Latest / Comps List Radio / Episode 8: John Hope Franklin, "Reconstruction After the Civil War," 1961
Transcript
- Robert Ferguson: Hello and welcome to Comp's List Radio from H-Pole. It's, ⁓ as I was just telling my wonderful co-host Marie, it's prime grading season here in American academia. So for those of you, you'll probably, by the time this episode is done, you'll probably all be done your grading. But I do hope that everybody, everybody who's a TA or whether they're a professor has had a had a good semester and can look forward to a highly productive summer. Marie, are you looking forward to a highly productive summer? Oh, of course. I'm just going to work straight through it. No break whatsoever. Oh no, I'm going to take a little bit of a break at the beginning here. I do have online classes, so a little bit of grading throughout the summer, but it's not going to be bad at all. I'm ready for a nice, smooth summer. That's what I'm going for. Well, that's I'm going for too. Here in the desert, it'll be a hot summer. ⁓ but maybe I can escape for a little bit up to the mountains, but I'll be escaping to the air conditioning where I can write. That's the plan. Yes, lots of writing. So this ⁓ is Robert Ferguson and I'm joined as always by Marie Todd. It's been a couple of months. just you and I've been on an episode. So I'm really looking forward to this. Yes, me too. And what a great book to start back to. Right, ⁓ you know, we are both Southern historians. And so we started the series by talking about C. Van Woodward, origins of the New South. ⁓ And then we kind of got away from the South a little bit because we, you know, we're trying to get, we're trying to incorporate everything as best we possibly can. And I know Marie that, you know, if we were left to our own devices, we would just do Southern history after Southern history. All the South. That could be an interesting podcast, but it would be a different podcast. Exactly. Exactly. ⁓ So we are, ⁓ we're coming back to the South just for one week. ⁓ This is going to be the last week before we begin our summer series. So while you're all being very highly productive and I know achieving everything that you intend to achieve over the summer, in fact, more than I'm sure you plan on writing over the summer and researching. We are going to be, we will be at work and we are going to do an extended series on books related to the American founding in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And hopefully that will be joined by several other scholars along the way. So that'll be an extended series that will take us throughout the summer. So this is probably the last book for a while that isn't going to deal directly with either the Revolutionary War. ⁓ or the constitutional period. So, although that doesn't mean we're not talking constitution. Right. So we've teased this book over the course of the last couple of months. This is John Hope Franklin's Reconstruction After the Civil War. ⁓ Marie, was this book on your comps list? No, but Fonner's book was on my comps list. And that's part of the reason I thought this book was so important to do because of course, Fonner's reconstruction book comes when you don't have Fonner without Franklin. And so I think a lot of younger scholars probably have Fonner. I mean, if you're an American historian, you have to know who Eric Fonner is. And so they're not going to know where that comes from necessarily. And so that's why I think Franklin is so important because so much work comes from this work specifically, but his work in general. Yeah. you know, for anybody who's a Southern historian or anybody who encounters Southern history, ⁓ reconstruction is a major, it is one of the turning point periods, right? Yeah. And it's one of the most contested periods in the historiography. ⁓ and I do think that there, probably everybody, everybody still has Foner on their cons lists. The Foner's book on reconstruction. which I think is 1983. Do you think it's about your head? Yes. I don't know I got it in my head, but I may have that in my notes somewhere. Yeah. Um, and for those who, you know, didn't read the granular details of the introduction to that book and maybe who got through it relatively quickly or forgotten, I think there's this tendency in the And when we think of the historiography of reconstruction, at least among younger scholars, this wouldn't be the case for older scholars, but at least among more junior scholars, is we know the Dudding School existed. And then W. B. Du Bois' Black Reconstruction is published in the 30s, but it's sort of on an island. Right. then There's a couple other things, you know going on but then Foner comes out in the 80s and kind of a D a that was it. Yeah. Okay and Reestablishes the reconstruction field finally and it's like post-dunning school form But there are other things going on and we really don't spend any time Talking about them. I mean, I think people might be aware that kind of stamp wrote a book on reconstruction and kind of the early and kind of the mid sixties. But again, there's not really ⁓ in the post Dunning School era, we kind of forget everything until Foner or at least we aren't we we don't focus on it. Is that a fair is that a fair appraisal? I think so. Yeah, I think we think of that work as the definitive. post-Dunning school, and we don't look at Franklin, and again, you're right about Du Bois just on an island on his own, ⁓ not accepted by all historians. So important, extremely important, but it is the 80s when we think of this post-Dunning school when it comes to reconstruction. Yeah. So, I mean, it always did sort of seem like there, it's a surprising 40 year gap. between the end of the Dunning School and Foner. And so what we're gonna talk about is probably one of the most important books anyway at that gap, arguably the most important book in that gap. But I'm gonna be honest, John Hope Franklin wasn't on my comps list either. again, that's not a consequence of the person who designed my comps list, I launched it. drew up my consulates and I just wasn't aware of them. so Marie, are you able to give us a little bit of a background on John Hope Franklin, who he was? Yes. I mean, he is such an impressive man and scholar. So often known as the Dean of African-American history. Although he did, he wanted to be an American historian. He didn't want to be a black historian or an African-American historian. So his goal was to incorporate black history into American history, one in the same. But his kind of most important work is from Slavery to Freedom, which is considered like the textbook on African-American history. So if African-American history had been one of our fields, we would have, we would know Franklin. Absolutely. ⁓ And so a little bit of background. Born near Tulsa, Oklahoma, they moved to Tulsa, right? His family moved to Tulsa right after the ⁓ Tulsa race massacre. And his father was a lawyer who actually helped win cases for ⁓ black citizens in Tulsa to get ⁓ money for property damage. And so he won some of those cases. So from the very beginning, Franklin grew up in this environment of activism, whether through the legal system or seeing it on the ground. ⁓ He will go on graduate from Fisk and then eventually go to Harvard and he will work under Arthur Schlesinger Jr. or senior, excuse me, senior. So part of that progressive school, but would not be a progressive historian revisionist. He's a revisionist historian. I think we could say the whole way here. ⁓ Graduates in their early 40s, teaches at HBCUs for a while, including Howard. He's going to go on to work and be the department head at Brooklyn College. where he's going to face racial discrimination. Like throughout his career doing research, teaching at these schools, just this impressive, extremely impressive career here. He is going to face that racial discrimination within the field and he's just going to keep going forward. He wants to be an American historian. He wants black history to be American history. And so that's how he's going to frame his historical research. I mean, he works with Thurgood Marshall to write the brief that becomes Brown versus Board of Education. I mean, he is involved in all of these important moments throughout this period. And the book we're looking at today, he published in 1961 and Stamps going to publish a few years later, his own book on reconstruction. And this is the period, mean, 61, 63 is when King gives his speech. the March on Washington when he's talking about like the second reconstruction, when he's talking about the promise of emancipation. And so the scholarship is happening during this period in the 1960s where you do have this idea of a second reconstruction. And so the Dunning School is being challenged again after Du Bois, you know, much earlier. And that's what Franklin is part of this tradition of. So he is this in between, between Du Bois and Fauner that we often forget here. And that work is, even though it's not his most famous work, he redefines this field. He redefines the way we look at reconstruction and he'll go on to publish, I think, I want to say 15 books he'll publish throughout his career and in many, many articles, know, reviews, I mean, just a prolific scholar here. And eventually he will end up at Duke University where he will be a department head and then affiliated with Duke for. I think almost 30 years before death in 2009. So just an extremely influential scholar. He is a contemporary of Woodward, who of course we've talked about. Woodward worked to integrate the Southern Historical Association so that Franklin could attend the conferences. And so just again, just at every level he's here influencing this work and he's someone we don't read and we don't talk about. as much as we should anymore. Yeah, I think that's true. I wonder, Marie, is that When you read this book, and I'd never read it before. I'm as guilty as anybody, I'd never read it before. It felt like the perfect, you could just feel the civil rights movement echoing through this book. Right? His legacy or his parents or his father being a lawyer, ⁓ it comes through here. It's a, ⁓ well, let me ask, sorry, Marie, you know, we talked a little bit him. What did you think of the book? I really enjoyed the book and I can see it as the stepping stone. So it's extremely obvious why it is so important once you read it. I mean, it really does. It is this transition from the Dunning School and he really does tear that argument apart. He's not, I wouldn't say he's overtly aggressive about it, but he doesn't shy away from what he's doing in this work. But I really enjoyed it. Well organized, extremely well researched. I mean, he shows in, in, from slavery to freedom and in this work that you can study black Americans where before scholars had said, the scholarship isn't there. The archives don't have these sources. It's not possible. And Franklin says it is possible. And he shows it's possible. And I think that comes across here as well. I mean, of course, other scholars will build more on this work and bring in other voices, especially other, you know, black voices from the reconstruction south. But he lays the foundation here in this work. So I really enjoyed it. Did you enjoy it? Yeah, I really did. Again, after reading Foner and after reading a lot of the stuff that comes out in the nineties and two thousands, I might be able to understand why this book might not be on your cons list. The reason being that You read it after reading all of those scholars and you're like, and it does feel, maybe loses its originality is perhaps lost in 2026 because he won the argument. Right. You just didn't know we wanted the argument. You didn't know that he was one of the first people launching the argument. You don't realize he won. Exactly. And, so, you know, you're going back and reading this and maybe some of its, ⁓ power is lost. in 2026 if you don't understand the moment. Right. I think that's right. You know, but at the same time, I think I'd assign this on a consul is maybe a before phone. Yeah, I mean, you don't you would it would help you understand what he's building on. Absolutely. And not just that. It's way shorter. Point. That's a very good point. There's not much in Foner. you know, if you're not a Southern historian, okay, and you're not going to emphasize like reconstructions, it's critical period. If you're into Southern history, it's really an important period, obviously. But if you're not a Southern historian and you just need one book on reconstruction to teach out of, that's a great book to teach out of. Yeah. Yes. Same narrative. I mean, this is what I teach. I just thought it came from Foner. I didn't know it came from Franklin. But it is exactly the way that I teach reconstruction because like you said he won this argument. This is the generally accepted narrative of reconstruction. And it is a lot shorter. It's a lot shorter. I mean, mean, it's probably it's a really good seminar book, too. I think it's I think this is approachable for an undergraduate. In a way that, like even today, where people theoretically don't read books, although that's nonsense, but the people don't read books. I think it's as approachable in a way that the tone, that phoners tone might not be. Yeah, I agree with that. ⁓ So, you know, if you people listening when you're teaching a class and reconstruction comes up or you need to you need to look for a resource to teach out or for reconstruction, they'd pull this book. Yeah, would assign it for sure. Yeah So Marie we aren't so sung appraises of the book a little bit What's ⁓ What's really his point in writing this book you mentioned that you know This grand notion of that. He didn't just want to be writing african-american history He wanted to be writing American history and that absolutely comes through in this book, which is it for the Du Bois's book, right? Right. Du Bois's book is very clearly, you know, despite, you know, aside from his many, many, strengths and it has many strengths, it's clearly activists. It's very activist. Yeah. And even though this book, you know, John Hope Franklin is clearly an act, you know, is an activist too. He's trying to write this in the trick, the historiographical tradition. Right. It's very. ⁓ Du Bois is doing that too. That's not fair. ⁓ But it just feels different than Du Bois is. Yeah, Du Bois is more Marxist and Franklin doesn't go that direction at all. Maybe that's So I think that's one of the major differences between the two. But I agree there. mean, they're both looking at good sources. I think Du Bois is more ⁓ activist, but that's who he was. You know that of course that's gonna come across because that's who he was and Franklin did not see himself that way And so I think that that tone definitely separates the two Yeah, and and it's a This is this is also a very political history whole absolutely Franklin's book. It's very politically And not necessarily from the ground up right this is a there's aspects of very traditional political history in this book. Absolutely. ⁓ But so, Maureen, what's his argument? That Reconstruction was not this failure that the Dunning School painted it to be. That there, I mean, he, you know, the Dunning School is Reconstruction is... ⁓ It's the, the Northern, the Northern politicians, Northern radicals coming into the South, taking over the South for a period of time. It's just corruption at the hands of these northerners, these carpet backers that are coming in. Black Americans who are being elected to office are incapable or corrupt. And so you have this that he's pushing back against and he very carefully, Franklin very carefully dismantles this argument. that and he acknowledges corruption during reconstruction, but he puts it within the larger context of the Gilded Age and of this period that after the Civil War where you do have corruption across the country. It's not just unique to the American South to the carpet baggers that come in. It is this is what's going on in the country during this period. He lays out how not all of the Republican governments, in fact, the majority of them were not malicious in their intent. They were not corrupt in their intent, especially to start out. He lays out here what Congress is doing. He lays out what Johnson is doing right after Lincoln's assassination. And so he very carefully dismantles the Dunning School's argument about Reconstruction step by step, chapter by chapter. And each chapter builds on the other in a way that Like you said, it's very accessible. You don't have to know a lot about reconstruction to read this book. mean, as long as you know it exists, you can get a lot out of this, out of this text because he lays it out. And you talk about the top down, ⁓ traditional political history. I mean, it's there when he talks about Johnson, when he talks about Congress, when he talks about the reconstruction amendments, when he talks about the reconstruction governments. And that's part of the criticism he gets is he's not looking at the bottom up, but that's not what he's trying to do here. That is, that's not the purpose of this. And so just mainly that Dunning School argument, laying out what reconstruction was, discussing how these Republican governments in the South are formed, how we get the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment and the effects of that. I really enjoyed how he went through the state conventions when discussing the reconstruction amendments. And I think he did an excellent job. I think he almost does a better job than Fonner here when he breaks down those state conventions. I mean, it's just, I learned more from this than I, you know, about these state conventions and the arguments going on within, than I knew before. And I learned quite a bit about Johnson, although Fonner does talk about Johnson quite a bit, but I learned a lot about Johnson and the way that he approached this. mean, often we look at him as flat and a failure. You know, he's just, he's not the man that we needed after Lincoln's assassination, but he complicates that in many ways. So I know that's a little all over the place, but that's essentially what he's talking about here. Yeah. I think that's, I think that's correct. mean, that broadly that reconstruction was ⁓ more successful than it's been characterized as, less corrupt than it's been characterized as. That, ⁓ that the black ⁓ office holders and politicians who were, or the representatives who were elected and were involved in the political process, that black people executed their franchise very responsibly, as well as any, you know, well as any other citizen. And that the people that, and that the black members of the various, ⁓ you know, conventions and governments and, and that were representatives were, were as competent as anybody else. Yeah. And sometimes more so. Yes. He talks about, mean, he just lays out the potential that reconstruction had. This potential to remake the country in this more democratic light. ⁓ And I think, I mean, and that's what the Dunning School said. No, there's no, this was not potential. This was corruption. This was terrible for the South. And at the end, the redeemers, as they were called by the Dunning School ⁓ historians, were the ones who saved the South. where Franklin says, no, they're the ones that, I mean, the potential is gone. I mean, the ending of this book is absolutely tragic. You know how it ends. know, as historians, know how Reconstruction ends, but that last chapter, how he lays that out, it's just tragic all over again. And he does, he just does a very, I mean, eloquent job of stating that. Yeah. ⁓ it's a, ⁓ We do, you know what, I this conversation, I really think we need to find somebody who's like an expert on the Dunning School to come on a podcast. No, well, we're Southern historians. We're going to. But I think we really do need to bring on somebody who's like a real expert on the Dunning School to really talk about it, because, know, I've only read little bits here and there. And I mean, I don't think any of us have read very much of it. Right. And it would be useful to have somebody come on and the kind of layout. OK, you know. What is it? What was it? Who are the different players? How do they differ from each other? That kind of thing. ⁓ But there's no doubt that this book destroys whatever, least my understanding of the Dunning School's arguments would have been. And he has this notion that it was an opportunity It wasn't perfect. Nothing about it was perfect. It was a political process. It was very political. Yes. And this is one of the other things that Franklin does very well is he had no point makes anybody in. There's no angels here. No, you know, people are all self-interested. However, that doesn't mean that because they're not just because they're self-interested doesn't mean they can't accomplish great, good, great and good things. Right. And ⁓ that. I mean, he does a really interesting job of that tension between you mentioned Johnson, between Johnson and the radical Republicans. Yes. And I learned a lot. in that. And he does by no means does he treat the radical Republicans as like all these great, wonderful, you know, benevolent figures. Right. And he also doesn't say Johnson's all that either. Yes. ⁓ there's there's great there's there's so much gray here. Yes. Ultimately, he comes down that Andrew Johnson was a terrible, you know, was not good at it. Yeah. But he also shows how the radical Republicans at times overplay their hand with Johnson and cause Johnson to be worse than he otherwise might have been. Right. Which I think is interesting and very subtle. And again, why this is ultimately H-Poll, so it's a political history podcast. That subtlety of how, and there's misunderstandings on all sides too. you know, and how those misunderstandings create these crises and lost opportunities. And I just think it's, yeah, I just really appreciated it. I really enjoyed it. Can I say? Yeah. Yeah. And as political historians, those kind of Johnson on the campaign trail, you know, kind of bashing these radical Republicans in Congress, they already see him as an outsider. And it's those little pieces that are so interesting here. didn't realize that he was regularly on the stump calling to hang that Steve. Right. I these are not, this is not the way that I think people often think of 19th century politics and they were, they could get dirty. Yeah. I mean, there's sort of this notion, you know, the, the famous swing around the circle. where, you know, in 1866 for Johnson is campaigning for basically his form of reconstruction in the elections and the radicals were campaigning against him and his rhetoric on that campaign has not held up well for Johnson's austerity. ⁓ and so, and it was there, yeah, that he was, that he, guess he was finishing speeches with hang fad Stevens. Right. Right. And it didn't work out for him in the 1866 election either. No. And again, he and this is something that Franklin talks about is that Johnston is actually like like he's initially joined on the campaign trail by like Stewart and Grant. Right. But they melt away. Yeah. Yeah. The rhetoric is too much as the rhetoric just becomes like, ⁓ he's and again, and I think that shows That's interesting to me that, you know, here's Grant and Seward, you know, who are, you know, in many ways heroes of the emancipation, obviously the emancipation movement, you at least, and then abolitionism, you know, in the case of Seward previously. ⁓ You know, here they are. They're still working with Johnson. in middle of 66. And Grant continues to work with him through into 68, through guess loyal, anyway. it suggests that, and again, maybe this is my biggest criticism of I think how we understand reconstruction and it's not scholars, it's just the way that it's, is that we almost understand it as like three moments as opposed to like years. Right. It's this long, arduous political process. Right. And like, every day is like, you know, it's a 12 year process. It's a 12 year failure. Right. Right. That's a long time. And there's so much movement and there's so much fluidity in there. And anyway, it's just, it's, This book is so interesting because it really gets into that. does. And it separates. I like that you brought that up because we do. ⁓ Sometimes it's easier to teach undergrads. And we've talked about this before with other things. But in these little boxes, in these little periods, and we do talk about reconstruction as these three different periods. ⁓ And he does a good job of kind of mixing that all together. And I liked how he talked about presidential reconstruction as Confederate reconstruction. I thought that was Excellent an excellent way to frame it and I will be adopting that for my future classes when I talk about reconstruction Yeah, I'm so glad you brought that up because actually he answered a question I kind of had Yeah, I've read a lot of reconstructionist history. You think I'd have known this but maybe I did but I guess I've forgotten it I don't think I did know this But that there is this subtle difference? between the you know, the Lincoln reconstruction plan and the way that Johnson operates it in practice. Right. And there's a subtle distinction there where Johnson just gives them a little bit more freedom. It's not a lot more freedom. It turns out to be a lot more freedom, but it's not initially a lot more freedom. It's just, gives them a little, basically a little bit more of their own, ⁓ own self supervision, I guess is the way to, put it and makes critical. You don't get, you don't get the former Confederates elected to Congress. Right without that you don't get the black coats without that, right? It just and it allows them to become states and have you know, civil authorities so much faster Than lincoln intended Right And I mean, I guess i'd always known that johnson operated differently but franklin and I don't remember the mechanics off the top of my head right now i'd have to go back and read it but there are Franklin goes into the actual mechanics. Yes of how that happens. And it's, mean, it really impressed me. Yes. And he talks about, like that nuance you're talking about between Lincoln and Johnson. Johnson gave them just enough to be able to reestablish these Confederate governments. And it seems like they really thought, and I think this is one of Franklin's strengths, is showing that thought process through politics. But it seems like they really thought that they could create this society that was almost identical. You can call it slavery, but almost identical to the Antebellum Society. And so calling it Confederate reconstruction, I just perfected it. Well, and what it shows, and here's, think, again, more of the subtlety, is I don't think that was Johnson's intention. Yeah. And I don't think Franklin presents that as Johnson's intention. I think Franklin presents it as gets ahead, as Johnson loses control. Right. Exactly. He gives them just enough. He gives them what he thinks like he has his own practical problem. He's trying to resolve. And he does that by giving them a little bit more by giving them a little bit more freedom. He's thinking of Congress. He's not even thinking. Right. Of like the overall process here. And so or the overall implications. And but the Confederates read that as Johnson's on our side. Right. And that was not Johnson wasn't on their side. Right. He just, it gets out of his control and then he's held hostage by it. And he has to defend it. Right. And then it becomes his only power base. Right. Yeah. Especially as those radical Republicans are elected to office more and more and they get that majority in Congress. What? So again, what I love about this is he presents it as a mistake. Right. Like an error in judgment, not like some grand plan. It's an error in judgment. that then holds him hostage and handcuffs him to it. Right. Where that yield potential. Well, it always helps answer the question that I think most students have, which is how does Andrew Johnson, one of the most anti Confederate figures through the entire Civil War, a guy who, Carl Marx is writing about the Civil War in Europe, Basically when Lincoln's assassinated he laughs he's like the Confederates have no idea who they're dealing with now Right and every and you know The Radicals are really excited because they think Johnson might give them more freedom to be more punitive on the south than Lincoln did right So how does that Johnson become the later Johnson? Right, and I think you know the way that we typically explain it is well, you know you you he was anti-confederate, but he was also very racist Absolutely true and absolutely plays a role here, but Franklin shows the process. Right. It's not overnight. He's held hot, like he's held hostage to a certain degree by his, events. And there's this push and pull between his actions and reactions and misunderstandings everywhere. Right. That end up creating this very different Andrew Johnson than I think Andrew Johnson went into the office intending to be. Right. Right. I agree with you about that. I think that's right. ⁓ Anyway, ⁓ so we're political stories, we're talking about political stuff. You know, there's other stuff in this book too. ⁓ But one of the other things that politically that I loved about it is his chapter, I you mentioned it earlier, Marie, where he goes into the 1868 conventions, the state conventions in 1868, where these are the constitutional conventions that are being ⁓ organized in every state in order to pass the 14th Amendment. ⁓ It is a by their biracial voting rules. Yep for the first time and so before you there's really a general election the first time black people are voting in the south really is for the delegates to the 1868 constitutional conventions and They were derided at the time as the black and tan conventions by by their opponents And again, what I think is so great about this book is, it goes into like the mechanics of many of these conventions, not all of them. can't go into all of them. And as I mentioned, it's not a very long book. Right. You get the sense of what's being accomplished at these conventions. It's not just the passage of the four kingdoms. ⁓ no. Right. It's very, know, this is not the recreation of the antebellum society that you mentioned Marie, but without slavery. Exactly. Exactly. They're discussing the formation of an entirely new society, a society with the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, which does change society. I had an advisor in a dissertation advisor in graduate school who said every historian, every American should have the 14th Amendment tattooed on their body because it's just that pivotal moment where the United States changes. And that's what we see in this chapter that he's writing about these state conventions is they're talking about what the future of the country can look like if they ratify this amendment. And so I do think, again, he's so good at this nuance throughout the entire book. And he shows it so well in these state conventions that we often don't think about or talk about when we talk about the ratification of amendments. But that's where those debates are taking place. crucially, in many of these conventions, up to 50 % of the delegates are African Americans. Right. And they are absolutely involved in the drafting of these constitutions and the debates around these constitutions. And Franklin is very clear-eyed in the sense that says, know, many of them were well-educated. Mm-hmm. They were either learned to read ⁓ or had had parents that lived in the North or had lived in the North growing up in the North, whatever. James Rapier had been educated in Canada. ⁓ But there were many people there who were not. And, you know, had only been emancipated three or four years previously. And had given themselves a crash course. Right. And in three or four years had given themselves enough of a crash course where they could be effect. It's incredible. And you know what? And, know, on the one hand, you kind of do, I can almost imagine when you think about that, like, oh, somebody had been a slave in 1865 and then they're a delegate at the convention in 1868. They'd never been allowed to read. They'd never been. I can, you know, on the one hand, I can sort of understand that this like, well, how effective could they be? But you know, we're at a university. In four years, what's the difference in shaping somebody between an undergraduate and a senior? Yeah. a freshman and a senior. Now, the person who comes in as a freshman is already, at least in theory, although there's some times that I question this, able to read and write. Right. Whereas that wasn't the case in 1865. fully applying themselves. It's not, you know, three or four years. You can learn a lot in three or four years. Absolutely. I mean, a lot of school, you know, a lot of agrees only usually three years. Right. And so is it so difficult to imagine that something properly, that people properly applied with enough determination could not become, you know, if not the leaders of the conventions, at least very effective participants? Absolutely. And you have teachers coming from outside of the South who are committed to this, committed to this goal. So not only do you have their students absolutely committed, but you have teachers who can focus on that completely. And so it's absolutely, it's absolutely believable that they could come from enslavement to a ⁓ constitutional convention within three or four years. Yeah. Yeah. It's incredible. It's yeah, exactly. And I think that, again, one of the things that John Holm Franklin does here is in his in his writing is that I'd never really thought too long about that, I guess, before I read this book. You know, I'd thought, you know, was like, oh, okay, yeah, that's possible. I never really thought much about it. But like, he actually, you know, there's a couple of examples that he uses in the book where he says, you know, these are political organizations, these are delegates who are, you know, by all accounts, even by the 1860s, still undereducated by what you would expect in a delegate. as a delegate at a major constitutional convention. ⁓ Because again, they've only been learning for three or four years, right? But you know, it's still impressive how still in those three or four years, how much they could, they could learn and how effective they could be. And he, you know, there's two or three examples that he uses in that chapter. Just again, made me really, it gave me, it made me even more impressed, guess. Yeah, I agree. Than I already was. He doesn't sound well. He also, I think, does a really nice job ⁓ explaining the distinctions between the carpetbaggers, the various carpetbagging faction groups, the Scalawag faction, and then the Friedman faction. ⁓ And I think he also does a really nice job at how those various political factions all work together in the Republican Party ⁓ in the South. Right. And, you know, he explains they've got different interests, right? And that some groups are more capable of being captured by the conservatives than others. ⁓ get conservative for those who don't know, the conservatives were what a lot of the democratic parties called themselves at state level during re-construction. Yeah. and it was because there was a lot of dem, you know, the, Democrats were hoping to attract a lot of former Southern wigs. And those Southern wigs didn't want to be known as, still didn't want to be known as Democrats. Right. Right. Especially not at that point. Right. Right. So even though many of them had been secessionists, many of those former Whigs were secessionists, many those former Whigs were Confederates or Confederate sympathizers or fought in the war or whatever for the South, but as a politically, they never thought of themselves as Democrats. They still thought of themselves as Whigs. Right. And so the conservative name is sort of applied for about 15 years, maybe 10 years. I think so, yeah. Yeah, about a decade. Yeah. before that generation of Whig loyalists kind of die out. And they can just go back. And they've all kind of embraced the democratic identity. there is that. ⁓ In fact, maybe I can find it. There's a table in here, really, of the conventions of the chapter here. You'd think I'd have. It was a library book, so I didn't want to ⁓ fold ⁓ right. Right. But ⁓ he has this great chart where he goes through the various demographics and the making of the various conventions. maybe I'll find it. Maybe I won't find it. You were talking about how he breaks those conventions down into those three factions and then breaks the factions down into factions. And then he goes farther in. So he's talking about how all of these groups have ⁓ You know, some corruption, the conservatives as well, but there's some corruption. There's some benevolent intent in all of them and just completely again, getting pushing past this idea that it's only the carpet baggers. It's only the black delegates, the freedmen who are the corrupt ones, who are the ones who are incapable of this, who couldn't have known what they were doing. But by showing those factions within the factions, he's able to break that argument down. Right. you know, so if we, and he does such a good job, and again, he acknowledges the self-interested politics at play. Absolutely. Of everybody. Absolutely. And you know, that there There's railroad construction going on. There's corruption. This is the Republican Party in the 1860s and 1870s after all folks. Yes. Yes. Everywhere in the country, not only in the former Confederacy. Right. This is still the Republican Party at the time. It's pretty corrupt. know, Gould and Cook are involved guys. Right. ⁓ And ⁓ so, you know, There's an understanding of that. And he is aware that black politicians are as likely as anybody else to be corrupted. Right. In such a moment. And he recognizes that they're an obvious target. If you're looking to bribe somebody, they're an obvious target. But he, think, just handles it so well, showing that humans are humans. And there was really no. There was really no. distinction, whether it was carpet baggers, scuttlewags or freedmen or various factions within or the conservatives. Everybody, you know, everybody was capable of being enticed into corruption, but that at least within the Republican Party, these three groups actually worked together pretty well through 1868. They got what they needed to done. In the constitution making process. So you've got public schools, right? And again, this is something that I think, you know, I think most people know this, but in the antebellum period, there were, if you were the, if you were the kid of a side hill dirt farmer, there, there was no schooling for you, white or black. No. That was available to you. There was no, and you know, whereas in the Northeast there was. Right. Right. So at the time there wasn't, It was only private school. That was the only thing that existed in the South. Those were the only resources that were available. And it was intended for the children of planters or the aristocracy. And it was believed that nobody else needed school. Whereas under these reconstruction constitutions, it's not just the black community that's benefiting. White and black are finally getting access to the mandated public education. He does, there's a really interesting argument over integration that he talks about on the schools. And he, you know, is, there's really huge differences all across the board of the Republican party as to what is wanted, including like, there's a lot of black Republicans who are like, no, no, no, in schools is fine. We're not going to push this too far. Right. Whereas there's not enough in a way is the argument. The schools are enough, right? And it's ⁓ And and there's others who are saying well, you know who are predicting what's going to occur ⁓ in that ⁓ The the black public schools will get underfunded ⁓ But again, it's interesting how he Creates these factions how they debate with each other how they fight with each other and it just it's so rich Yes ⁓ But you you see the difference, right? And here's the thing between Woodward and Franklin, in that Woodward in Origins of the New South basically accepts reconstruction isn't his quarry, right? And after all, he's writing in the same series as Merton Coulter. I'm going to bring this around to Merton Coulter in a second. He's writing in the same series as Merton Coulter. So he has to basically accept Merton Coulter's explanation of reconstruction. And in Origins of the New South, Woodward essentially says, but redemption was no better. Right. In Franklin's telling, reconstruction is better than redemption. He fully inverts it. Whereas instead of redemption being this great period, Woodward says, no, it was just as bad as reconstruction. Franklin says, well, actually reconstruction was better. It's this really interesting inversion that takes about 20 years. Right. I don't think he proves it. Yeah. I think he does a good job proving it. Yeah, he does. He really does. ⁓ So I, ⁓ this book, not just this book, but an article that, a review article that Franklin wrote of E. Merton Coulter's ⁓ South during Reconstruction. ⁓ I think actually kills Dunning School. I'm excited to hear this. I haven't seen this review. So I'm looking forward to hearing this. So, The South during Reconstruction is the one of, at the time is considered sort of the centerpiece of the history of the South series published by LSU Press and being edited by E. Merton Wolter. For those who don't know, E. Merton Wolter is probably the last of the Dunning School. historians. He's very prominent in the 30s and 40s, writes a lot of writes a lot of books. ⁓ And on a wide array of history, but his main focus is on the South. He's chair at the University of Georgia for a very, very long time. ⁓ If you're a historian of the South and you're interested in the period, don't, I wouldn't tell you not to look at Walter. His footnotes, if for no other reason, are outstanding. And that's actually one of the things about the Dunning School is even if you just look at their footnotes, they're sometimes awesome. And Coulter's precisely like that. In fact, a dissertation that ended up not going anywhere ⁓ was influenced by one of his footnotes. ⁓ he the self during reconstruction is the Coulter's entry of the series and he wanted to write it he wanted to write the definitive treatment of reconstruction and Coulter's book is unbelievably well researched for the time. It appears definitive, and it seems to prove the Dunning School argument once and for all, that the South during Reconstruction was a period of carpet bag corruption, and that they preyed on the ⁓ ignorance of newly enfranchised black voters in order to impose their brutal corrupt regime and that it were you know, that's so essentially that's what he what he sets out to prove and To most reviewers in 1946 1947 1948 he does it Effectively the book is praised everywhere except for one guy, John Hope Franklin. And John Holt Franklin writes a review ⁓ in the Journal of Negro Education, which was sort of one of the premier black history journals of the time, ⁓ where he essentially calls out every mistake, every key mistake the Coulter makes. And he basically just accuses him of being a racist. And he says that your racism has fully blinded you to the truth here and that you can't you can't actually see what's happening here because you're so biased. that in fact, this is not the black people are ⁓ huge parts of reconstruction and are positive actors. And it is not this simple story of whole rule that you are seeking to tell. And for those of you who are watching the video and are seeing me go to my computer, it's because I did have the article pulled up and I wanted to quote from it, but it's on my desktop here. So. ⁓ So just to give you an idea of how well reviewed Coulter's book was, ⁓ something that Paul Hutchinson was a reviewer who wrote that ⁓ said that like, the book is really impressive because it doesn't appear to show it any degree of Southern partisanship. Coulter's book, right? ⁓ my. ⁓ The fact that a Southern historian can write with so little partisanship or passion is another proof that time is a great healer. ⁓ and yet According to Franklin, as commendable as Coulter's approach was, it has limitations and dangers that are extremely difficult to overcome. And the various... Sorry. So here, so he's especially worried about the sources that Coulter chooses to privilege. Coulter, seeking to write in the atmosphere and spirit of the time, seems especially partial to those sources that create a particular kind of atmosphere. The atmosphere is one in which federal troops stride over the South with a merciless vengeance, irresponsible Negroes exhibit a complete lack of restraint in their new freedom, and Southern whites writhe under the keel of Negro-Scalawag carpet rule. Thus, Southern periodicals such as the Make an American Union, the Charleston Courier, and De Beaux' review are quoted extensively, not only for atmosphere, but for statistical information and accounts of incidents in which there might be another side. There's a good deal of reliance too on the pronouncements of such works as James Pites' The Prostrate State and Myrna Avery's Dixie After the War, which are difficult to equal in their bias in behalf of the South's cause and their vituperation with respect to the Negro during the period. It is, right? ⁓ Anyway, so, Coulter seeks to portray the period of the reconstruction by letting the sources speak for themselves wherever possible, he takes the opportunity on occasions to test the validity of the sources to determine where they are impeachable. That is a commendable exercise of the future of historical criticism. It is, sorry, I thought that was a different quote. anyway, he basically says there's lots of people he could have used. He uses none of them and he only uses the sources that confirm his bias. Right. And then he asks, why? Because he just cannot because he's so committed to this notion. Basically that bias. Yeah, his bias which is a you know, and it's easy to conclude as racially in Right, right. But anyway, um, the article is called wither his wither reconstruction historiography There's an interesting story behind it, He publishes it in the journal that I mentioned but he recognizes that very few mainstream historians are gonna read that read that journal, right? And so he prints off a bunch of copies of it mails it. ⁓ wow. I love that. That's one way to do it. Oh, how effective. Yeah. And he just mails it to historians across the country. And they're like prominent historians at various departments. And that's what makes his name. Oh, I love that. I did not know that. Yeah. That's bold. That's bold. Oh, it's incredibly bold. You better be confident. Right. You better be really confident. Yeah, so it's ⁓ anyway, ⁓ it's a really good review if you ever get a chance, ⁓ to read it ⁓ and I really do think that like after There's a reason no other dunning school books On reconstruction or ever published after colter's the south during reconstruction or at least are taken seriously right by the profession and It's because of john hope franklin Absolutely. Who not only, you know, who, as you mentioned, Marie was not just seeking to be an African American historian, but sought to be a great American historian. Yes. Yes. He's talking about Black Americans before we use those terms. I mean, I mean, and rightly so, he believes that Black Americans are part of the American tradition and they are. And he does such a good job incorporating them into this book and obviously into his other works as well. But he pushes back against this idea throughout his career that he's an African American historian or a black historian at the University of Chicago. He doesn't want a black studies program at a time when this is becoming very popular and they're like black studies programs that other schools are assigning from slavery to freedom to their students. And he pushes back against that. He doesn't want to be pigeonholed here. And I think he does, I mean, his writing speaks for itself in that there's no reason for him to be. He brings those voices into American political history as political actors. And that comes across beautifully in this work. Yeah. Well, and I think that's why this it's such a, it's, it's feels like the civil rights movement, this book, when you read it. It does. It does. Right. It is this, it's this notion that As you said, it's about black Americans. Right. And Americans. And it's the American story. ⁓ Which is, you know, sometimes different with how it's told afterwards too. Right. ⁓ You don't get that. For instance, you don't get like the Du Bois's Marxist, as you were saying earlier, you know, you don't get that like inevitable conflict. Right. ⁓ It's just part of the, it's just part of the American story. Exactly. And in Franklin's hope, know, Franklin's world hoping for a better day. Right. The optimism That potential's there. So, you know, it almost worked once. Right. Right. Right. We can do it again. Yeah. All right. Well, speaking of the American tradition, we're gonna, we're gonna pivot in the next couple episodes talking, like several episodes, talking about the, the two, you know, the... the Revolutionary period and the Constitutional period. ⁓ Thank you very much. Everybody who's listening or watching it on YouTube, we really appreciate it. ⁓ hopefully everybody has a great summer and we're going to be and you can ⁓ come along with us for our summer as we ⁓ do. our part to celebrate the 250th year. Right. OK, well, thank you very much and ⁓ everybody take care. Yes, bye.