imagine publishing pure and uncut dunning school propaganda in this year of our lord 2021
but then you see the byline and it makes total sense
the best part is the uncritical citation of the notoriously shoddy and racist anti-reconstruction screed “the prostate state,” which she presents as impartial because the author was a Maine Republican, thus recapitulating the reason the book gained a following
anyway, imagine thinking you have a better handle on the history of reconstruction than du bois and foner. couldn’t be me.
after reading that trash, this southerner is going to do a brain cleanse by finishing his biscuit (check out those layers) and knocking out another chapter in this little volume
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
weirdest thing in that “only the coastal elites care about covid” piece is the casual dismissal of infant formula as a “silly novelty”theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
yeah, you know, that silly novelty that is essential for working mothers who cannot get and do not have the time to pump and breastfeed
or you know, mothers and parents who cannot provide milk for any other reason
last two things i’ll say about that “reconstruction was bad, actually” piece.
the first is that if i were asserting that reconstruction revisionism only emerged after the people who experienced it had died, i probably would not aim my fire at a man who was alive during reconstruction and whose methodology involved interviewing formerly enslaved blacks.
the second is that the argument that the south was “prostrate” and exploited under reconstruction regimes depends on writing 4 million black southerners out of the polity and ignoring how, in several states, they constituted the majority of the population.
I have seen more than a few replies to this that are some version of “what about article 2?!?!?,” and the answer is, the state legislative power to set the manner in which states allocate electors has never been understood to be absolute, at all times.
meaning, states legislatures can say how they will choose electors at any point up to the election. but once they choose, and once the election is held, they are bound by that choice.
the new theory is to say, in essence, that they are not bound by the choice, and state legislatures can retroactively change the manner in which they choose electors, provided some pretext. which is obvious nonsense.
also “republicans take responsibility for the actions of your party” challenge
“character” as lewis seems to define it here is overrated and does not have that much bearing on presidential decision making but if we’re evaluating candidates using conventional measures of “good character” then it is a little weird to make obama a foil to, say, romney.