Objective:
My project will evaluate how W.E.B Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction (1935) changed the direction of Reconstruction scholarship. More specifically, I will examine how scholars in three specific historiographical periods (revisionism, post-revisionism, and present day) engaged with Du Bois’ groundbreaking work by extending, challenging, or reaffirming his arguments (sometimes doing all three simultaneously).
Rough Outline with Works:
Note: The works I have selected not only directly engage with W.E.B Du Bois’ work, but they also provide, in my opinion, the best representation of works coming out for each period. Moreover, these works also engage with previous generations of scholars.
My goal is not to provide several book reviews, but to show how the characterization of Reconstruction changed over time, especially in regards to questions over labor and freedpeople.
Revisionism (1950s-1970s)
- Kenneth Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877, 1965
- Joel Williamson, After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina During Reconstruction, 1965
- Robert Cruden, The Negro in Reconstruction, 1969
Arguments:
- Accomplishments of Reconstruction
- The establishment of southern public school system
- The granting of equal citizenship to black
- Transition to revitalize the southern backwards economy (through transition from slave labor to free labor)
- “Negro rule” or the “blackout of honest government” was a myth (argued by the Dunning School)
- Blacks were agents in Reconstruction
- Radical Republicans and southern freedmen were the “heroes”
- White Redeemers and southern racists were the “villains”
- This era was “tragic” because it did not go far enough
- Described the black community as a whole (downplayed divisions and conflicts in black community)
- Labor, Freedom, and Land major issues in Reconstruction
- Reconstruction was a Revolution
________________________________________________
Post-Revisionism (1970s-1980s)
- C. Vann Woodward, review of the Confederate Nation, New Republic, March 17, 1979
- Leon Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery, 1979
- Jonathan Wiener, Social Origins of the New South: Alabama 1860-1885, 1978
- Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution
- Foner’s Reconstruction was the first full synthesis since the Dunning School. His prospective was different from the rest of post-revisionism, because he provided a middle ground. He was Reconstruction as “revolutionary” but also identified many of the issues evolving within the black community. He provides a nice segue between revisionist and post-revisionist works.
Arguments:
- Reconstruction was “conservative” or “non-revolutionary” (save Foner)
- Especially with Republican policymakers lack of progress
- They saw continuity from Old South to New South
- Persistent racism prevented any real change
- Political rights for blacks was tenuous at best
- Land Distribution and Labor big focus for these historians
- Lack of land distribution prevented freedmen from achieving autonomy
- Studies emphasized the survival of the old planter class and the continuities between the Old and New South
- Reconstruction was “tragic” because it did not go far enough (similar to revisionists’ argument)
- Emphasis on black community tensions and conflicts
______________________________________
Modern Scholars (1990s-present)
- Steven Hahn, A Nation Under Our Feet, 2005
- Moon-Ho Jung, Coolies and Cane, 2008
- Dylan Penningroth, Claims of Kinfolk, 2002
- Michael Fitzgerald, Splendid Failure: Postwar Reconstruction in the American South, 2008
Arguments:
- Black involvement in Reconstruction was “revolutionary”
- Class labor system in South changed, workers had more power
- For a brief moment, whites and black linked their plight as workers together.
- Race and class were linked for these scholars
- Change in periodization (pushing well beyond 1877)
- Emphasis on race and other topics (international relations, gender, and religion)
- Implementation of a more transnational framework, not just the United State Reconstruction, but an era of “Reconstructions”
___________________________________
The explosion of Reconstruction scholarship in last several decades makes it somewhat difficult to comprehend. Eric Foner’s Reconstruction marks the closest to achieve such an ambitious goal. Nevertheless, W.E.B Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction has made a significant impact on each work, along with each historiographical school of thought. My goal, therefore, is to trace how the understandings of Black Reconstruction changed over time, and how this “change” influenced the direction of the Reconstruction historiographical field. I argue Black Reconstruction, unlike any other work in this field, has made the great impact on the scholarship.
Revisionists, for example, closely identified and extended on W.E.B Du Bois’ arguments, especially with the ideas of black agency and community.
Post-revisionists have provided the largest critique (if we can call it this) of W.E.B Du Bois and revisionist scholars. They have argued that Reconstruction was non-revolutionary, and have focused more on the conflicts and tensions within the black community. As C. Vann Woodward eloquently wrote, “historians now understood how essentially nonrevolutionary and conservative Reconstruction really was (review of Confederate Nation, 1979).
Present scholarship has extended on many topics briefly noted by Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction, such as look comparatively at other postemancipation societies and the role of gender in Reconstruction.
This is the bare bone outline of my paper and any ideas or thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you for reading.