TAC: Reconstruction Revisionism

Helen Andrews recently published one of the best articles that I have ever seen at The American Conservative on Reconstruction.

TAC:

“The wholesale reinterpretation of history around a left-wing narrative about race, which the 1619 Project is trying to accomplish for the rest of the American story, was first trialed on the history of Reconstruction. For most of the 20th century, Reconstruction was seen as a squalid and shameful coda to the Civil War when Northern Radicals and carpetbaggers enacted their wildest fantasies of humiliation and spoliation on a prostrate South. Starting in the 1960s, a group of revisionist historians began arguing that Reconstruction had actually been a noble experiment in interracial democracy, too quickly abandoned. It is noteworthy that this line started being touted only after the last people with firsthand memories of Reconstruction had died.

The ur-text of this revisionist school is W.E.B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction (1935), now reissued in a deluxe edition by the Library of America. In his introduction, Du Bois promises a straightforward history, differing from its predecessors only in that “I am going to tell this story as though Negroes were ordinary human beings.” In fact the book is much more than that, a bold attempt to apply a Marxist framework to the Civil War period, from the “general strike” of labor that supposedly crippled the Confederate war effort to the “counterrevolution of 1876” that overthrew the Reconstruction governments’ “dictatorship of labor.”

Black Reconstruction is not the sort of book any scholar would want as the foundation of a new interpretive school. Du Bois was no historian. He consulted only limited sources and did no original archival research, an omission that “disturbed many scholars, several of whom dyspeptically noted the author’s generous foundation support,” according to his biographer David Levering Lewis. The germ of the project was a dispute Du Bois had with the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica in 1929. They commissioned an entry on black history from him, which he withdrew when they asked him to delete some excessively rosy passages on Reconstruction. Obviously the Britannica editors wanted a racially progressive spin on history, or they would not have gone to Du Bois. But there is a line between creative reinterpretation and outright fantasy, and in their professional opinion, Du Bois had crossed it. …”

I covered a lot of the same ground in my Southern History Series.

As Eric P. Kaufmann noted in his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, this sweeping revision of American history by leftists began in the late 1920s and early 1930s:

The nature of the American historical narrative changed somewhat between 1875 and 1925, but it was not until the 1930s that a new generation of historians began to interpret the United States as a truly cosmopolitan melting pot. Historiography during the 1875-1925 period therefore completely reflected the double-consciousness of liberal American ethnicity. As Edward Saveth notes, the American academy combined a belief that the United States was an Anglo-Saxon country which ought to defend its ethnic boundaries with the universalist idea of the United States as a refuge for the world’s oppressed and a composite melting pot (Saveth 1948: 13-14). …

American historians, though lagging some years behind their social science colleagues, also abandoned ethnocentric historiography with remarkable swiftness (Kennedy 1977: 94-96; Plumb 1969). The change actually began in the years after 1925, which witnessed a growing retreat from romantic history writing – the only remaining practitioners being the immigrant “filiopietist” ethnohistorians. Evidence of the emerging sensibility can be gleaned from the pages of contemporary professional history journals. “In the early twenties,” Kathy Scales observes, “there are, for the first time, a number of articles on particular ethnic groups among colonial immigrants, and from 1932 to 1935 the same kind of emphasis is seen on the contributions of particular ethnic groups to the Revolution” (Scales 1991: 285).

The fact that even defenders of the teaching of American mythic history abjured the privileging of “old Americans” in the nation’s historical narrative demonstrates the magnitude of the change that had already occurred by 1935. For instance, Howard Mumford Jones, after defending the need for a mythic history to inspire the nation, added: “‘Old Americans’ (hateful phrase!) tend to take the point of view that American history is their private possession because they were here first. Aside from the fact that the only persons entitled to the benefit of this silly argument are the Indians, the assumption is not even true’” (quoted in Scales 1991: 287-288).

The rise of fascism in the mid-1930s helped galvanize the more pluralistic worldview outlined above. “The confrontation with Nazism [had] induced a shift in liberal sensibilities,” argues Gary Gerstle, “that was, in the 1930s, subtle but would, in the 1940s, achieve seismic proportions. The magnitude of this shift can be discerned in the outpouring of books on racial problems and religious prejudice during the 1940s. Causes that had languished on the liberal agenda – civil rights … and immigration reform – were now embraced” (Gerstle 1994: 1070)

Gerstle correctly asserts that cultural issues pertaining to ethnicity and race became more prominent with the rise of fascism and war (Gleason 1992: 165-166). Yet the crucial shifts in consciousness that he describes were already in place by the early 1930s, providing a vital substratum that conditioned the American response to fascism. In the words of E. Digby Baltzell, “the central ideas of the New Social Science, largely developed before the First World War … finally came into their own as the dominant view of man and society, in the course of the thirties … they now shared John Dewey’s faith in the plasticity of human nature” (Baltzell 1964: 270-271).

As the 1930s progressed, Anglo-Saxon ancestralism came to be totally eclipsed within American academic historiography. Marcus Lee Hansen, a student of Frederick Jackson Turner, consummated this process with his immigrant-centered interpretation of American identity (Saveth 1948: 202, 204-208). Steeped in the new left-liberal thinking of his day, Hansen took issue with aspects of Turner’s thesis. Insisting that Turner had overemphasized the role of the frontier and underemphasized immigrant contributions, Hansen, described as “America’s first transethnic historian,” stated in 1938 that the American, though influenced by the British strain, was also a product of the world’s cultural diversity. No longer the province of Anglo-Protestant pioneers, the American story would increasingly revolve around the experience of urban immigrants, arriving by steamship to forge a new industrial civilization (Shenton 1990: 252). Hansen’s position was supported by fellow historian T.C. Blegen, who observed that scholarship post-Turner revealed “a new emphasis … an emphasis that took into account the varied background of the racial elements that lend color and richness to the epic of America (quoted in Saveth 1948: 219).

Hansen and Blegen, though pioneers in the field of American historiography, should not be accorded to much significance. Nor should American socialists. Rather, the rise of cosmopolitan Americanism must be traced to the turn-of-the-twentieth-century activity of the Liberal Progressives, who distilled anarchist and Social Gospel influences into a coherent and grounded program. Their egalitarian ethics, infused with a strong dose of secular liberalism, gave birth to the archetypal modern American vision: that of a universal, humanistic, melting pot nation, drawn from all corners of the world, in which the Anglo-Saxon was but one influence among many …

“The new doctrine rapidly established a foothold in the nation’s school history texts. “The notion that America was a ‘melting pot’ entered the majority of the texts during the forties,” writes Frances FitzGerald. “In the forties and fifties, it was the catch phrase for all discussions of the immigrants, and the Statue of Liberty was the illustration beside them (FitzGerald 1979: 80). I am not suggesting that Lazarus’s ideas , or the statue’s universalist interpretation, were entirely unacceptable prior to the 1930s. However, before this time, universalism had its place – a place it was forced to share with Anglo-Protestant symbolism.”

Pretty much everything that followed should be understood as American history as seen and interpreted and understood by progressive liberals or Marxists through the prism of their own ideology and values. They are people who are writing about the past from the perspective of their own times. The “anti-racism” craze, for example, didn’t infect and overwhelm liberals until the late 1930s/early 1940s. As time goes on, you will find the rise of feminist takes on history or queer theory inspired takes on gender.

Eric Levitz is whining about the article.

New York Magazine:

“In a recent column for The American Conservative, Helen Andrews argues that Reconstruction — that brief slice of the 19th century during which Black Southerners enjoyed extensive political rights under the aegis of Northern Republicans — was “objectively bad.” Further, she insists that the “only possible reason for lionizing this traumatic episode,” as today’s mainstream historians do, “would be if you had an ulterior political reason to do so.” She proceeds to suggest that the conception of Reconstruction as “a noble experiment in interracial democracy” is crypto-communist agitprop. …”

About Hunter Wallace 12141 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

14 Comments

  1. I’m seeing more stuff like this these days. Apparently it’s getting somewhat safer to write things like this. At least away from the progressive bubbles

  2. Curious article by Helen Andrews. I agree with it, but it’s still curious for the following reasons:

    1. There is no “conservative” take on Reconstruction anymore. Decades ago, Conservative Inc. – including mildly dissident branches like The American Conservative – embraced Revisionist Reconstruction (Andrews correctly notes that DuBois is the ur Revisionist), which sees all forms of Southern white resistance as “white racial terrorism.” I expect many of her colleagues at AmCon will be horrified by this article.

    2. I watched the authoress on C-span a few months ago explain she had been all for taking down Confederate statues, but was having second thoughts after the Woke Tornado started knocking down Lincoln & Teddy Roosevelt. However, she avoided saying Lee, Jackson, et al., should actually be defended.

    So I suspect this was a writing assignment: “Miss Andrews, we need a hit piece on that nasty old commie pet of the Left, W.E.B., because they’re re-publishing a book of his with bells on & we here on the Right don’t like that at all.” In other words, not a carefully considered push-back against Reconstruction Revisionism (really the academic orthodoxy for the past 50 yrs), but knee-jerk, generic anti-Marxism.

    I could be wrong & this is really a brave sally by Helen against Wokeism. She was quickly attacked on twitter by a female history prof from her alma mater, Yale, and now (watch out!) New York Magazine. I expect the attacks will continue, & widen & National Review & soon someone from American Conservative itself will denounce her. (Some comments there are blazingly hostile.)

    And I will not be surprised if we see her retract, recant, climb down, & maybe go on a tearful apology tour before this is over.

    If she doesn’t, it’s a good sign. Who knows, maybe Andrews is a VDARE – AmRen reader, a race-realist mole!

  3. In the Wikipedia entry for James S. Pike, (((Cultural Marxist))) “historians” of course attempt to discredit him as a horrible racist who only opposed slavery at all because he was a Free Soiler who resented arrogant slaveowners – but one of them was forced to admit that:

    Historian Mark Summers concludes that Pike stressed the sensational, but “however maliciously and mendaciously he shaded his evidence, his accounts squared with those of his colleagues Charles Nordhoff of the New York Herald and H.P. Redfield of the Cincinnati Commercial.[12] James Freeman Clarke, a leading Boston abolitionist, visited South Carolina and reported back to his Boston congregation that the facts presented by Pike, “were confirmed by every man whom I saw”

    So either Pike was right, or they all were just a bunch of rabid nigger-hating liars.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shepherd_Pike

  4. The original Klan was formed after the War to protect White Southerners from being exploited or otherwise harmed by the Yankees and their newly emancipated nigras. So I would say there was nothing noble about Reconstruction. I’m surprised the Great Depression of the 1930s, followed by the Dust Bowl, didn’t radicalize millions of American workers, farmers and university students into becoming Communists or Fascists. I guess the FBI under Hoover did a good job in preventing that from happening?

  5. The defeat of NS set the stage for all of this now happening in the US and many parts of Europe. The wrong enemy was defeated.

  6. Look how many millions of minds Howard Zinn poisoned with his People’s History of the United States. Then count the millions of Americans propagandized by Zinn wannabe’s…

    Zinn a Russian Jewish immigrant and communist/socialist did more damage to America than any nuclear weapon.

    • They hate the Russians more than anyone else, that is why they are fomenting war between Russia and NATO. Two birds with one stone from their point of view.

      • I’ve seen a lot of PBS documentaries and interviews that featured Zinn but I never got around to reading his “A People’s History of the United States”. Nor did I ever read William Shirer’s equally jewy book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

    • The secular Talmudist but fairly accurate historian Howard Zinn did more damage to European countries, not much to the U.S. He flew numerous U.S. bombing missions during WW2, personally killing thousands of people in Germany and other countries, and infamously dropped napalm on a French beach resort at the very end, in 1945. Then he turned anti-war.

      • George McGovern dropped bombs on Germany with apparently no remorse but became very upset about the dropping of bombs on Hanoi and the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

  7. David French and the rest of NR: “The Conservative Case for why Reconstruction was Great”. If you can’t trust David French and his wife’s black boyfriend, who can you trust?

  8. The Neocon/neolib/neo-“marxist” New York Times’ “1619 Project” (propaganda) is a falsification of history that supports the capitalist system by deflecting attention and blame from economic exploitation to focus on “racism.” It claims that the American revolution was actually a counterrevolution designed to protect slavery from emancipation that was beginning in Britain; and that Lincoln was a racist and therefore the Civil War was really about tariffs, and unrelated to the abolition of slavery; and that racism and slavery are the essential elements of American exceptionalism; and that the true history of the U.S. is essentially the history of struggle between the white and black races, and of White supremacy and anti-Black racial hatred. Note that the New York Times’ “history” (reactionary racial myth) completely ignores class, capitalist exploitation of labour and class conflict that is the true nature and history of the U.S. empire.

    Modern revisionisms of Reconstruction and “De-reconstruction” history emphasizing racial injustice against Blacks or against southern Whites also distract from seeing the reality of class exploitation, which is the direct CAUSE of the existence of African slavery and the inevitable interracial conflict of different, incompatible cultures.

Comments are closed.