----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > If Republican moderates had not let themselves be > > led by the Radicals, > > do you think the party would have had an easier time > > consolidating > > power in Congress? I'm thinking that after Johnson > > was stripped of > > power (leading to the era of strong Speakers of the > > House) that > > Moderates would have had more appeal with white > > Southerners along with > > the Black vote that the Radicals sought. > > We're heading into territory where my knowledge is > limited...my answer would have to be no, though. The > South didn't vote for _any_ Republicans in any > significant numbers until, what, the 1970s and Richard > Nixon? I can't imagine that the Republican moderates > would have been able to develop any presence in the > South among white voters, no matter what the > circumstances, for a very long time. > > What do you think, robb? I'd be interested in hearing > your take on Foner and the historical dispute. > <G> I'm sure you know a *lot* more about it than I do since it is your area of interest. But as I tried to refresh my memory concerning the Civil War, I ran into quite a few references to the revision Foner applied to Dunnings thesis. Dunning was pretty critical of the policies of the Republican party in ways that are very similar to what I was taught in high school here in Texas. Foner pretty much exonerates the reconstruction governments in as far as what they were able to accomplish and labels Dunnings thesis as having been tainted by racism. This isn't what I was taught, but some of the arguments I ran across were compelling enough (Enough that I recognize the need to re-educate myself on this subject) that I figured you might be able to shed some light that would help me draw a line between history and controversy. Here is the quote that sparked my curiosity: "Early scholarly treatments of the 1910s and 1920s, those in the William Dunning school, were very harsh toward Republican Reconstruction policies. But scholarship of the 1940s and 1950s (see Foner 1988:xx-xxiii) showed that the Dunning theories were largely based on the racist belief in "Negro incapacity." Less biased research has shown that "Negro rule" in the South was a myth and that there was racism in northern Republican policymakers as well as among white southerners. Foner says that the Reconstruction governments were progressive (the most progressive governments in Southern history until the post-1960s), that they established the public school systems, and rebuilt many buildings that were destroyed by the war, and that they were less corrupt than state governments in the North. He also shows that the black leaders were quite educated and competent. The revisionists (influenced by the 1960s New Left though) also maintain that blacks were betrayed by the North because they were not allowed to achieve economic independence. " This is more than enough to raise a lot of questions for me. And its why I asked about Foner and Dunning. But further, is what I think is only opinion: "But this debate is a typical of the debates between conservative and liberal racists. It is a false debate because neither side ever had any intention of bringing blacks into the fold with the whites. How can the liberal racists maintain that blacks were "betrayed because they were not allowed to achieve economic independence" when no such promise was ever realistically made? You can't be betrayed if even the liberals never intended you to achieve parity in the first place. The liberals could not "sell-out" the blacks if they never had any real intention of promoting real advancement for blacks. The whites did not really care about the blacks, but only about how Southern whites would be reincorporated into the white Northern world." I'm not sure what to think about this, but it appears in what seems otherwise to be a straightforward essay about Reconstruction. What do you think? xponent History Can Become Bizarre Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
