In December 1865, former Confederate General Robert Richardson declared: “The emancipated slaves own nothing because nothing but freedom has been given to them” (6).  Did freedom not imply something more?  What was the definition of “freedom?”  Were slaves not entitled to land and property (forty acres and a mule: General Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 15)?  For African Americans and their Radical Republican allies the answer to this question was yes.  They believed freedpeople deserved unrestricted access to politics, education, landed property, and some even argued they deserved compensation.  For General Richardson and former slaveholders, however, this was not the case.  They believed freedpeople were only entitled to emancipation, nothing else.  Put in a different light, the struggle over Reconstruction stemmed from questions over African Americans’ rights to property, labor, and equality. These debates are the focus of Eric Foner’s Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and it Legacy (1983).

Foner’s short study first appeared in the Walter Fleming Lecture Series, sponsored by Louisiana State University (other works in this prestigious southern history series include: Eugene Genovese’s From Rebellion to Revolution, John Hope Franklin’s A Southern Odyssey, Peter Kolchin’s A Sphinx on the American Land, and C. Vann Woodward’s Thinking Back).  In three chapters, Foner addresses the issues surrounding emancipation at the international, national, and local level.  In the first section, he examines emancipation and its aftermath in a comparative context with Haiti and the British Caribbean.  Foner uses both locations to identify the struggles over labor found in all postemancipation societies.  Former slaveholders attempted to retain their autonomy over their laborers through legal and extralegal coercion, while freedpeople “lacking political power…employed the labor shortage as their principal weapon—a weapon inconceivable apart from emancipation” (37-38).  In other words, ex-slaves attempted to achieve and maintain their independence by squatting on vacant land, owning property, moving from employer to employer, and migrating to various islands and port cities

In his second chapter, Foner extends this analysis and comparison into the United States.  Although “the quest for former slaves for autonomy and the desire for planters for a disciplined labor force” was similar between “the American experience and other societies,” Foner demonstrates that American Reconstruction was unique in many ways (43).  First, nearly four million slaves were emancipated in the United States, which far outnumbered any other society.  Second, the “cast of characters in the United States was far more complex than in the West Indies” (39).  Finally, freed slaves, unlike their Caribbean brethren, initially received full political rights and power.  This chapter raises many questions about the characterizing Reconstruction as a “failure.”  One of Foner’s more subtle arguments in this chapter shows that although American Reconstruction failed in many respects for ex-slaves (“Redeemer Legislation” limited blacks’ freedom in the South), it was more progressive and successful than Reconstructions in other areas such as Brazil, Cuba, Russia, Jamaica, and Haiti.  Put differently, Foner poses the question: was American Reconstruction a true failure, especially when compared to Reconstructions?  Reconstruction in the United States provided freedpeople with more social, economic, and political opportunities than in other postemancipation societies.  Therefore, is it correct to suggest that Reconstruction was a “failure,” comparatively speaking?  Foner does not really provide a complete answer to this question, but I agree with his assessment that we need think about Reconstruction internationally.

The final chapter of Foner’s Nothing But Freedom moves us to the rice plantations of South Carolina.  He demonstrates a similar argument by illuminating how freedpeople not only challenged the planter class through voting and holding office, but also with labor strikes.  The chapter ends with the conclusion of Reconstruction and the return of Democrats to power (which ultimately placed the power back into the hands of the southern white planter class).  In many ways, this last chapter—as well as the entire book—is Foner’s homage to W.E.B Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction.  Foner writes in his introduction, “The dedication of this book is a small tribute to one of the towering figures of modern American life.  Poet, activist, father of Pan-Africanism, and the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, W.E.B. Du Bois was, as well, an outstanding scholar, a pioneer in recovering and interpreting the black experience.” (5).  Like Du Bois, Foner uses South Carolina as a case study to show how many of issues over freedom and labor during Reconstruction “were resolved at the local level “ (3).

Moreover, Foner answers Du Bois’ call for an international examination of Reconstructions (Haiti, British Caribbean, and the United States).  Du Bois believed that if historians were to understand the true significance of Reconstruction, they would need to examine the struggles of “that dark and vast sea of human labor in China and India, the South Seas and all Africa; in the West Indies and Central America…that great majority of mankind” (Black Reconstruction, 15). Both historians viewed American Reconstruction as a radical revolutionary experiment in interracial democracy.  Du Bois argues this experiment failed.  Foner, however, demonstrates that Reconstruction, comparatively speaking, went further in the United State than in any other postemancipation society.  Although this is a slight change from Du Bois assessment, Foner agrees with most of the original arguments made by Du Bois in Black Reconstruction: (1) slavery was the fundamental cause of the Civil War; (2) blacks played an active role in the Civil War and Reconstruction; (3) land and labor were crucial issue during Reconstruction; and (4) and an account of Reconstruction written from a whites only perspective was hopelessly flawed.

Like all works of history, my project has changed a little since my last post.  My focus for my final project will now examine how W.E.B Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction influenced historians’ understanding of this period.  Jung’s Coolies and Cane joins a long list of historical studies that have been deeply influenced by Du Bois. That being said, I believe Jung would agree with most of Foner’s arguments, except one.  Foner states that coolie labor in the South during Reconstruction “never exceeded a handful.  And many who were introduced proved less docile than anticipated, abandoning planation labor to set up a small-scale merchants and truck farmer” (48).  Jung, I believe, would contest this assumption.  In fact, Jung makes a clear distinction that although that federal census of 1870 only recorded 71 Chinese laborers in Louisiana (which Foner uses in his monograph), other contemporary estimates (which Jung uses) ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 Chinese living in New Orleans during the early 1870s (Coolie and Cane, 184).  I am a bit perplexed by this difference, and will read Rebecca Scott’s Degrees of Freedom: Louisiana and Cuba after Slavery next week for further clarification.

It is clear that W.E.B. Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction laid the foundation for works by revisionist and post-revisionist historians of Reconstruction.  He not only shed light onto the actions of freedpeople, but also opened up other avenues for further consideration (hence Foner and Jung both go beyond the United States and the black/white paradigm).  After reading these works, it is apparent that the question of labor sits at the heart of Reconstruction, and created a hostile environment that led to the establishment of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the disenfranchisement of African Americans. In short, my paper will examine how historians have either agreed, extended, or challenged argument first set forth in W.E.B. Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction.

Once again, I welcome any comments on further readings or suggestions about forming my final project.  Thank you for reading.  Stay tuned for more!

This entry was posted on Friday, March 1st, 2013 at 2:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.