If social media has a redeeming quality, it may be the ability to learn the unvarnished truth regarding the true feelings of others.
Within the past month I’ve come across numerous comments in the middle of Facebook conversations that were startlingly narrow-minded, yet because they singled out a group deemed OK to bash, no one uttered a peep.
The first came in early July, amid debates concerning the South’s ongoing educational deficiencies, specifically the overall low ranking many Southern states register on nationalized tests. Within a short time, the cause was identified solely as “Jim Crow.” Finally, one individual, located in the Northeast, stated bluntly, “I hate Southern white males.”
A second conversation dealt with the threat of radical Islam within the US. One individual countered that he had been to Islamic countries and that the Deep South, for example, was “way scarier” than Indonesia “in his experience.”
This individual lives on the West Coast, so it’s difficult to determine whether he’s ever set foot in the “Deep South.” I also understand that as a relatively tall, fit white guy, I may have an easier time than a black man or woman in the South. Still many blacks I speak with in the South – but by no means all – say that while issues certainly remain related to racism, they’re not specific to the South.
But unfortunately many of the South’s biggest detractors appear to have little to no actual experience with the South of today. It is certainly not perfect, but it’s vastly different from what it was 50 years ago, and it is a far friendly place, at least in my own experience, than New England, New York, much of the West Coast and the major Midwestern cities.
Still, the image persists, at least if one goes by the New York Times, Slate or other Northeastern-centric media outlets, that whites in the South are largely bigots, rural regions are populated almost exclusively by extras from Deliverance and blacks and other minorities live in constant fear, with some whites eagerly awaiting the return of “Judge Lynch.”
My experience has been largely the opposite: Whether on the West Coast, or the East Coast north of Richmond, no one will so much look at you when you pass them on the street, never mind say hello. Down South it’s unusual if you don’t wave when passing someone on a country road, whether you know them or not.
I can’t imagine standing to cross a street with someone in a Southern town and not saying hello and asking how they were doing, or vice versa. And anyone who knows me will tell you I am an introvert’s introvert.
While I may be a hermit in the making, my mother didn’t raise me to be rude. When I talk with strangers it’s not out of simple duty; I do have a genuine wish that their day goes well.
So why does a significant percentage of those outside the South feel white males in Dixie are a bunch of ignorant knuckle-draggers who keep white sheets and hoods in our closets?
A recently released book by Philip Leigh called Southern Reconstruction concludes that no small part of the problem is the result of Reconstruction, the period following the War Between the States.
However, Leigh doesn’t limit the term “reconstruction” to the 1865-1877 period that is generally used to designate the post-war era but expands it to include the decades afterward, when the former Confederate states lagged far behind most of the rest of the nation, stricken with higher rates of poverty, lower lifespans, poorer diets and reduced access to health care.
Leigh’s superb work points out that many of today’s mainstream historians focus solely on white racism in the South as the reason for Reconstruction’s failure, and that Reconstruction’s failure greatly aided the spread of white Southern racism.
Yet, as progressives like to point out, hate is a learned behavior. In other words, the racism that blacks experienced during Reconstruction and Jim Crow didn’t materialize out of nowhere – and it was different from that which existed during slavery. There was a root cause, and like many root causes, it was financial.
“The harmful effects of Reconstruction were more substantial, multiracial, and protracted than commonly understood, with poverty being among the most devastating,” Leigh writes.
Stereotypes play a role in how we see Reconstruction today: “Although Southern poverty and cotton culture is commonly associated with blacks, in 1940, whites made up two-thirds of the region’s farmers who either rented their lands or were sharecroppers,” Leigh writes. “According to a 1938 presidential economic report, about half of Southern white farmers were sharecroppers ‘living under economic conditions almost identical to those of Negro sharecroppers.’”
Unfortunately, post-Civil War Republicans were more interested in holding and building on political gains than actual advocating for black civil rights.
Even though blacks represented less than 2 percent of the population in the Northern states, compared to 40 percent in the Confederate states, most white Northerners wanted blacks concentrated in the South. Some white Northerners were concerned with increased competition for jobs if freed slaves moved North, while others likely were motivated by a dislike for people different from themselves, much as they disliked foreigners just off the boat from Europe or Asia.
Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, thought emancipation would motivate Northern blacks to move to the South. In 1862, when blacks comprised less than 1 percent of the Illinois population, the state’s soldiers voted 3 to 1 to deny the blacks the right to vote, and Massachusetts and Illinois each refused to resettle contrabands (slaves behind Union lines) in their states during the war, according to Leigh.
Reconstruction was probably doomed to failure given the corruption that took place immediately following the war. Budgets in Southern states mushroomed, even if residents rarely got anywhere near their money’s worth as politicos, some Northerners who’d moved South after the war and others opportunists from the region, lined their pockets in many states.
Once the states were “redeemed,” a term which meant that Democrats effectively ousted Republicans for control, often by dubious means, the first goal of the new administration was to reduce the cost of operating state government, Leigh said, adding that segregation and disfranchisement of blacks didn’t begin to pick up steam until Populists were elected in the 1890s.
Leigh writes that white Southerners resented the financial burden associated with educating ex-slaves. Given that abolition was a national policy, many felt that the federal government should at least partly assist with the effort. Southern states were already poor to begin with and ultimately slashed education spending for both races.
There was certainly unequal treatment before the law and a general animus toward blacks in the South, particularly in the late 19th century and early 20th century. But Leigh argues that efforts to raise the South were hindered by the economic serfdom it was held in by northeastern economic interests.
He cites as an example the artificially high costs imposed on Southern steel by Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie, who created the U.S. Steel monopoly, recognized that the South, specifically the steel industry around the Birmingham, Ala., area, represented the biggest threat to his Pennsylvania operation.
By 1895, he had bought up the major Southern steel mills and imposed discriminatory pricing on Southern production.
“Thereafter,” Leigh writes, “steel from the company’s Alabama’s mills included an incremental markup … of $3 per ton over the Pittsburgh quote.” In addition, “buyers of Birmingham steel were required to pay freight from Birmingham plus a phantom charge as if the shipments originated in Pittsburgh.”
By the time the Federal Trade Commission got around to investigating the matter, during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, it was discovered that Birmingham’s steel costs were the lowest in the country and 26 percent below those of Pittsburgh.
For 80 years, the South suffered from burdensome tariffs and monopolistic rate charges, costs that kept wages down, stymied progress and contributed greatly to the poverty that helped create dissention between races.
But Reconstruction and the decades that followed it remain little understood among much of the population. In secondary schools, if it’s taught at all, it’s narrowly defined as a period when Southern whites sought to not only disfranchise blacks, but essentially place them back in the fetters of slavery.
White Southerners weren’t blameless but there was plenty of criticism to be leveled at others, as well.
As our nation currently tangles with the ghosts of the past, perhaps we would do well to seek out the reasons why the South has struggled economically and educationally for much of the past 150 years.
The reason, as Phil Leigh demonstrates clearly in Southern Reconstruction, isn’t simply that Southern whites didn’t like Southern blacks. History is rarely that evident.
(Top: Sharecroppers pick cotton in Arkansas in 1938.)
15 thoughts on “New book ponders long-lasting effects of Reconstruction”
Thanks for an insightful commentary.
Reblogged this on Civil War Chat.
During the Great War the French lost 17% of their military aged men.Sociologists consider this close to a breaking point for any society.Aid from allies and reparations from Germany helped out.
During our great war, we lost 25% of our men outright, and for the next ten years a federal boot was on our throat as scavengers picked at the South’s carcass.The preferred agents of the carpetbaggers were the uneducated and malleable ex slaves.
When Hampton deposed our last carpetbagger governor, it is said that he lamented that there were ” three good years of stealing left in South Carolina” It took the state ninety years too pay off the debt wracked up by those bastards.
How could there have been anything other than bitterness during the lives of that generation.
As Southerners we can take pride in that the boys in gray were weighed on the scale and found not to be wanting.
“But Reconstruction and the decades that followed it remain little understood among much of the population. In secondary schools, if it’s taught at all, it’s narrowly defined as a period when Southern whites sought to not only disfranchise blacks, but essentially place them back in the fetters of slavery.” What a bunch of bull excrement. Let’s talk about carpetbagger governments, outrageous taxes and the Union Leagues, and how the original KKK helped rid our Southland of these scourges.
Ah, so glad you were able to catch the fact that I was underscoring the simplicity of what is often taught today, instead of, as you seem to be implying, stating that what is taught is 100 percent accurate. Nuance is apparently a lost art.
It’s easier to scream Nazi, racist or hater than it is to learn critical thinking and a little history. Interesting post.
Thank you, Bruce. It’s always easier to apply labels than understand the finer points of the past.
I shall see if it is available for Kindle from Amazon UK as I would like to learn more of the history of the period – my knowledge of U.S. history being woefully lacking.
Education all too often comes with an agenda and unless you are particularly lucky in your school research skills which would enable you to pick apart the message on offer are not taught.
In a UK context it has been fascinating to see the visceral hatred of those, claiming to be the better educated, who wished to remain in the European Union for those who voted to leave its unlovely clutches. The latter are mocked and insulted in a fashion which you would expect in a bar at closing time rather than in posts on Facebook…but then, you don`t risk receiving a bunch of fives on FB…….
It is a fascinating period in American history. It led to both the Gilded Age in the North (with the so-called Robber Barons amassing huge fortunes) and the Jim Crow era in the South (with incredible poverty among blacks and whites, and terrible violence, much of it directed at blacks).
There is a constant bleating about wealth disparity in the US today, but what exists at present in terms of wealth disparity is nothing compared to that which occurred in the second half of the 19th century. Compare the likes of Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc., with sharecroppers in the South, immigrants in Northern and Midwestern cities, and those trying to scratch out a living in the west.
It always seemed to me that there was little constructing done during Reconstruction.
That pretty much sums it as far as I can tell, too.
I’ve recently noted, too, that the war itself devastated the South, with homes, crops towns, and everything of value burned, looted, sacked, and trampled. Reconstruction only made it worse. Some of us who call that war the “War of Northern Aggression” consider the slavery issue a minor one, with the resentment much deeper and more pervasive than mere racism.
And the opposite side would argue we had it coming, for all our “sins.” I honestly fail to see how survivors who gathered at Gettysburg for the 50th reunion of the battle could shake with former enemies, yet there is such vitriol today. Perhaps if the North had lifted a finger to help rebuild the South, instead of plundering during and after the war, things would have been a whole lot different for everyone, white and black alike.
That sanctimonious Yankee attitude continues, which may be the current divider between North and South.
I thought the mass media was heavily biased long before Donald Trump took issue with it. It likes to foster animosity for ratings and readership, and of course, it follows the officially sanctioned line., out of New York and Washington. The Gettysburg 50th didn’t have TV news telling them how to think.