Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: September 13, 2020 at 7:55:02 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Socialisms]: Dennis on Postel, 'Equality: An > American Dilemma, 1866-1896' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Charles Postel. Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866-1896. New York > Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2019. 400 pp. $30.00 (cloth), ISBN > 978-0-8090-7963-6. > > Reviewed by Michael Dennis (Acadia University) > Published on H-Socialisms (September, 2020) > Commissioned by Gary Roth > > Progressive-Era Equality > > Social commentators, media pundits, and online journalists are > steadily becoming vexed by the growing evidence that social > inequality is a defining feature of modern America. Economists both > popular and academic have added their voices to the chorus of critics > concerned about the polarization of wealth and power in American > society. Comparisons to the American Gilded Age of craven excess and > conspicuous class conflict have become almost _de rigueur_ as > commentators seek to make sense of what seems like an unprecedented > period of downward mobility and corporate ascendancy. Historians Noam > Maggor (_Brahmin Capitalism: Frontiers of Wealth and Populism in > America's First Gilded Age_, 2017), Richard White (_The Republic for > Which it Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the > Gilded Age_, 2019), and Jack Beatty (_The Age of Betrayal: The > Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900_, 2008) have each recently > examined the Gilded Age, producing weighty tomes that speak as much > to our era as they do to the famed period of railroads, robber > barons, brahmin capitalists, and class revolt. It is in this spirit > that Charles Postel turns his attention to some of the leading > popular (one is tempted to write populist, given Postel's earlier > interests) groups. These sought to advance organization and equality, > national coordination and anti-monopoly action, all in an environment > suffused with racial and ethnic bigotry. The results were uneven, to > say the least. > > As in his analysis of the Populist movement (_The Populist Vision_, > 2006), Postel is intrigued by farmers' organizations that espoused an > egalitarian vision that was both modernizing and forward-looking. > Examining the Patrons of Husbandry, Postel argues that they were > "part of the bureaucratic project" (p. 18). They built a "movement > with a wide membership base, a uniform and centralized organizational > system, and a national scope" (p. 19.) Robert Wiebe (_The Search for > Order: 1877-1920_, 1966) made the same point about the Progressives > more than fifty years ago, weaving this into an analysis of how a > range of urban reformers sought to fashion a new and efficient > society in which the search for order often displaced democracy. > Postel seems to admire this modernizing, centralizing tendency > characteristic of the Grangers as much as did the Knights of Labor > and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Did the impulse for > concentration at the national level somehow undermine the democratic > character of the organizations that championed egalitarianism? > > It did, Postel answers, at least insofar as the Patrons of Husbandry > (most conspicuously) bent over backward to accommodate southern white > supremacists allegedly groaning under the weight of carpetbag > Reconstruction. This is one of the great strengths of this book and > one of its most important if depressing conclusions: how easily the > commitment to an anti-monopoly, egalitarian worldview could be > reconciled to the campaign for racial subjugation. Going national, > Granger leaders reconciled with white southerners who had only > recently been busy tearing the Union apart to defend slavery and then > overthrow Republican Reconstruction. In Alabama, "the Grange offered > the 'oppressed' white planters and farmers a vehicle for toppling the > biracial Reconstruction governments and stripping the black people of > the South of their newly-won freedom" (p. 86). Launching a spirited > critique of monopoly interests, lobbying effectively at the state > level for railroad regulation, the Grange simultaneously promoted a > political milieu in which "the question of equality had become > unmoored from the problems of emancipation and racial injustice" (p. > 69). The Grange simultaneously "placed notions of economic equality > and fairness at the top of the agenda of post-Civil War reform" while > deliberately avoiding the problem of racial injustice (p. 23). > Instead, it sought to restore "harmony between the states" by > accepting the southern white supremacist version of Reconstruction. > Reaching out to women and all farmers on a seemingly equitable basis, > the Grange grew to 860,000 by 1875, all the while privileging farm > owners over the 20-30 percent of wage-earning workers who now > constituted the rank and file of a new rural proletariat. > > Contradictions abounded in the movement culture that broke out across > Gilded Age America. Led by firebrand Ignatius Donnelly of Populist > platform fame, the Anti-Monopoly Party that stemmed from the Grange > soon fused with disaffected Liberal Republicans to decry not only the > concentration of wealth but the alleged concentration of power in the > Republican governments presiding over the South. Of course, this > variation on the Grange message played better in Louisiana, > Tennessee, and Mississippi than in Ohio. But Postel's point stands > nevertheless: determined to build a national organization that > championed a populist version of equality, the architects of the > Grange made sectional reconciliation the sine qua non of > organizational effectiveness. Holding its twelfth annual convention > in Richmond, Virginia, Grangers were treated to harangues about the > horrors of despotic Reconstruction governments led by "fanatical > zealots" who violated "the sacred arc of our liberties" (p. 109). The > response from Seth Ellis of the Ohio Grange delegation? Warm, > conciliatory overtures to southern delegates. Ellis and his > associates were at pains to assure their southern white compatriots > that they were there on "an errand of peace" in which there were "no > animosities to heal" (p. 109). This was a far cry from the > irreconcilable conflict of the 1850s, the danger posed by slavery to > republican liberties, and the universalizing egalitarianism of the > Fourteenth Amendment. > > The same contradictions permeated the Women's Christian Temperance > Union, the Greenback Party, the National Labor Union, and most > conspicuously, the Knights of Labor. Less of a function of national > organization than the bureaucratization of labor, the fraternal > society that defined itself by its egalitarian ethos steadily > abandoned its inclusiveness as it merged with job-conscious trade > unionists. Postel highlights the struggles of Welsh and English coal > miners in the Knights to prevent eastern European workers from ever > diluting their pay scales and craft prerogatives. Postel rightly > excoriates the Knights for contributing to the anti-Chinese campaign > that broke out in the West. Intimidating and harassing Chinese > laborers across the West and up the Pacific Coast, they evidently > joined a massacre of Chinese coal miners in Rock Springs, Wyoming, > one that left twenty-eight people dead and almost as many missing. > "Chinese exclusion mocked the Knights' egalitarian principles," the > author somberly notes (p. 234). Like Postel's book on the Populist > movement, perhaps the greatest achievement of _Equality: An American > Dilemma_ is to underline the contradictions and frank hypocrisies > that riddled allegedly progressive organizations of the Gilded Age. > > Still, African Americans and women from various backgrounds did join > the Knights of Labor. Frank Ferrell, a black machinist, believed that > the Knights' egalitarian principles should extend to Chinese workers > as well. Ferrell belonged to the Knights' New York's District 49, a > branch of the organization which, as Postel points out, was led by > socialists and radicals. Precisely. It is here that Postel's book > could have made a larger contribution than it has. Yes, Terence > Powderly's deplorable tour of the South and his capitulation to Jim > Crow at the 1889 St. Louis People's Party convention followed the > example set by Gilded Age dissidents like William Sylvis, Oliver > Kelley, and Frances Willard, each of whom capitulated to racial > subjugation while simultaneously espousing egalitarian sentiments. > Despite his proclamations of racial equality, Powderly endorsed a > "vision of sectional reconciliation that left little room for the > equal rights claims" of black southerners (p. 246). Despite their > appalling record toward Chinese workers, despite the segregated > locals, and despite the willingness of the Knights leadership to > appease white supremacists and former secessionists who were busy > fashioning the mythology of the Lost Cause, the organizing activity > and the egalitarian language of the movement garnered it black > working-class support. > > Why, then, did they join? Postel argues effectively that the Knights > made an effort to organize black coal miners and railroad workers. > The prominence of radicals (meaning socialists) in District 49 also > had an impact. But the example of this militant minority in New > York--but also elsewhere, including Birmingham, Alabama--resonated > precisely because the Knights spoke in terms of emancipation from > wage slavery. They articulated the idea that cooperation would > liberate workers from a system of class oppression inextricably > linked to racial dominance. They put these principles into action by > building cooperatives and dynamic local assemblies throughout the > South and advancing the idea that another world was indeed possible. > African Americans joined the organization for these reasons, but > through political self-determination, they became the leading edge of > the movement in the South. > > The Knights did more than champion equality within the prevailing > system, one which Postel is reluctant to name. The author speaks of > an "American system of racial caste" that involved "an > extraordinarily pervasive set of hierarchical relationships that the > Knights could not and did not transcend" (p. 251). As historian Alex > Gourevitch (_From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and > Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century_, 2015) has convincingly > argued, however, the Knights specifically targeted the wage system as > a uniquely oppressive and dehumanizing arrangement that deprived > working-class Americans of their very freedom. The Knights echoed the > egalitarian themes of the era, but they promoted a vision of > working-class solidarity that pointed toward the transformation of a > capitalist society. That African American and white members of the > movement failed to transcend the racial inequalities deliberately > fostered to maintain class discipline should disappoint and > discomfit, but not surprise. It would take more than a wave of > strikes in the Louisiana sugar cane fields (which led to the bloody > Thibodaux massacre of 1886) or a Populist-Republican fusion > government in North Carolina to overthrow the wage system. After all, > it took a civil war to overthrow slavery. > > Naming that system is critical, then, since it moves us beyond > contemporary tropes about income inequality that fail to address the > structural reasons why it is so difficult to achieve genuine equality > under capitalism. Recent studies by historians such as Sven Beckert > and Edward Baptist have left little doubt about the relationship > between slavery and the rise of industrial capitalism (even though > debate continues to rage about whether capitalist labor relations > were intrinsic to the system of slave labor). In his iconoclastic > _Black Reconstruction in America _(1935)_, _W. E. B. Du Bois was > certainly under no illusions about the class struggle that pitted a > black proletariat against a capitalist ownership class which > straddled regional boundaries. Northern and southern capitalists > steadily gained economic and political power in the postwar period, > espousing a united worldview that reinforced their class authority. > Illuminating the link between this class power and the dominant > ideology of social Darwinism is critical to understanding why the > egalitarian impulse dissipated in the postwar period. Steve Fraser's > _The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance > to Organized Wealth and Power_ (2015) places the question of > capitalist power front and center, arguing that Gilded Age protest > aimed at contesting the essential foundations of a society predicated > on class exploitation and wage dependency. Downplaying the political > economy of capitalism, Postel presents "an American dilemma" > strangely disconnected from its material and relational foundations. > No doubt, as the author writes in the conclusion, "the lines of > inequality have been sharply drawn" in contemporary America (p. 317). > More than likely, Postel is correct in concluding that the remedy > will be found in "collective efforts" and multiracial, cross-gender > struggle (p. 318). But the problem confronting average Americans from > across the racial and gender spectrum is but a variation on the > problem that confronted nineteenth-century American workers. As labor > activist George McNeil wrote in 1887, "the laborer who is forced to > sell his day's labor to-day, or starve tomorrow, is not in equitable > relations with the employer."[1] Solving this American dilemma may be > the defining problem of our era. > > Note > > [1]. George McNeil, _The Labor Movement: The Problem of Today_ (The > M. W. Hazen Co., 1891), 454. > > Citation: Michael Dennis. Review of Postel, Charles, _Equality: An > American Dilemma, 1866-1896_. H-Socialisms, H-Net Reviews. September, > 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55112 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1520): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1520 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76822956/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
