"reconstruction" Topic

link

My own view, fwiw, is that Reconstruction tragically split the difference between Lincoln's "restore the Union as quickly as possible" with the radical Republicans' "treat the south as a conquered province." It exacerbated the southern hatred of the north while leaving the wealthy planter class in economic control (because they owned the land). True land reform -- breaking up the big plantations and giving the freedmen "40 acres and a mule" -- would have been REALLY radical and might have produced some benefits. As it was, the Radical Reps draconian policies achieved relatively little except to create the Solid South.

And yes, duBois was a very bad historian.

I am inclined to agree with you doc. duBois used a lense that did not see history as an objective record based on research and scholarship.
He is hardly the "conventional " basis for the revisionism of respected scholars today, however.

The American Conservative is also not objective and the writer cites Foner and Marxism as issues. I would point out her association with Claremont and the Washington Examiner as something to think about when considering her own opinions on this. We swing too far in opposite directions and miss the forest for the trees. Teaching about duBois in objectives context might be a start.

Your solution raises a lot of issues about land ownership and government overreach in complex a post war environment. But it might indeed have done better.

Of course it was unavoidable that Reconstruction as a whole would lie somewhere in a No Man's Land between presidential and congressional recon. And yes, I am aware of scholarship that somewhat redeems (see what I did there!) the reputation of the carpetbaggers' state governments. History ALWAYS reflects the time it is written in, and of course the view of the early Progressives (especially the Wilsonians) was very different from what was done in the Civil Rights era. When I teach Recon, I try to strike a balance. It was harsh enough to cement sectional hostility for the next half century or more, but not nearly as harsh as it COULD have been. As with many middle grounds, it got the worst of both alternatives.

+ 1 Tortorella

Tort, what source would you consider "objective"? Facts can be objective, but historians, not. "Objective" generally means, in reality, "agrees with me." Even a careful historian, trying to be objective and tell the truth, must still be selective in WHICH facts he looks at and incorporates or stresses in his narrative. That selection process reflects all sorts of inevitable subjective factors. In the OP, we have a conservative ideologue critiquing Marxist ideologues. Much of the time that is where the battle lines are drawn.

The OP mentions the numerous contemporary testimonies of the corruption of carpetbagger governments. The southerners may be discounted due to racism -- but ignoring first hand testimony because you do not like the source is not exactly "objective" either. The northern reformers who deplored the corruption are perhaps, more reliable -- though probably Republican enemies of Democratic machines such as Tammany and therefore biased. As I say, selecting and weighting "facts" is inevitably subjective.

You are the OP, doc, are you not? The article is your link. IMO, "objective" as a characteristic of historical work, means, among a number of things, no current political agenda and the name calling and tone that goes with it. duBois was not objective, nor is this writer by not giving duBois's relevance fuller context.

i am no duBois expert. I know he could be controversial, but I think he was also an inspiration to many, a prolific writer who sought social justice. I do not know who a good source might be. I will look at the article again. There were a couple of phrases that stood out.

Ditto to Tortorella

I am the original poster but not the original post. As I indicated, I think the lady who wrote it makes a good case from within her own (and my own) conservative viewpoint, but she is no more "objective" than DuBois was.

There are degrees of subjectivity, and certainly some historians work outside the bounds of any explicit political ideology. But they still must take positions on fundamental questions of human nature and consensus versus continuity and such, and must decide what questions to ask and also what material to rely upon for answers. If they believe they do these things "objectively" they are naive, kidding themselves.

History is a literary art form. It differs from other creative art in that it takes as its goal, its standard, "what really happened." Truth. That limits the historian's creativity just as the sonnet limits the poet to 14 lines. The historical method has some similarities to the scientific method, but there are important differences too, and scientists are rarely thought of as artists. Historians should be.

Here is a quote in the article that struck me, as she talks about revisionists:

"With no tools other than repetition and vehemence, these brazen innovators succeeded in getting their misrepresentations enthroned as orthodoxy…"

I think that's been happening to us a lot lately and not from Marxists. I am far more concerned about Fascism.

You'll have to define "fascism" as I doubt you mean Mussolini? Nationalistic? totalitarian? favoring a centrally managed economy? An example or two would be nice?

Perhaps, but as you say, they are bound by the truth or they are by definition writing fiction. I cannot think of an art form that would be as constrained. But good history writing is better than any novel. If it has an bias not backed up by fact, the magic goes out of it. Sears walks this line well, Cation too. Atkinson is very promising. Many others can tell the truth in story form. Perhaps that is an art.

We should stay out of trouble doc, my bad for bringing it up. And I am appalled by the misspelling of Catton by autocorrect or whatever it is.

Catton's AOP trilogy was one of my first great loves. And I agree that Atkinson is very good.

And mine as well! I just reread it last year. I feel like I can hear those old vets' voices in it.

I notice Tortorella, that you agree that Dubois does not provide an objective interpretation of Reconstruction. You then make what I would call an ad hominem attack on Helen Andrews and The American Conservative. That is, you don't seem to seriously engage the argumentation and interpretation in the article but, rather, question the legitimacy of the author and the publication itself. I don't think that is a fair way to engage the article. I think a better way is to interact with Helen Andrews' argument. Personally, I can't do that because I haven't read enough about Reconstruction to have an opinion so I simply note it and file it away.

I think it perfectly acceptable, and in fact good practice, to note and consider out of what philosophy or viewpoint a writer is coming. But it is something we should do in ALL cases, ESPECIALLY when writers either claim or simply assume that they themselves are "objective" and somehow not prey to all the human subjectivities of writing history. I TRUST a writer like Helen Andrews who makes clear her own ideological position; I can then discount it if I desire. I DO NOT TRUST those who claim to be, e.g., "independent fact checkers" who mostly are not. Tell me your bias; if you deny you have one, you are either fooling yourself or trying to fool me and so less worth listening to.

Perhaps doc but the primary task, in my estimation, is to engage that actual argument. What people often do is ignore the argument by dismissing the agent. That is not good. What precisely in Andrews' argument is objectionable historically speaking? That is what I want to know. Her own political views are less germane in my opinion.

I get what you are saying, Marcus and perhaps I am wrong.

The author is clear about objecting to the new edition of the duBois book. She claims it is the basis for the new conventional wisdom about the topic, but no source for this is mentioned. From the start she makes clear this is part of a left wing takeover. There is no way I can take this as not part of her argument – duBois was wrong about a lot of things and his book is taking over conventional wisdom in a left wing coup.

And no nod in passing to some of duBois' achievements, to give the reader a little context.

That's what I thought, for what it's worth.

It is possible to be objective about the ACW itself. Most would agree that Reconstruction failed. However it is not possible to discuss how and why Reconstruction failed without first stating what Reconstruction should have achieved. This is why it is more difficult to objectively discuss Reconstruction.

DuBois's analysis of Reconstruction isn't important because it was more factually correct than the mainstream historical thought about Reconstruction in his time. DuBois's analysis is important because it approached Reconstruction from a different point of view than the mainstream historical thought of his time. Ms. Andrews asks that we assess DuBois's analysis of Reconstruction not from DuBois's point of view, but rather from Ms. Andrews'.

Ah…thank you for this Bill, much clearer. And it leads me to Ms Andrews first sentence, which names the 1619 Project.

I had been under the impression, as is Ms. Andrews, that 1619 was seizing the American historical narrative in some sort of educational takeover. It turns out to be a collection of essays from writers in various walks of life some of whom are quite good. I do not agree with everything they say, but it is their perspective that I find interesting. I used to be more of a conservative, know the playbook, but I have never been black.

"Tell me your bias…" This makes great advice doc, and is essential to critical thinking. You can get a lot more than you may realize from reading various points of view. Once we start attacking and removing some of them, we begin to function at a different level.

To her credit, Ms Andrews gave us her bias right from the start. I was able to understand her content in that light.