471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Trelease
For Trelease: “Negro larcency, too, was a legacy of slavery: a poverty-stricken people, systematically denied the fruits of their own labor and having no property of their own to consider sacred…” xix. African Americans during this time really did not have much to base their free lives on. White southerners fought hard to keep them from gaining any type of equality. “Although the southerner may have known the Negro as a slave, he did not know him as a man. The misconception probably arose from a need to rationalize white supremacy.” xxii As a result, whites fought hard to continue the view that they must control the south and enacted a series of Black Codes in 1865 and 1866, which clearly regulated African Americans as a second-class citizen. Xxiii. The right to vote was not extended by any state and there was no hope for equality in the future. The KKK was a major component in fighting for “Negro suffrage” and violence was used to enforce their purpose. –Ana Y.

One thing that really stood out was this fear of African Americans now being freed and having the crime rate increase. It is clearly stated that not only was this not true, but that white men were the ones who committed most of the crimes. Trelease states, “actually it was white men who committed most of the violence, and much of it was racially and politically inspired” (xxxiv). It is strange to think that this fear of increased African American violence was so unfounded and seems to have even caused an increase in crimes committed by whites. - Kelly F.

Trelease speaks to the media’s role in perpetuating myths and misconceptions. In speaking about the anxiety surrounding “Radical Reconstruction” Trelease declares that, “Almost invariably the newspapers played a major role in spreading the terror. There was no basis for the fear…” (p. xxii) The uncertainty present in the years following the Civil War would seem to make newspaper editors extremely powerful in shaping the story and their own ideologies. While we tend to try to put ourselves into their context, it may be useful to put them into ours. The media today does the same sorts of things be it the sportswriter who, in the wake of the NFL football player who shot and killed his girlfriend and then committed suicide, attacked the National Rifle Association and referred to it as the “new KKK,” or the major media organizations jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon in the wake of the Newtown school shooting. Today’s media is certainly biased, to what degree is debatable, but trying to understand the bias inherent in the media in the aftermath of the Civil War is nearly impossible. Their role in shaping memory cannot be underestimated in an age where they were so heavily relied upon for information.

-Jason

The role of the media in spreading the propaganda for both Republicans and Democrats seems to have played a large role in fueling the debate about Reconstruction and shaping the memory of the war in real time and in perpetuity. Blight points this out on numerous occasions: “White Southern editors used the election of 1868 to advance the image of the beknighted South-conquered, violated, but unbowed.” “According to some Southern editors, the coming election and Republican rule threatened race war, and such a prospect united former foes in racial solidarity.” (p. 102) “The New York Tribune kept the theme of war memories on a personal level for Northern voters, declaring that across the North, ‘empty sleeves’ blew in the wind ‘against broken ribs’ and ‘about crippled bodies.’” (p. 103)

-Jason

I think that one of the most powerful things that Trelease mentions in his article comes in the begining when he makes the distinction that after the war, ex-slaves were "freed negroes" rather than freed men. Its important to remember that while they were "free", they still weren't seen as equal men in the eyes of Southern whites. They could be free from slavery, but they still were bound to the constrains of race, which were still very much in power. -Cameron F

Going off of what Cameron was talking about, I thought it was interesting that Blight pointed out that "as America prepared to celebrate the centennial of its independence in 1875-76, African Americans confronted a complex dilemma of allegiance, hope, and memory." (p. 132) This point struck me, I really would be interested in finding out exactly how African Americans celebrated the centennial of independence. Or did they not? I know Blight goes into further discussion about the "nation's 'new birth' of freedom," (p.132) but I would be really interested in following this idea further. -Meg O

Both Blight and Trelease talk about the Klan’s effects on Southern Reconstruction. Both authors argue that Democrats refused to acknowledge the Klan’s connection to any political party, especially their own. Blight even says it on page 113, “The Klan’s purposes were essentially political; it sought to maintain white supremacy and to restore labor discipline and economic dependency among the freedpeople.” They perpetuated a myth of black violence and then brought in real and terrible violence to threaten Republican control and their beliefs of racial equality. Then the Southerners turned it around even more and said that the Republicans in D.C. were basically despots and interfering too freely in matters that the federal government should not have control over (117). I also think Jason has a great point about the influence of media, especially the newspapers. We read about Dickinson’s speeches and how she measured her success and influence partially by what was in the newspapers about her. With Blight and Trelease, we see the newspapers being used to influence voters and perpetuate memory, most especially in the South. -- Brooke

Before I could even delve into the Blight reading, his information on page 99: "Black suffrage was necessary in the South for the purposes 'of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice.' Black voting rights were left to the whims of each state" (99). How could the government aim for reunion and equality when it seems to show favoritism between the North and South? --Carly Winfield

Based on the reading from Blight, one of the ways in which former staunch abolitionists justified joining the Liberal Republican-Democrat coalition was that black equality under the law had been secured and with suffrage, Blacks would be able to use the vote to take care of themselves without help from the federal government. In hindsight this view seems extremely naïve but helps to explain how the country moved towards reconciliation with the support of former abolitionists. -Sean

Trelease questions the revolution that occurred in the South during reconstruction and calls it instead a halfway revolution. While there was definitely a revolution for Blacks in terms of their legal and civil rights, there was almost no change for blacks socially and economically. -Sean

It is interesting to see southerners who once fought for the Confederacy change allegiances to the Republican Party after the War. These "scalawags" who once fight for their Lost Cause, now stand for what they fought against (XXVii). I see a great deal of opportunism and irony with their sudden change in political allegiance. Even though many of them shared similar beliefs and ideas that Southern Democrats held, the Republican Party held the political majority and power, so much like a bandwagon fan they hopped on and joined in on the leading political party. -- Donald P

How was life for "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags" in the south (XXV)? How did the carpetbaggers assimilate into southern life and culture? What were the true qualifications for freed negroes to vote? or How free were blacks actually in the south? -- Donald P

Fahs & Waugh
For Faugh & Waugh: “The 1872 campaign and the path that Dickenson took to her role in it are a valuable window into how the memory of the Civil War shaped postwar politics and culture.” 157. Dickenson was a large supporter of the Republican Party and hated the Confederacy. As a women lecturer during this period, she addressed the rights of women, workers, and African Americans. 160. It surprised me how she repeatedly attacked President Grant and how she said, “the war was only and act of drama.” 165. During this time, for a woman to speak out like this, you would think that she would have been reprimanded for voicing strong opinions like such. Moving away from that thought, “Dickenson was suggesting new ways of remembering the war and its meaning that made such an approach more palatable.” 174. I am curious as to why “one of America’s greatest women” (160) ended up in an insane asylum after all of her important contributions. – Ana Y.

I think it’s rather remarkable for this time to hear someone, a woman no less, argue that the war was not won by generals (aka Grant) but that the men that fought under him were the true victors of the war (171). While everyone else wanted to bring down Grant by focusing on his “failings” while President and avoiding the issue of the memory of the Civil War, Dickinson was reclaiming the memory of the war (173). Like Ana, I wonder what she was committed for. I also wonder if more people respected her opinion because of her lack of interest in women’s suffrage. She surely put herself out into the public arena, though, and tested the boundaries of women in politics. -- Brooke

I really enjoyed this reading. I thought that it was interesting to see how much power and influence Dickinson held when she was giving speeches. It was also interesting to see the influence she had with the important men that controlled the newspaper. This woman had many connections and had a lot of power I thought it was fascinating for the time period. I am also curious why she ended up in an insane asylum but I'm also curious why after giving a not well recieved speech she lost ALL of her influence so quickly. -Kayle P

I agree with the other three comments, for a woman to be that influential during that time especially among men is fascinating. To make her first public speaking debut at 18 speaks for itself and sets the foundation for her drive and determination. This reading adds a different take on Civil War memory by adding a woman's account to the mix, at a time when the political arena was controlled mostly men, she fought to stand out and made her voice and opinions known. --Mary O

Anna Dickinson seemed to play a large role, due to her celebrity status within the new Republican party, in determining the future of the party. Dickinson seems to stun everyone by taking a middle of the road approach by siding with the Liberal Republicans and against the party of Lincoln as the Republican's in favor of Grant saw it.(pg. 172) However, I believe they are wrong and Dickinson was actually throwing her support toward what would have been the party of Union. She, instead of a taking a hard line in continuance of militarism in the South, she stands up for reconciliation and, in this act, shapes the memory of the Civil War for many in the nation. -Matt

Anna's question, "Is the war over?" stood out to me, especially in light of what Blight says about how a political war replaced the actual war. Did the Civil War end in 1865? Did people perceive that it was over then, or was Dickinson an extremist? --Carly B

I had all of the above thoughts on the reading, but coinciding with the other pieces, in this reading it makes mention of the shifts in newspapers covering her stories/speeches. A question that I think is important to ask is would Dickinson be regarded as such a prominent person if she didn't have such strong media coverage? -Carly Winfield

I thought it was interesting the way Dickinson defined the memory of the Civil War. I thought it was fascinating to see her views on all the different political topics, including women's, blacks, and workers rights. I found it strange that she didn't want to involve herself too much with women's suffrage, when the offer came. I just wonder, why wasn't she more involved in the women's suffrage? Why was her desire to join the debate over black rights so strong? -Meg O

Blight
One of Blight's central ideas/questions is: which memory prevails? Is it the Northern interpretation that demonized the South, or the Southern rhetoric that demonized Blacks? It's an important question for this course. --Carly B.

You can see that the 1968 election was replaying the arguments over causes of the war. "If war is politics by other means, then postwar American politics was still war by other means." (102) Northerners still wanted to punish the South and the South just wanted peace. Even though slaves were free, they were still the bottom of the hierarchy in the South. White supremacy was still important. I like Carly's question and I think it is both. The North wanted to punish the South for causing the war and the South wanted to keep their white supremacy and social status. -Hannah

Debate ideas
The role of the media was prominent in all of the readings. The media was certainly much more biased than today with names including their party affiliation. What impact did these newspapers have on their readers in an age before television and radio? How much stock did readers put in newspapers that were so obviously ideological? -Jason

Here comes my 485…. I would say that readers definitely knew the political leanings or downright partisanship of their newspaper or magazine. But when I did my research, it seemed as though reading the newspaper/magazine was a powerful ritual that many people faithfully followed. After 1870, circulation skyrocketed for most major newspapers. And when I say skyrocketed, I mean SKYROCKETED. Newspapers actually held political power. Not like today because we just don’t have newspapers or the readership like they did then. Even at the turn of the century, people were just learning on how to pick up on bias in newspapers. But we’re talking in here about the 1860s to 1870s. Now some have argued that the newspaper only mirrors what the public wants to see, and then warps it to make it as capturing as possible. One author I found in my research wrote “it appeals to the worst instincts in man” (James Edward Rogers, The American Newspaper, 1909, pg. 110). So take that as you will, but I thought I would offer some insight since it’s so fresh in my mind! But again, disclaimer: this is not necessarily about the 1860s or 1870s; I’m just relating what I found for the 1880s-1920s. -- Brooke

I tend to agree with Brooke. I think that more people were getting their information from newspapers because they were easily accessible. People were reading the newspapers and believing the information that was being published. By seeing the influence that Dickinson gained from the newspaper owners, I think that Brooke’s point is valid. I just wonder what readership for newspapers were like during and shortly after the war. –Kayle P