The Fallacy of 40 Acres and a Mule

I find it appropriate to address this subject now, as it is near the end of Black history month. I don’t know how folk will take it, but I am without a doubt certain that Carter G. Woodson would approve and appreciate the thought processes engrained in what I am about to state.

At least twice this month (and I won’t go into the number of times over the years), I have heard several claims that Africans in America, or at least freed slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule upon emancipation. I have read references to such scantly; however, I have been unable and unsuccessful, even in light of my penchant for research and detail, to verify such.

What I can say accurately is that during the period of and after the civil war, the radical Republicans as they have been called throughout history really had only one interest, which was not slaves or black folk, but rather the goal of using the military might of the union (North) to destroy the plantation aristocracy of the south and bring in a new area of capitalist democracy by ensuring that blacks could both vote and own property. This is where the idea of forty acres and a mule originally started.  But Democrats, like then Editor of the New York Tribune like Horace Greeley were against this in mass. See, although they were upset with Southerners, they felt, to use Greeley’s words that: “because the wealthier class of southerners, being more enlightened and humane than the ignorant and vulgar are less inimicable to the blacks,” that former slaves should never be given land or property in any form especially from the confederate rich.

In fact when the republicans tried to force property confiscation in the initial acts of Reconstruction in 1867 (against the desires of moderate Republicans), when ThaddeusStevens brought the “40 acres” measure to the floor in the House, it receivedless than 40 votes.

Although history books tell us that folk in the north were on the side of slaves and against slavery, they fail to mention specifically how their views, votes and politics were never behind and would never tolerate giving black folk land – specifically the property of former confederate rich white folks. Even that democratic weekly THE NATION noted that by giving the land of rich men to poor ignorant Negroes would shock and destroy America’s entire political system and lead to the destruction of liberty for all Americans (In The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877 by Kenneth Stampp, 120-130).

With this kind of NATIONAL sentiment, it is easy to see why 40 acres was never made law and really never promised to freed blacks.  Not to mention it should have been obvious seeing it is well know that the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863) excluded freeing slaves in Union states and those stats in the South behind union lines.

What this means is that without any land redistribution or confiscation, slaves would still remain slaves just under a new system and made it even worse.  Now they would be sharecroppers, which gave land owners control over them from giving them advances on supplies, even food from stores they owned, way above market price and charging the to live on land that they would never own or ever be able to accumulate wealth. By the time Rutherford B. Hays became President in 1876, this new system was firmly entrenched and Northern democrats and republicans turned their back on what they initially considered their cause to protect the poor, landless and oppressed black working class of former slaves.

This is why industrial capitalism grew so fast during this period of American history – they still had an endless supply of cheap and uneducated workers.  Although some misread history and often say the civil war was America’s second revolutionary war, it wasn’t. I mean from my perspective, during revolutionary wars, the oppressed take up arms and start the war. And any person who can read, or considers themselves educated can tell you that since then, the 14^th amendment has done little if anything to protect black folk in America, and really only serves to protect corporations and advance industrial capitalism. Through the 14^th amendment, property got the ultimate political protection from state governments, not freed slaves and the US currency was put on an invincible footing via the resumption of specie (money in the form of coins rather than notes) payment.

So when folk banter around that we as black folk were promised 40 acres and a mule, or that the 14^th amendment was instituted to protect black folk, you should ignore them and accept their ignorance as an offering and reflection of what is wrong with we as black folk in America, which is 60% of the time we talking loud and ain’t saying nothing and 30% of the time we truly don’t know what we talking about.

not post racial but rather neo-reconstructive

Now a while back I penned an essay called Negro comfortable up in here. The tractate expressed both my concerns and reservations of the various assumptions that folk, in particular African Americans, would develop as a function of having Barack Obama as the President of these United States of America. Prior to that I wrote two that expressed a comparative concern from the other extreme: From Tobe to Joe Six Pack and Red Rum. But outlined what the election of the first African American President would like yield in disposition for a large portion of WASPs.

I recant vividly the number of threats, even an anticipated terror plot being foiled by Secret Service and FBI with respect to a group in Kentucky. All the time as the home of dixicrats, the South rumbled about how his election would be a representation of socialism that would destroy America as it “used to be.” Now I took that for meaning several things which are not that important for they all focus on fear and privilege – even white privilege. Even on the top end, we have seen South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson’s angry outburst, calling Obama a liar to his face (and a national audience). But what can one expect from a card carrying member of the Son’s of the Confederacy whose Confederate "Catechism” advocates:

"The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built."

The current climate appears to be one on a continuum of two extremes. The first of which is one of elation, high expectations, balloon boys, Real House Wives of Atlanta and the BET hip hop awards. The next being one of White Student Unions forming at major Universities, Ministers praying for the death of Obama, Nazi symbols being cut on golf courses, a 400 percent increase of death threats to the president, and I will not mention some of the folks with the Tea parties (for I think they were like this before Obama). These are the two ends of the continuum which for me are dangerous for they are not balanced.

And just recently, Georgia’s Republican Paul Broun compared the President to Hitler after referencing a July speech given by Obama sayings “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did….when he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Now I am as hard on Obama as the GOP, if not harder. However, I deal with facts and policy not the person or individual. I feel that instead of a “post racial” America as many offered, we are instead in a “Neo-reconstruction” period similar to that during the Andrew Johnson Administration. It started a new Southern identity of white aristocratic supremacy which were mainly supported on racist viewpoints and prejudice that lead to the establishments of organizations such as the KKK. Today we see this same locution, one fueled by the fear of difference, which is often manifested in hate. Instead of the KKK, now we have white supremacist and the Tea Parties. People it has only just begun so hold your horses, we aint seen nothing yet. Remember reconstruction came about because of the emancipation of slaves and Black folks being able to hold elected political positions. But none of them were President. And as said in the post "Red Rum - such folks will do all in their power to make certain he fails.

The father of Jim Crow

Now I consider myself an amateur historian. Although my preference is ancient African history, I consider myself astute in the history of America and the West Indies. I may have a limited knowledge of music videos, movies and entertainers, but I do feel I have a descent and particular grasp regarding information pertaining to the early colonies, presidential history, and slavery (inclusive of reconstruction and Jim Crow).

I have been thinking about what I am about to assert for a while. I know that it is rare when all of the aforementioned areas decussate such to pronounce a concise conclusion. Especially as it relates to the actual start of Jim Crow policies in the South (up south too). And being that this is the single month that is allocated to black folks, and the single month when black folks see to care about knowledge about themselves, I want to take this time to propose a new postulate on history relating to folks like me. Nope, I aint going to state no fact I can copy and past from wikapedia or some book about some person. That to me aint history.

Historians tend to define Jim Crow and/or the period of Jim Crow as a systematic practice of discriminating against and segregating Black people in the America from the end of Reconstruction to the mid-20th century. More specifically, they tend to focus on the South when it was nationwide.

Most or many historians like to start the period in the late 1890’s and like to over dramatize the importance of one man purchasing a single train ticket. In 1892, Homer Plessy bought a first-class railroad ticket. They say by doing such he broke the law since we were only allowed to ride only third class in his home state of Louisiana. You know, ye old separate railway accommodations for the races. To make a long story short, the Supreme Court heard, and rejected, Plessy’s challenge. This validated segregation in public facilities and engendered an atmosphere that promulgated even more restrictive Jim Crow laws.

I can get with this, but it is not where I start Jim Crow, I start it with the 19th President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes. Like George W. Bush, he was involved in a very contested election. The popular vote was 4,300,000 for Samuel J. Tilden to 4,036,000 for Hayes. Hayes's won via the electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. So close was the election that some historians suggest that it created a constitutional crisis and almost began another civil war.

Upon this, although Hayes pledged protection of the rights of blacks in the South, he also said he wanted to restore the south to the local governments of the region. So to do this, he did the main act in my eyes to start the distasteful legacy of Jim Crow; he withdrew all of the Union Troops in the South. He really wanted to provide some motivation for rich white businessmen in the South to join the Republican Party.

This single act ended the period of Reconstruction and abrogated the only protection that would preserve the rights of freed African-Americans. Historians have also suggested that Hayes made a deal to remove the Union troops to gather the votes from the electoral college (from South Carolina and Louisiana).

So In honor of Black history month, I just wanted to assert the aforementioned proposition: that it was not Plessy’s case in the Supreme Court that started the turmoil and savagery that many of our ancestors who were raised in the south experienced, but rather the act of removing the Union Troops as implemented by President Hayes, that started the “strange Career of Jim Crow” as C. Vann Woodward put it in his 1955 tractate with the same title.

Now, like I said, I have no formal training in History, but I can think. And as I said, history involves connecting the dots and is more than remembering some absurd fact like who made the firs traffic light. So please do le me know what you think, and remind your kids, the next time they mention Jones, I mean President Hayes name in class, tell them to say they know who he is, that he is the father of Jim Crow. Now back to our regular scheduled programming (what ever is on my mind and my granny's funeral).