So there are LOTS of differences between the U.S. after the Civil War and right now, as Adam says (and my argument is not that this is a 1:1 comparison, but that we are potentially at a similar crossroads in terms of potential for progress)
But I actually want to respond by focusing on something that is maybe underappreciated about how little things had changed in the immediate aftermath, politically. In 1868, the Dems run Horatio Seymour on their classic themes of white supremacy and economic populism.
Most people focus on Francis Blair, his virulently racist running mate, but Seymour's convention speech is interesting to me because of its combining of certain...familiar themes. (Note he considers enfranchisement of black men racist...against white people!)
In particular, Seymour hammers at the idea that taxpayer dollars are being used to "clothe the idle african," rooted in the impression that emancipated refused to work (when it was really now free, they did not want to work under slave-like conditions.)
The Republicans meanwhile, are restricting their advocacy of black male suffrage for the South only (to the outrage of the Radicals) and Grant is running on "Let Us Have Peace." Now, Grant wins pretty solidly in the electoral college, 214-80.
But that actually obscures the narrowness of Grant's win. The popular vote margin is quite thin, about 3 million to 2.7 million.
So just a few years after the Civil War, a very large number of Americans are ready to hand back the presidency to a party that is largely responsible for nearly destroying the country. And given the margin, it's likely that the difference was made up by black votes.
So yes, the civil war was an earthshattering experience, causing a tremendous amount of suffering for millions. And yet an appeal to white supremacy was nonetheless effective enough to nearly win power to those largely responsible for it shortly after.
If that outcome occurs, our entire history is very different. But it's just to say that certain forces in American politics, like white supremacy, are historically good at resisting the most monumental events. One reason why we are where we are.
Anyway, if this is interesting to you I hope you'll take the time to read my piece. theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Serwer🍝

Adam Serwer🍝 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamSerwer

4 Sep
A couple of tells of a bad faith argument: one is you don’t name the person you’re arguing with, another is that you falsely paraphrase the argument because quoting it accurately would refute the point being made.
The piece actually argues that Farrakhan is a fringe figure who retains a certain amount of support despite his bigotry because of NOI’s work among particularly impoverished communities, and because his white critics lack the standing to discredit him.
I could not be clearer about my enmity for Farrakhan; that’s not the same as not understanding the sources of his continuing relevance. If you don’t want to understand it that’s fine but don’t pretend I something I didn’t say.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!