In W.E.B. Du Bois' The Souls of Black Folk, I read the essay, "Of the Dawn of Freedom." In it, Dr. Du Bois discusses the history of race relations in the United States from the beginning of the Civil War to the end of Reconstruction. On page 17, he states that "however much they who marched North and South in 1861 may have fixed on the technical points of union and local autonomy as a shibboleth, all nevertheless knew, as we knew, that the question of Negro slavery was the real cause of the conflict." That reminded me of an article by James Louwen that I read a while back, "Five Myths about Why the South Seceded." Louwen tries to debunk the neo-Confederate argument that the South seceded because of high tariffs, as well as neo-Confederate attempts to minimize the importance of slavery in the South's decision to secede. But the part of the article that intrigued me most was when Louwen argued that Southern slaveholders were not even big on states' rights, for they opposed the right of Northern states to bar Southerners from bringing their slaves with them when they traveled there. Southern slaveholders supported states' rights for themselves, but not always when it came to Northern states.
Dr. Du Bois' discussion of Reconstruction was balanced. He said that the Freedman's Bureau was good in that it helped freed slaves to receive an education. But he also acknowledged the corruption that was rampant in Reconstruction, and he stated that it focused a lot on punishing white Southerners, which bred more resentment. Du Bois was still upset at certain developments that took place around the time that Reconstruction ended, for the land and the wealth that African-Americans got after the war was taken away. The land was returned to its previous white owners, and corruption in the banks resulted in the disappearance of the money that freed slaves' had saved. Du Bois states on page 31 that this "was a loss that a Nation which to-day sneers at Negro shiftlessness has never yet made good."
For Dr. Du Bois' essay, click here.