Reddit reviews Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

All slaveowners benefited from slavery. Even non-slaveowners did.

Reconstruction, in general, is pretty depressing, from both sides. I think that's another reason that not many like to teach it. Look at the this, not for the full understanding, but just to start to realize how many different opinions existed on how Reconstruction should be done, and how much it got fought over. The major Parties were splitting and fighting, people were getting assassinated, laws were passed by Congress that generals refused to implement, States were re-accepted then had congressional delegates blocked from entering congress... It was chaos.

The Prison-Labor thing is pretty well known. Just google it. It certainly didn't happen everywhere or to all blacks, but it was significant. And specifically allowed by the 13th amendment, which the southern states had little to no say in authoring. Again, the main controversy wasn't that it was happening, but the details in who actually started it and ended up controlling it. Most resources simplify it to being controlled by the States, but don't go into the details of who was lobbying for it or benefiting from it.

You could start with the [Penal Labor wiki] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#United_States) and Convict Lease. Slavery By Another Name by Blackmon is about it, although it's not really a southern perspective or centered on reconstruction. But it's recent, really well researched, and won a Pulitzer. Confederate Military History by Evans is probably the standard resource for southern perspective on Reconstruction. It's a 12 volume set, written in 1899, and not exactly a weekend novel. But it is available free online. Evans (a confederate general) traveled around the south, gathering stories, opinions, etc from other prominent southerners.

"The Wheel of Servitude: Black Forced Labor After Slavery" by Novak discusses it in detail, and during reconstruction. [Complicity] (www.amazon.com/Complicity-Promoted-Prolonged-Profited-Slavery/dp/0345467833) discusses Northern encouragement and profiting from slavery, but I believe only pre-war. But before diving into any of that, it might help you to just get an idea of exactly how corrupt and misguided reconstruction was in general. That makes understanding the specifics a lot easier. And ties a lot of things together.

The Lincoln getting shot thing is significant. Really significant. It's hard to say exactly how it would have gone better with Lincoln, but it was so bad that everybody generally agrees that no matter what, his leadership would have helped unify the chaos. And the chaos is what led to different policies being put in place in different areas, as well as the crazy power struggles that started. Which besides prison-labor in some places, led to one of the other reasons racism got worse (and might address your question about Wilmington, I don't really know specifics).

The flip side of the prison-labor stuff, is of course, all the black discrimination that somehow happened where there were no prison-camps. Sure, some of it is exactly what most northerners assume: Whites resisting Reconstruction and still wanting to own slaves and just being racist in general. (See: John Wilks Booth). But that was a much smaller group than most realize.

A large number of southerners weren't racist, at least in the same way that Lincoln and Grant weren't racist. Remember that the vast majority weren't ever slave owners. They had lost the war, slavery was over, and everyone just wanted to move-on. There still might have been white superiority, but this was still an idea held by many, including northerners, and even Lincoln and Grant. This did not mean that blacks should be slaves or even shouldn't have equal rights. And there wasn't really any "hatred" behind it. With that in mind, you might describe this as the point of minimum racism during the whole thing. This was probably the best chance to implement policies that would quickly lead to equality.

But then Reconstruction fell into chaos. As the Radical-Republicans gained power, Congress started implementing "punishment" with reconstruction, as well as blocking previously passed reconstruction policies. Keep in mind, during this time, it was generally Republicans that were anti-slavery, like Lincoln. Related Video. The Radical-Republicans were for punishing the south, mostly as a way to "prove" that the war was about the morality of slavery, and somehow punishing the sinners proves this. Also, they were pretty much against southern re-admission, so that they could control the south as territories, preventing representation in congress. Union Generals sometimes followed the old policies that were still law, sometimes the new ones, and sometimes interpreted them into their own policy. Part of the "punishment" was to discriminate against southern whites. (Ironic, I know.)

This discrimination wasn't nearly as long lasting as the discrimination against blacks, but was significant in the mindset that led to it. Many whites were denied citizenship, prevented from owning property, not allowed to vote or run for office... Mostly by troops refusing to let them swear (re)allegiance. The troops had a stranglehold on everything, especially elections. As governments were elected/installed, whites got seriously pissed off about being excluded. (Again, ironic.) People that could run generally had to be a citizen that never was a confederate, or an ex-confederate that had serious Union connections. This is what led to underground political groups to form. Some only wanted to get to vote, some wanted to overthrow politicians that were a result of illegitimate elections, some wanted to get their property back, and some just find a way back to normalcy. They were all viewed by the North as organized insurrections. Which only re-polarized everything.

At the same time, you still have Carpetbaggers. You have Troops generally helping blacks build homes and schools, but in many areas, because of either asshole generals or asshole Congress, whites weren't getting any of the help they were supposed to get. They're poor because their confederate money is worthless. The Generals and new governments are foreclosing on property everywhere to be able to sell it (usually to Carpetbaggers), or give it to Reconstruction projects. So people started getting really pissed. Who did they now see as the enemy? Not only the north and carpetbaggers, but also the blacks, who were benefiting from the same policies that were screwing over the whites.

Black-hate didn't lead to organized insurrections, as much as organized insurrections led to black hate. And the power grabbing, election fixing, wealth redistribution, and chaos that was Reconstruction led to these organized insurrections.

In my opinion, this is what really changed the mindset from a "relatively benign" superior-racism (that Northerners also had) into an us-vs-them hatred-racism. Yes, people were racist before the war. But they generally were fond of blacks, even if it was in a belittling way. They might have thought of them as lessor, whether a slave or freeman. But they generally didn't hate them. At least until Reconstruction gave them a reason to.

Does this give southerners a free pass for racism? Nope. But just like the Prison-Labor, it implicates the North in a way that most people aren't aware of. It caused the us-vs them that went on through the civil rights movement. It explains why the south is still leary of federal control. And is a reason one can be for equality, but against affirmative action.

/rant Didn't intend to type all that. Really just meant to give those sources way up at the top... Hope it ties some stuff together for you.

Interesting point about Germany and Japan. It's easy to forget the success stories sometimes. Interesting to think about what the reasons for success vs failure tend to be. I have heard parallels drawn between post-civil war and Germany post-WWI though, with the major common element being excessive punishment leading to instability and hate. Just don't extrapolate this one too much.

If you really want to get a better picture of Reconstruction, or the war in general, the best place to start is reading about the people. Read both perspectives about one person, then move on. Especially [Lee] (www.amazon.com/Lee-Richard-Harwell/dp/0684829533/). Or his [letters] (www.amazon.com/Recollections-Letters-General-Robert-Lee/dp/1146396341/). He might be the most misperceived person in recent history. Plus he's documented enough to make you realize exactly how one-sided "mainstream" history can be, even when it's not controversial.


Some other popular "non-northern" views. Alternate them with the "mainstream" stuff. You'll quickly get an idea of what was going on.

The South Was Right! by Kennedy

The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo

When in the Course of Human Events by Adams

Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve by Graham

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Cisco

Lincoln Über Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America By Emison

Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War is Wrong by Seabrook

I'd be glad to discuss this with you after you've done a bit more reading on the topics.