With the election of Barack Obama, the icons of the 1960s civil rights movement were given another moment in the sun. The first black congressmen, who took office during Reconstruction in the nineteenth century, remained largely in the shadows. In Capitol Men: The Epic Story of Reconstruction Through the Lives of the First Black Congressmen, Philip Dray gives these men their proper place, as pioneers in the story of African American liberation. Dray, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America, has created a very timely book as well as an exceptionally good read.
The history of Reconstruction has had an interesting trajectory. When Reconstruction ended in 1877, Southerners rushed to restore white rule and to justify their renewed oppression of blacks. By the twentieth century, historians had unquestionably accepted white Southern propaganda about Reconstruction. In schoolbooks, historians portrayed Reconstruction as a tragic mistake and an unmitigated failure. They completely ignored the African American point-of-view. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement forced a reappraisal of exactly why giving power to blacks seemed so evil to the white South..
As Dray explains:
As long as forces largely inimical to Reconstruction dominated Reconstruction scholarship, black officials were depicted as incompetents and thieves, or worse, simply airbrushed from the historical record. Later, when greater objectivity was brought to the subject, the black representatives nonetheless often remained marginal figures, their role in Congress and on the national political stage considered largely symbolic. Either view tends to invalidate black political initiative.
Dray’s story begins in 1870 when ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment gave black men – but not women – the right to vote. The reconstructed states in the South began holding elections that included their black populations. As a result, sixteen black men from the South were elected to the U.S. Congress. Among them were Robert Smalls, Robert Brown Elliott, Blanche K. Bruce, P.B.S. Pinchback, and Joseph Rainey. Only Texas, Tennessee, and Arkansas failed to send blacks to the U.S. Congress. As Dray writes of the new members of Congress:
Given the nature of that era, black officeholders tended to be – had to be – exceptional individuals, survivors who had emerged from a world of slavery and war to stand as spokesmen for their race, “men of mark,” as they were called by a contemporary biographer.
As “firsts”, these men received a very high level of scrutiny. The white-controlled media in the South depicted them as backward, ignorant, and monkey-like. Northern white writers, a bit more charitable, expressed surprise at the ability of the men to dazzle with speeches and their commitment to good government. The legislators sought civil rights and protection against the Ku Klux Klan as well as educational and economic reforms. They served as role models and a source of inspiration for a generation of African Americans to the point where photographs of the men could still be found in sharecropper shacks in the 1930s.
As blacks gradually lost the right to vote, the black congressmen were forced out of office. Smalls, still respected for his heroic actions in the Civil War, became a customs collector. Alonzo Ransier, who had once bested a white opponent on the floor of the House of Representatives, spent his final days as a street cleaner in Charleston. Republican George Henry White of North Carolina became the last to leave office when he exited the House of Representatives in 1901. At the time, the North Carolina legislature passed resolutions of thanksgiving that a black man no longer held office.
Dray has restored the first black congressmen to a place of honor. He has also created a densely textured history of Reconstruction that is very likely to become a classic. This book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in politics or black history.



161 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Philip, Welcome to the Lake.
Caryn, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hi Philip,
Can you tell us why you decided to write this wonderful book?
hi glad to be here
Hi,Philip, I’m Ellen Fout, Associate Faculty, History,at Collin College, Frisco, Texas. I’ll be co-hosting with Dr. Neumann tonight.
While researching an earlier book on the Mississippi civil rts murders of 64 i was struck how the lynch mob in that case was brought to justice using an old reconstruction law, long forgotten…it made me curious about the era
Hi Ellen
Welcome Ellen.
Why do believe that these men are worthy of a book?
because the Justice Dept had to step in…state of MS would not even investigate the killings, saying it was a hoax
Other than W.E.B. DuBois’Black Reconstruction, very few books have focused principally on the role of African-Americans in Reconstruction. Why do think that authors/historians have shied away from doing further work on this topic?
I really think there’d be no Pres Obama w/o these men. They responded to the oppty’s of early reconstruction and showed America that blacks could be voters and elected offcls…
Phillip: I’ve noticed that the same forces that trashed the reputation of America’s first black congressmen also went after the reputation of President Grant — and used similar arguments of hyper-corruption. Which is interesting, because it was Grant who rescued our government from the “spoils system” by establishing the Civil Service System, which cleaned up our bureaucracy rather nicely.
Philip thank you for being here this afternoon.
I have not had the chance to read your book but do have a question – the cliche is that “the winners of the war write the history”
Why do you suppose the losers of the Civil War were allowed to write this piece of history? Was there a lot of complicity with the winners involved?
a good question…of crs Stephen Hahn’s A Nation Under Our Feet was a very good book….I think it’s because there’s not much archival info and also they were not the era’s main actors per se
In Reconstruction the accusation of “corruption” was like the accusation of “commie” in the 1950s…it all depended who was making the charge and who was on the receiving end…there is no evidence the blacks were any more corrupt than whites in ofc then
Umm. Actually it wasn’t Grant. The Civil Service System originated after Grant’s successor James Garfield was shot dead by a disappointed office seeker.
what happened was that the winners got tired of coping w the sore losers and also desired natl reconciliation, so the rts of blacks were cashiered
Phoenix Woman, President James Garfield’s death inspired the establishment of the Civil Service System in the 1880s. Poor President Grant, unfortunately, had an administration plagued with scandals like the Whisky Ring and Credit Mobilier. He was a better general than a president.
Grant was a bit ambivalent about Recon, but beloved by blacks as the man who won the war…Fred Douglass said Grant is the boat, everything else is the sea….but his circle was certainly corrupt if he wasn’t
Marcus Garvey, a strong black politician, was sent to jail and forced out of the country for challenging the system. Yet he was never forgotten. Why were the Capitol Men forgotten even by blacks?
very true…and one of his issues was he didnt want to appear to be a Ceasar and re-ignite the Civil War, thus he tended to hold back on enforcing Recon in the South, at least after he dealt w the KKK
Grant gave us the Civil Service Commission that led to the Civil Service System, and the national parks system, as well as weaning America from greenback inflation and establishing a sound currency — not to mention making it possible for the black congressmen to flourish during his time in office. (Andrew Johnson wasn’t exactly friendly to them.)
Well they were remembered by blacks more than one might think, in lithographs, etc….but I think it’s because the atmosphere in the South after the 1880s or so was so down on anything R-word…also black leadership moved into different areas than politics, such as the black church
Andy Johnson was OK w emancipation but that was about it….he was not into blacks voting or serving in ofc….2000 did by the way
Thank you for writing this wonderful book. As an American Civ major (admittedly from a New England liberal arts college, but still) I didn’t know I knew so little about Reconstruction and redemption. Your approach to the story through the lives of these extraordinary Congressmen was very valuable.
This is a really dense story & history book, well told and well documented. There is so much here, but I must tell you what really struck me throughout this book: the similarity in the voter suppression tactics used as Whites redeemed their governments throughout the late Rebel States to the techniques used by the modern right-wing, specifically the GOP voter intimidation and suppression implemented by William Rehnquist, Karl Rove, Hans Spakowsky, Lee Atwater, and many others.
Armed men at polling places, identification requirements, heritage tests, “understanding” tests, oddly timed registration — all of these have been used within recent times by the White party to keep minority voting low. Were you struck by how little has changed as you wrote about the procedures used to accomplish redemption?
Again, thank you so much for this delicious book. I really enjoyed reading it, and recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how the South became what it is today in our political calculus. As the GOP fades to a regional party, knowing this history will be even more important.
Aloha, Philip and Caryn! As was noted in the post; “…or worse, simply airbrushed from the historical record.” Is there still a lot of source material available from that era…?
another point Caryn is that in 1879 the exodus took place in which fed-up blacks began leaving the South…the black pols argued against that, and the common people disliked them for that…called them “educated tom-cats”
Aloha! Don’t forget Ellen — she’s the co-host.
A good point…the similarities in voter intimidation methods is scary
Welcome Philip, and thanks for writing such a compelling and meticulously detailed book.
My favorite part is the story of how Smalls learned to mimic the navy captain and stole the Confederate boat the Planter and delivered it to the union army.
I guess this qualifies as abolitionist snark:
You provide biographies of 16 men who were all quite admirable. If you could sit down to dinner with one of them, who would pick and why?
Oops…! Pardon my manners, Aloha, Ellen…! ;-)
Aloha, CTuttle!
There is not much…some people suspect many things may have been deliberately tossed…you must remember this era was so hated by Southern whites for decades…also I think letter-writing and letter-saving was not something the black pols indulged in…newspapers are the main primary source, and the CR
jane, yes, I love that quote
PBS Pinchback was maybe the most interesting…and would likely fit in Obama’s cabinet
How do think that the Capitol Men would react to the recent inauguration of an African-American President of the United States? Why?
Mahalo, I was afraid of that…! :-( Having resided in several Southern states… Any viable oral histories…?
One thing I didn’t understand about the Exodusting: wasn’t this all about keeping blacks from actualizing their importance as labor in the Southern economy? What would have happened if many more blacks had left? Would there have been recruiting in Ireland or Eastern Europe?
Imagine how different the South would have become if labor had to be imported to service the agricultural economy in the late nineteenth century — and how different Kansas would be today as well!
They wld be amazed it took so long. They assumed that they had shown the world that blacks were to be accepted as voters and electeds, and the eventual disenfranchisement of blacks and a gap of almost a century til another black Southerner came to Congress (73) would have disturbed them. There was talk as early as 1870 of Oscar Dunn, blk LG of LA, being made Grant’s VP
Teddy a good point…truth is the So govts freaked a bit at the Exodus because the So states had not had much luck attracting immigrant labor…immigrants had not heard much good about the So, and tended to go to large cities where their home-folk had gone,,
Why do you think that it took so long for African Americans to return to political power?
Between Jim Crow, Plessy, the 1890s state conventions, the black voter was basically obliterated. It took the civ rts movement of the 60s to restore it
There was talk as early as 1870 of Oscar Dunn, blk LG of LA, being made Grant’s VP…
Heh, another reason Southerners hate Grant still… Eh? ;-)
of crs some big Republicans also turned on Grant in ‘72…Horace Greeley ran as a compromise Dem/GOP candidate…but Grant was still hugely popular, despite his foibles
Not to forget Williams v. Mississippi which allowed literacy tests. That remained in effect until the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Yes…the real killer was the “understanding clause,” which allowed voting registrars to demand that applicants interpret a paragraph of the state constitution…obviously this cld then be abused…illiterate whites cld pass, educated blks deemed to have failed
I’m going to go in a slightly different direction. Judging from your book jacket cover, you are a white man who does black history. I’ve heard the argument that only blacks can do black history, that only women can do women’s history etc. Why have you chosen to specialize in black history?
Or the classic question, “How many bubbles are in a bar of soap, boy?”
Heh, ‘Foibles’ indeed…! I think Grant’s administration has finally been surpassed by Shrub’s as the most corrupt…! ;-)
Although Grant deserves a lot of blame for Reconstructions failure, I think Johnson deserves much more. Johnson’s actions from Lincoln’s death thru Grant’s innauguration emboldened both the reactionaries in the North and the South. By the spring of 1869 any chance for an orderly and fair Reconstrucion were pretty much gone.
We have lived with the legacy of this tragedy to the present day. Anyone watching the Senate over the past few days has seen it continue to play out.
I still can’t believe that man got reelected.
I got hooked in gradually. My first book was about the Miss civ rts murders of 64..two whites and a black…then I had the idea for a history of lynching, which had never been done, but figured some blk scholar might do that…13 yrs later no one had, so I did…the new book was also one that no one else had done.
I did enjoy, though, how the redemption folks worked around the literacy tests, knowing that a significant percentage of their poor white base would also fail. Thus the subjectivity of the “understanding” test, where an election registrar would quiz a potential voter on his understanding of a section of the state constitution. It’s very easy to proclaim any white voter’s “understanding” acceptable, and any black potential voter’s not.
Both of ‘em, right, Caryn…? ;-)
As Pauline Kael did not say, “I can’t believe Nixon was re-elected. No one I know voted for him.” The acquaintance bias.
Yes the unraveling began under Johnson. So whites learned that the feds and the North generally were good at passing idealistic laws but loath to intervene in the So. After Grant crushed the KKK in 1870, the whites got more sly about disrupting black voting, etc…they knew they cld wear Reconstruction down, and they did
The North had the moral energy to fight and win the civil war, barely, but not enough to see Recon thru…the latter was a far more nuanced and intractable challenge
I agree with you, oldgold. Johnson’s actions led to Radical Reconstruction, which put the Senate in opposition to the President. Yet another legacy that plays out today.
It’s a good question how things might have played out had Johnson taken a different approach
Many Southerners, including John Singleton Mosby, realized that they had lost the war and had to accept the terms of the victor. If Johnson hadn’t bungled things so badly, perhaps Reconstruction would have actually reconstructed something over the long term.
Well of crs Recon did succeed at creating the 14th and 15th amendments and the Enforcement acts, and the new state conventions it mandated were positive steps for the ex-Confederacy…but you’re right it was overwhelmed ultimately
Yes, because after Johnson’s impeachment, the legislative branch dominated the two other branches until 1896. Presidents were really nice men who shook hands and kissed babies, but lacked any considerable power. I’ve stumped history classes before by asking them to name three presidents between 1877 and 1896, with Hayes and McKinley not included. Only one person ever got it right.
That they were willing to settle a Presidential election by trading away the almost intractable problem of Black civil rights still amazes me.
Andy Johnson is a good example of why picking the right VP is crucial
I think they felt the handwriting was on the wall anyway…there was really no way Recon could be sustained w/o Southern cooperation, and that just wasnt there
Heh, only two come to mind… Chester Arthur and Grover Cleveland…!
What a relief that Cheney is gone
Yes, even though John Nance Garner, one of FDR’s vice presidents, once said that the vice- presidency wasn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.
Well, let’s see, there’s Harrison and Cleveland (x2).
But, with presidential power significantly reduced, were there many foreign entanglements during the same time?
Many people are having trouble adjusting to a world w/o Cheney…LOL
Those two are correct. The others: James Garfield and Benjamin Harrison
It took burning down cities like Detroit and Los Angelos to be taken seriously. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. It took integrating the military after the WWII. The riots got the media coverage that dialogue did not.
Make no mistake racism in Mississippi is alive and well as in Louisiana refusal to repair black neighborhoods in New Orleans. The “Boss” still runs the law. In the Heat of the Night Rod Stieger plays a “Boss cop” in a Southern town while Sidney Poitier plays a Northern Detective sent to investigate a crime…the corruption and prejudice are pallative. The demographics show th people in prison and in poverty are still victims. Obama where are you?
Grant tried to annex the Dominican Republic…he thought maybe the ex-slaves would move there…it got him into hot water and helped develop opposition to him even among the GOP
Cheney is now publicly claiming that many Americans will die because of Obama’s lax policies. To me, that seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
My pop’s is going to get this book for Dad’s Day. Have not read it yet but I hope its real good!
You briefly discussed the “color line” in your book; I found the descriptions of some of the politicians fascinating, as Northern editors struggled to describe these new politicians to their readers. I was amazed to read, also, about the young woman whose wedding was segregated, with a fancy reception for the Whites and a casual party afterwards for her (fellow!) blacks.
True, altho let’s give the civ rts movement, a non-violent movement, its due…it did alot
Not yet, its the buffon talking smack. I am sure he is going to be quite pride of the suicide rate in the US coming up this year and next.
I hope our Vets are well taken care of.
Mostly, ‘incidents’ with our Southern neighbors like Haiti and some SA countries… Nothing much with Europe, Africa, and the Far East, except, P.I was starting to boil…
One of the fascinating stories in the book is when ex-slave Robert Smalls took in the wife of his former master. The woman, unable to believe that the world had turned upside down, was never forced by Smalls to confront that fact. Why did Smalls make this choice? I’m not sure that I could be so forgiving.
Come on Pups Digg this Book Salon which covers such an important piece of our history and well needs to be relearned by this generation.This is the story of just how the first Black congressmen fought for the rights of all citizens!
So come on Pups and Digg IT!
Yes, tinctures of blackness were much talked about at the time. One of the Capitol Men, Robt B Elliott, was very African in appearance, which freaked out Congress, because many other black pols were of more mixed ancestry. yet it was Elliott who put Alex Stephens, former Confed VP, in his place in Congress in 74
How about the Rolling Stone story of white’s grinning with joy over hunting African Americans that dared to set foot into their town to be evacuated.
He had purchased the very house where he had once been a slave….Smalls was fairly kind toward whites generally, and his white family had treated him kindly…he cld be persistent however about encroachments on civil rts
Philip, What is your opinion of Thaddeus Stevens? Was he a hero or political arsonist?
Sure no one says things are hunky dory, but you’d have to speak with blacks who lived in the South before the civ rts movement to get a sense of how immense the changes have been because of it
I assume Smalls lived what the master’s would only play dress-up on Sunday and pay lip service to.
I have a soft spot for old Thad…had a club foot, wore a hideous wig, had a face like a tomahawk…He wanted drastic change in the South, and in a certain sense he was right more than some others in how sweeping that change wld need to be
Good question, oldgold! What about Charles Sumner as well, Philip?
Smalls was a very powerful guy…they called him the King of Beaufort SC…thru patronage he basically ran the SC Sea Islands til his death in 1915
Based on Ghandi, Civil Rights, and the ultimate solution in Norther Ireland I think non-violence is the way to go, but one should never forget when they are facing a killer across the divide (and possibly extinction or slavery).
Sumner is very admirable. He came back from being nearly beaten to death in the Senate to champion the civil rts act of 1875, a visionary bit of law. It was enacted but gutted by the USSC in 83. The rights it contained only were guaranteed in the CRA of 1964…quite a long wait. Altho Sumner went a bit mad in the early 70s…loathed Grant and was himself then shunned because Grant, despite his warts, was still popular, espec w blacks
IMHO, the undergirding of modern
whiteEuropean American supremacy has been that the playing field has been level since 1865. This book is an important antidote to that lie.How familiar were Sumner and Stephens with the South, firsthand? Did they base their recommendations for change on visits or stories? Did they take junkets or fact-finding tours of the region, or did they let the tales come to them?
In the early 80’s, I witnessed a “We don’t serve your kind here” to a black couple, right of an I-10 ramp at a diner in Lousy-Anna…! 8-(
Philip, do you think that non-violence was the only choice when blacks were pushed to the back with the end of Reconstruction? Some civil rights activists, including the Deacons for Defense in the 1960s, fought fire with fire.
Remember that blacks, mostly freed slaves, did join the Union army…180,000 served and nearly 40,000 died. Smalls helped make that happen thru his example in stealing the Confed boat and by lobbying in DC
In the late 1990s, I witnessed a “we don’t serve your kind here” involving a Filipina in Dayton, Ohio. The South isn’t the only place with racists, unfortunately.
Yes there were some examples like that. You know, the white carpetbag governors often wished the local blacks wld stand up physically to the white Redeemers, but when that was tried, as at Vicksburg in 74, the results were a bloodbath of poor blacks carrying rakes and hoes
Great story, Buffalo Soldiers and a great line of hero’s.
Underground Railroad a great team of hero’s as well. I did love the Clinton speech… don’t look back, don’t stop, RUN for freedom.
A good point…neither had been there much, altho Stephens cohabited a black woman
the nub of the question for GOP radicals in early Recon was “are the ex-Confedrates wayward siblings or a conquered enemy…Thad Stevens saw them as the latter
In 2008 in telling some people how Obama was going to cake-walk to the White House I was told a tale of someone else’s dad. Went something like this….
If Obama win’s there is going to be “alot of hooting and a Hollerin’ in the White House”.
Gawd. Thing is the “my parents” stories from this particular generation won’t be walking the earth much longer. And many of their kids are a different kind of apple.
The Onion had that headline, Black Man Given Worst Job in America
That was a classic, had to show my better half that one.
Did these Capitol men have separate bathroom and dining facilities?
Was the prejudice from the southern whites repressed or demonstrative?
Why weere they stopped for 100 years, Ever see or read “Giant” Edna Furber’s tale of Texas prejudice against mexican americans?
Teddy’s comparison with gay rights…all these folks boxed into a tar box…weems strange that blacks and Isreali’s forget their vidtimhood when lashing out on others. Any thoughts?
I agree, Caryn! New Hampshire isn’t called the ‘Great White State’ for nothing… SPLC have said the NH chapter of the KKK is still alive and kicking…! Ironically, As an Anglo-Saxon I’ve been on the receiving end of racial prejudice, my sister and I, were the only two “ha’oles” at our HS… At Ka’u HS in Pahala, HI…! ;-)
Welcome, Philip!
I’m only part way through the book, but thank you so much for writing it.
Have you gotten any reactions to the book from any living African-American congressmen or congresswomen?
Agree, and the Civil War imho hinged on the Army of Northern Virginia and Gettysburg (1863). Gettysburg probably came down to the First Minnesota’s heroic charge on the second day. If they don’t make that suicide charge, Lee doesn’t order Pickett’s charge on the third day.
All Lee needed was a stalemate for George McClellan to beat Lincoln in 1864.
20th Maine also had to hold on the second day, but imho pales next to the 1st MN.
ymmv.
The black Congressmen faced prejudice en route to DC…they often described it…it made them ideal advocates for civil rts legislation. Cong Elliott once had an unpleasant incident w a white man in a DC cafe, found out the man worked for the Treasury, and got him fired
Not yet. Many other blacks have expressed interest, however.
Obama: Change we can believe in after the election…Global Warming.
Longstreet was a scalawag after the war, so ex-Confeds turned on him and blamed him for Picketts Charge turning bad
Getting back to the book,Philip,to what group or groups of readers is your book directed? Why did you choose to direct it toward that group or these groups?
As I’m not an academic and approach my book subjects as a curious amateur, I write the books as if explaining to someone like me what I’ve discovered. I chiefly was interested in the long-running myth of Recon, and how these men had been neglected
when one thinks how long the Southern version of Recon held sway, for about 90 yrs, it’s quite a comment.
If your publisher can spare it, I suggest you send each of them an autographed copy. Perhaps something like this:
“To xxxxx,
Let this be a reminder to you of those who went before you, and also a reminder that you pave the way today for those yet to come.”
You may not be an academic but this is a perfect book for use in college-level black history courses. It touches on all the major themes of post-Civil war black history.
February is Black History Month. Are you speaking anywhere about this book?
Some terms used:
Uncle Toms
Carpetbaggers
Jim Crow
What are they is there a list explaining the terminolgy? (back to the book)
I like to get off the beaten path a bit…rather than say a bio of Grant, I chose these less known characters
Well, as an academic who is fed up with books written in incomprehensible jargon using the latest “fad” theories, I wish that more people would write books like Capitol Men.
Yes it’s true that the Capitol Men and the 2000 other black office holders during Recon really did set the stage for today’s black politicians
Has Obama and Muhammed Ali (cassius clay) gotten comp copies? Obama needs to be reminded who brung him.
bigbrother, that is what google is for :)
Thanks. It’s often difficult, in that I don’t have colleagues to review my manuscripts, etc. And there is sometimes a bit of a reaction to a “popularly written” book. But I think Arthur Schlesinger wld approve. He was all for popular renderings of history
My editor sent Obama a book during his campaign. It was her dream that he’d be photographed carrying it. LOL
Heh, ‘Fad’ or revisionist histories…? ;-) I pulled of a double major of Poly Sci/Asian-Pacific History…!
I think Schlesinger and William Leuchtenberg, who both advocated popular history for the general reader, would definitely approve!Caryn and I have noticed that many of the most readable books for history students are NOT written by historians. David von Drehle’s Triangle:The Fire that Changed America is another good example. Von Drehle is a journalist.
Blanche Bruce, blk senator of Miss, voted against the Chinese Exclusion Act…to no avail. He also proposed a fed coordinated flood control plan for the lower Mississippi..he was yrs ahead of his time
Yes I know and like the Triangle book. Also Death in the Haymarket by James Green and what I consider a very fine history by a non-academic, Son of the Morning Star by Evan Connell
The Connell book is about Custer
Who among today’s members of Congress most reminds of of the men you chronicle here?
I kept thinking of Barbara Jordan myself, but (alas) she is no longer with us.
I am doing a number of talks — in Boston, DC, and NYC. Odd how this BHM marketing thing never goes away…
Will and Ariel Durant’s “The Story of Civilization” is a very readable collection that I still prize…! ;-)
Thanks, Philip! You’ve just given Caryn and I some great suggestions for classroom use. :)
Robt B Elliott was sort of a rough-draft of Obama. His past was murky, he claimed to have lived abroad, super bright, and stunned people w his eloquence…like Obama he gave a powerful speech about how blks and whites needed to recognize their common Americaism…Elliott’s was immortalized in a famous lithograph and he became an overnight media star….8 yrs later he died penniless in a New Orleans boarding hse
Contact the WH and ask if ya can hand deliver a copy to BO…! ;-)
[edit] Jim Crow, disfranchisement and challenges
See also: Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era (United States)
In the face of years of mounting violence and intimidation directed at blacks as well as whites sympathetic to their cause, the U.S. government retreated from its pledge to guarantee constitutional protections to freedmen and women. When President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew Union troops from the South in 1877 as a result of a national compromise on the election, white Democratic southerners acted quickly to reverse the groundbreaking advances of Reconstruction. To reduce black voting and regain control of state legislatures, Democrats had used a combination of violence, fraud, and intimidation since the election of 1868. These techniques were prominent among paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida prior to the 1876 elections. In South Carolina, for instance, one historian estimated that 150 blacks were killed in the weeks before the election.[19] Massacres occurred at Hamburg and Ellenton.
European American paramilitary violence against African Americans intensified. Many blacks were fearful of this trend, and men like Benjamin “Pap” Singleton began speaking of separating from the South. This idea culminated in the 1879-1880 movement of the Exodusters, who migrated to Kansas.
Look at the man’s back that was covered with bull whip scars…they don’t have a reference to your book yet.
Another book I’m enjoying now is Living My Life by Emma Goldman…what a gal, what a life!!!
Old Pap was a marvelous man…beloved by many, and quite a promoter of the exodus
Philip, this question is a bit tangetial, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. The ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 resulted in a rift between the groups supporting black suffrage and the women campaigning for woman suffrage who had also participated in the abolition movement. Some historians trace the almost century-long split between the two groups to this ratification, as well as the shattering of the Equal Rights Association into the American Woman Suffrage Association and the National Woman Suffrage Association. Do you believe that the goals of African-American civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement could have been achieved more quickly if these two groups had not parted ways?
Sorry, folks, I tried to make it a shorter question!
That is sickening to the nth degree, alongside the earlier reference… “Alonzo Ransier, who had once bested a white opponent on the floor of the House of Representatives, spent his final days as a street cleaner in Charleston.”
Pathetic…! 8-(
The Fifteenth Amendment did not give Barbara Jordan the right to vote. Could you speak about the conflict between women and blacks?
Yes that was a bitter “divorce.” The abolitionists like Douglass and Garrison told Anthony and Stanton to wait their turn…they likely did not imagine it wld take 50 yrs. Of crs the women’s movement of the 1970s had its origin in the civ rts movement of the 60s…the Wave Hill conference by SNCC in 65 was where Mary King and others first decided to draw inspiration from the movement for civ rts
Jerimiah Haralson, a representative from Alabama, later went prospecting out west and was eaten by wild animals
Ironically, Bill Moyers has recounted a similar accounting by LBJ… “Bill, I’m signing away the South to the Republicans for a generation by signing this…” The ’60’s Civil Rights Act…!
One could reasonably argue that it’s been two generations and counting…! 8-(
Yes that was certainly true, making Obama’s wins in some So states all the more rewarding…
Seems as if we witnessed an echo of that in the Democratic primary last year. Like many, I wanted the artificial barriers preventing a woman and/or minority candidate from becoming president torn down and lamented the fact that voters had to choose between one or the other.
Only part of the women’s movement grew out of the civil rights movement. I did my dissertation on this topic.
Heh, That’s virtually an ‘Act of God’ as opposed to discrimination…! ;-)
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
Philip, Thank you for stopping by the lake and spending the afternoon discussing your new book.
Caryn,Ellen, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a very good book, if you have not bought one yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Yes that was a strange irony, and reminded many of the 1870s when the women were asked to wait. There was some bitterness expressed by the women at that time, along the lines of “ignorant black men” getting ahead in the line before “the daughters of jefferson and madison…”
Thanks, Bev, for all your help coordinating this evening’s book salon. Philip, it has been a real pleasure to discuss your work this evening.
Wow, That’s a very poignant point…! 8-(
Mahalo Nui Loa, to you; Ellen, Caryn and Philip! A great discussion and I(we) greatly appreciate your spent time here at the venerable Lake! *g*
Pls. don’t be strangers…! ;-)
New post—>
Terrific discussion, thanks very much.
I haven’t bought the book yet, but it’s definitely on my list.
Thanks to the author and to our great hosts for this great discussion today.
Folks should buy this book. I think it would be especially valuable to young adults amid their own political awakening in the Obama movement. But even I, an oldster political activist and student of American history, learned a great deal from this book. It’s dense with information but its narrative makes it extremely accessible.
Please also try to remember to request it at your local library, as patron requests drive library acquisitions.
In South Africa the process was the reverse. White women received suffrage in 1930. It actually allowed the Afrikaaner parties to come to power and establish apartheid.