to use when trying to examine African-American history.

Lynchings in the South and reconstruction in the South were only part of it. Follow the life of the son of our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln has been criticized for his opinions about the mental capacities of black men and women as compared to whites and whether they could or should live with whites after being freed. But slaves were freed under his watch. His son, Robert Lincoln, Harvard educated attorney for the Pullman Corporation who lived in the North was an incredible racist and brings shame to the Lincoln name.

...expurgated from our official narrative.

Not to mention the Great Depression. Never happened! Capitalism rules!

Re: Again, this book is not about Jim Crow, and it's not about lynching, it's about the persistence of actual slavery.

Slavery did not persist. Yes, Jim Crow and share-cropping turned a lot of Blacks into something like European serfs, but that's still a far cry from slavery. Was anyone legally bought and sold after 1865?

My Euro-American (aka white) kid made it through middle school before he realized... or else it finally sunk in... that MLK lived in my times. Even after three Black History Weeks in grades 5-7 he still thought MLK was from the Civil War era. He was aghast to learn about how bad things were in the 50s and 60s. and that MLK lived into 1968, As a white kid, he could not sense how recently it is that things have gotten so much better -- bad as they no doubt remain on many scales. Two of his closest friends in grade school were African Americans. I know it sounds cliche and trite, but it was true. I grew up in Dallas in the 1950s. There were no Negro kids around to be friends with. Know hope.


JonF -

I think this book is largely about a third category - people who were imprisoned on vague and trumped up charges (e.g., "vagrancy") so that they could be sent to work on prison farms or industries.

What's shocking (and probably mostly unknown) is that this system captured tens of thousands of people. And, of course, like lynching, it had a powerful chilling effect well beyond the individuals who were actually captured.

Better or worse than slavery? Probably not as bad, for the reason you say - you could hope of avoiding prison or going north. But it was still pretty bad and of course the north was no nirvana either.

Actually, I just looked at an excerpt of the book and realize that I understated Blackmon's conclusion. He has concluded based on his survey of surviving court records, that "The total number of workers caught in this net had to have totaled more than a hundred thousand and perhaps more than twice that figure."

People were captured by this system, no doubt, for any number of reasons. But among the most likely targets were people who dared step out of line. Try to vote or make trouble? Enjoy your tour of hard labor.

“The virtual enslavement of blacks (and it was arguably worse than slavery as at least slave-holders had a vested interest in their "property") lasted right up until almost recent times. Any African-American even a few years older than you or I lived, at least in part of their life, as very much a second class citizen.”

Maybe you are just trying too hard to be cute to actually read what I said carefully enough. Or maybe it’s my fault and I’m just not used to having discussions about history with those lacking degrees in the subject. If that is the case, then it is my mistake.

I said the post-Reconstruction era. The post-Reconstruction era, in the way historians look at it, does not stretch from the 1870’s to the 1950’s or even today. It generally stretches from the 1870’s to around 1900, maybe a little bit later. It’s a rough estimation of time, from the black codes to the rise of the early civil rights leaders like DuBois and Washington. The more recent the historical period, the more primary sources available, thus the greater division of periods of time.

I don’t actually disagree with anything you said, other than your false implication that I’m unaware of the plight of the African-American in the last few decades. I’m as knowledgeable as any learned 28-year old white person can be.

If my Tweety, you mean Chris Matthews, I think you are not being fair to him either. He can be criticized for lots of things but racial insensitivity is not one. He’s about as racial sensitive as any white man on TV news, in particular a white man of his age. A great example would be how he called the disgusting RNC ad against Harold Ford during the 2006 TN Senate race racist the first time he saw it. Matthew’s problem is he is hopelessly in love the political style of the 1950’s. If 1950’s American politics were a religion, he’d be a religious fundamentalist. He refers to blacks as an ethnic group, just like he refers to Jews, Irish, Italians, Poles and Latinos as ethic groups or blocks. He does this for no other reasons than to speculate on the electoral influence of each group on whatever election he is discussing. It sometimes gets silly when he talks about things that have very little relevance in modern politics; like ward bosses, the notion of completely Americanized Irish or Italians being an actual ethnic block in any but a scant few urban settings or even some middleweight boxing match that only he and ancient Pat Buchanan remember.

The failure to enforce the Civil War Amendments specifically, and the Constitution generally, in the wake of the Civil War is what what made the 1964 Civil Rights Act necessary, despite the way that law assaults the liberty of private citizens. Thus one truly violent assault on liberty and the Constitution leads to another assault on liberty abd the Constitution, albeit one that is far less heinous. The world ain't perfect, and unfortunately allowing one type of really glaring imperfecton to fester predicatably leads to other imperfections rising in reaction.

I'll say it again; Grant is an underrated President. His sins were ones of administrative neglect, which led to his preferred policies being abandoned too soon after his Presidency, not ones of having the wrong preferred policies on the most important issue. If Grant's view of Reconstruction had been adhered to for thirty or forty years, this country likely would have had a far better 20th century.

Glad to see Ulysses Grant getting his Presidential due at last.

Grant became President in 1868, after the country had to endure four years of Andrew Johnson, arguably the worst President ever to hold office (and with Bush and Buchanan as competitors, that is saying a lot). Johnson was a Southern Democrat Senator from Tennessee added to the ticket to present a "Union" image.

He set the tone for his Presidency by turning up drunk for his Vice-Presidential inaugural and subjecting the President, Chief Justice and assembled dignitaries to his inebriated ramblings, interspersed with obscenities, in lieu of a speech.

Johnson enemies, as he saw them, were Southern slaveholders; his clients were non-slaveowning yeomen, and he inherited all the bitter racism of that class. After meeting Frederick Douglass, a man who morally stood head and shoulders above him, Johnson commented: "That n***er would cut a white man's throat as soon as look at him".

Reconstruction, in Johnson's view, was the swift passage of power from slaveholders to the white yeomen, with the freed slaves reduced to peonage or "slavery by another name". True, Congressional Radicals were able to reverse some of the damage he did, and Grant began a proper Reconstruction after he assumed office. But it is hard not to come to the conclusion that it was a bit late. The vital early years after the Civil War had been wasted.

The view of American History should be taught especially in Southern schools were the "Lost Cause" mythology of noble, paternalistic white plantation owners and childishly happy, loyal and differential black slaves has taken hold.

Historians are beginning (accurately) to call the period from about 1948 (the desregration of the Federal government and armed forces) up to the Civil Rights Act the Second Reconstruction.

It's not hidden, there are plenty of books about it. Nobody reads them anymore. Try starting with WEB Du Bois On the Souls of Black Folks and work from there. He writes about mainly what happened from 1865-1900.

Ken

What an amazing discourse about my book on this blog. I'm sorry I didn't discover it sooner.

I concur with the several posters that Pete Daniel, Eric Foner, and many other great historians (all cited in Slavery by Another Name, btw) have written about aspects of what is in my book. But there is a tremendous amount of new research in records which have not been previously examined. More importantly, the book is a fundamental re-interpretation that challenges the view of many conventional historians of what was happening to African-Americans in the early 20th century. The book also considers how those terrible events seminally relate to the present state of American life.

Thanks again for taking an interest in the book. Check out the website too: www.slaverybyanothername.com


Comments closed June 20, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.