Monthly Archives: April 2021

When Southern Whites Were Disfranchised

(April 29, 2021) Although today’s corporate media and academics are obsessed with bogus claims of black voter disfranchisement, there was a time when Southern whites were the ones disfranchised. Corporate media is ignorant of it because academia obscures the history. It began after the Civil War when Republicans passed the 1867 Reconstruction Acts over President Andrew Johnson’s vetoes. The Acts required that the former Confederate states, except Tennessee, form new state governments at conventions where delegates were to be selected at elections in each state. Tennessee was excepted because she already had a Republican-controlled puppet regime that denied former Confederates the right to vote. Until the new state governments were formed, the remaining ten states were ruled by martial law.

Notwithstanding Constitutional norms, Congress dictated that all adult black males were to be eligible to vote for delegates in the ten applicable states although the new state governments were authorized to limit white voting rights.  (The Southern black enfranchisement required by the Reconstruction Acts would not apply to any Northern state where voting regulations remained a State’s Right.) Consequently, few Northern states permitted blacks to vote even though they had tiny black populations. Congress further dictated that Southern whites would need to demonstrate their eligibility to register in a complex process administered under the glitter of federal bayonets. In retrospect, it should surprise nobody that the states were “miraculously” able to limit the white voters to a number that resulted in elections providing Republican-controlled vassal regimes in the Southern states.

Each state had multiple registrars that had to qualify for their position by taking a Union loyalty oath passed by Congress on July 2, 1862, which was during the Civil War. Known as the “Ironclad Oath” the oath-taker was required to avow that he never supported the Confederacy. Consequently, no former Confederate could be a registrar. Thus, with few exceptions, only those Southerners who supported the Union, or avoided military service during the war, could qualify as registrars.

Many such men wanted sinecures in the new state governments. Thus, they had an incentive to limit the number of Democrat voters, which included nearly all whites. Consequently, the registrars were able to reject qualified whites as voters on arbitrary pretexts. Upon completion 703,000 blacks and 627,000 whites were registered to vote, giving the ex-slaves a 53%-to-47% majority over the whites. Historian James Ford Rhodes, who was an Ohioan and lived during Reconstruction, concluded that an aggregate of 150,000 Southern whites were disfranchised across the ten states. Perhaps as many as 100,000 more were disfranchised by Tennessee’s scalawag regime.

Results varied from state-to-state. Blacks composed most of the registrants in the five states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama. Blacks and whites split Georgia fifty-fifty where only a small voting bloc of white Carpetbaggers and Scalawags could swing election results. Although whites retained a majority in Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia their majorities were significantly reduced. Before the disfranchisement whites would have represented 69% of the registered voters whereas they represented only 57% after disfranchisement. After the registration process was completed, the Republican elements in those states used various other ways to further disfranchise whites.

In Arkansas, for example, the Carpetbag governor controlled the 1868 autumn elections by declaring martial law in ten counties where he threw out all ballots and intimidated other whites through the state’s plundering Black Militia. In Texas the military commanders eventually required that all elected officials be capable of taking the “Ironclad Oath” thereby disqualifying any former Confederate from office. Most Texas whites concluded that such restrictions provided only a dubious list of candidates and boycotted the 1868 elections. The situation was much the same in North Carolina where many whites were disgusted with the list of candidates. Virginia avoided white disfranchisement by arranging for a special election under the aegis of President Grant’s short-lived inaugural goodwill in which the state’s voters were given the option to vote down the disfranchisement provisions; they did so in July 1869.

In general, since blacks controlled most of the votes the cotton states there was little need to disfranchise whites. But in the states North of the cotton belt, disfranchisement was common. Ultimately the Carpetbag regimes collapsed because they raised taxes beyond the limits which the region could pay. Grifters plundered the revenue and distributed morsels of political patronage to blacks who generally did not pay taxes.

It was an era of misrule labeled by Americans more contemporary to the period as Negro Rule, or Negro Supremacy. To rid themselves of the misrule, with unfortunate terminology Southerners argued that Negro Supremacy should be replaced with White Supremacy. While such terminology partly reflected anti-black racism it also reflected opposition to political corruption, unaffordable taxation, and unsustainable spending. It was the latter points that caused most of the racism as a byproduct of resentment over misrule. In fact, the state governments that replaced the Carpetbag regimes generally did not restrict black voting rights. (That would happen later.) Instead, the replacement governments abolished the high taxes, wasteful spending, and centralized power of the Carpetbag regimes.

Carpetbagger Manipulation of Ex-Slave Vote

(April 27, 2021) Today’s academics dismiss claims that Carpetbaggers manipulated the ex-slave vote during Reconstruction. Nonetheless, the Republican regimes in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee collapsed as their leaders fought among themselves over the spoils of Party control thereby splitting their Party into two factions. In Arkansas they literally became two warring sides in an episode known as the Brooks-Baxter War. Moreover, Republicans so manipulated the ex-slaves that each side had its own Black Militia. In short, Arkansas Republicans had blacks killing other blacks to determine which white Republican would control the state’s GOP. 

It began in the spring of 1868 when former Union Brigadier General Powell Clayton became the state’s first Carpetbag Governor in an election where irregularities were commonplace. Democrats, for example, complained that the number of votes cast in the state’s largest county exceeded the number of registered voters. Even though the District’s military commander conceded the irregularities, he validated the results by rationalizing that there would have been irregularities regardless of which side won.

Consequently, Democrats turned their attention to the forthcoming 1868 General Election when the U.S. President would be selected along with the state’s three congressmen. In response to one political assassination and another attempt, Governor Clayton formed a Black Militia. (His Militia included some whites, particularly in the northwest part of the state where few blacks lived.) Its tyrannical conduct guaranteed that Republicans would win the autumn elections. He also declared martial law in counties unlikely to vote Republican and threw out their votes even after they were tallied. Even though all three Congressmen elected were Republicans, two of them would have been defeated without the Governor’s one-sided intervention.

Clayton’s Black Militia terrorized whites in the southern and eastern parts of the state which were Democrat strongholds. Among the complaints were plundering, arbitrary arrests and prisoner mistreatment. Even Clayton reluctantly admitted to instances when Black Militiamen sexually assaulted white women. Arkansas spent $330,000 on the Black Militia alone during General Election and ensuing months whereas before the war the state spent only $100,000 annually for all purposes. White residents especially resented that nearly all the tax burden for such expenses fell upon them as property owners. Many could not afford to pay such taxes and lost their lands to Carpetbag buyers in tax delinquency sales. Powell Clayton, for example, eventually accumulated a 40,000-acre plantation.

After Clayton moved to the Senate, he gradually lost power back in Arkansas. The national Republican Party split into two camps for the 1872 elections. One group, known as the stalwarts, backed President Grant. The other, known as the liberals, nominated newspaperman Horace Greeley as their presidential candidate.

The liberals opposed Grant for several reasons. First, and foremost, they wanted civil service reform to minimize the corruption that accompanied political appointments. They also objected to the railroad land giveaways that included acreage to the Northern Pacific Railroad equivalent in size to the state of Missouri. Jay Cooke, who managed the railroad, was President Grant’s largest campaign contributor. Finally, liberal Republicans wanted to give former Confederates the right to hold elective office.  

Powell Clayton backed the stalwart wing, which was represented in Arkansas by gubernatorial candidate Elisha Baxter who was opposed by Joseph Brooks. Since the Baxter faction controlled the election machinery, he won. Brooks, nonetheless, filed a couple of lawsuits charging fraud. He promptly lost the higher-profile suit while the second one languished in a lower county court.

After Baxter took office, however, he angered Clayton by attacking rail promoters for recklessly issuing too many state-guaranteed bonds to finance the construction of their railroads. Attempts by the rail companies to force the state to accept stock, instead of cash, for repayment of the bonds triggered Baxter’s objections. Ultimately every Reconstruction-era railroad in Arkansas financed in this manner defaulted on its interest payments. Construction costs were unaccountably high as were the bond sales commissions. There can be little doubt that much of the excess went into the pockets of the promoters.

Consequently, Clayton quickly switched sides in the governor dispute. In April 1874 he got the obscure county court to unequivocally declare Brooks the winner of the 1872 election. Accompanied by ten armed men on 15 April, Brooks physically ousted Baxter from the governor’s office in a coup d’état.

From a nearby hotel, Baxter sent out a call to the Black Militia for volunteers to report for active duty. Brooks likewise sent a call for Militia volunteers to defend his occupation of the state house. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of white and black men showed up in in the state capital of Little Rock to support their candidate. Federal troops from a nearby arsenal temporarily kept them apart.

Eventually, however, tensions escalated into at least two armed engagements. One was on 30 April at New Gascony where two hundred of Baxter’s blacks defeated a like number of Brooks’ blacks. The now-vanished town was fifteen miles from present-day Pine Bluff. The Brooks faction lost nine killed and twenty-odd wounded whereas Baxter’s forces had only four casualties. 

A week later Brooks’ troops won a battle. Baxter sent forty men on a riverboat a short distance upstream from Little Rock on the Arkansas River to intercept a shipment of arms destined for Brooks at the statehouse. Even though the movement began at 3:00 AM, the Brooks forces saw it and sent 200 of their own men ahead to Palarm Creek by railroad where they ambushed the riverboat. Their shots quickly disabled the boat, which drifted to the far bank. Under relentless fire, three of the forty men aboard were killed and nearly all the others were wounded.

Most Arkansas taxpayers were outraged to fund the ridiculous affair that resulted in the state Militia fighting against itself.  The Brooks-Baxter War added another $200,000 to the state’s Black Militia operating expenses. Ultimately, both sides appealed for recognition from the national government, forcing Congress to establish a committee to investigate Arkansas affairs. Acting upon a legal opinion from Attorney General George Williams, Grant selected Baxter as the winner but appointed Brooks as Little Rock’s postmaster on 15 May. In the end, the Republican fiasco put Arkansas Democrats back in power after Baxter helped enable former Confederates regain the right to vote.  

Washington, D. C. Statehood

(April 24, 2021) Earlier today I wrote my Congress-lady to ask if she would have voted for Washington, D. C.  statehood if she believed that the District would add two new Republican senators. One hundred and twenty years ago South Carolina’s last carpetbag governor asked a nearly identical question to fellow Republicans in a 1901 Atlantic Magazine article. Massachusetts native, Yale graduate, and Skull & Bones Society Member, Daniel Chamberlain had been out of office for twenty-five years when he wrote of his Party’s 1867 Reconstruction Acts that led to the corrupt puppet state governments in the South through the manipulation of the ex-slave vote:

. . . underneath all the avowed motives and all the open arguments— [lay] the will and determination to secure [Republican] party ascendency and control at the South and in the nation through the negro vote. If this is a hard saying, let anyone now ask himself, or ask the public, if it is possibly credible that the Reconstruction Acts would have been passed if the negro vote had been believed to be Democratic.​

It should be noted that the Reconstruction Acts only required universal black registration in the former Confederate states. Northern states were exempted even though they had far fewer blacks as a percent of their populations. Thus, Republicans did not seek black suffrage throughout the country. That came later, only when it became clear that blacks could largely be quarantined in the South where 90% of them remained until 1910, which was forty-five years after the war had ended. Some Republicans, such as New York Senator Roscoe Conkling openly admitted that Southern black suffrage was intended to keep blacks out of the North. In 1866 he said, “Four years ago mobs were raised . . . upon the idea that emancipated negroes were to burst upon the North. We said, give them liberty and rights in the South and they will stay there . . .”

While today’s GOP understands that the House recently voted for D.C. statehood because Democrats want to gain control of the Senate, modern Republicans persist in believing that their Party championed black civil rights during Reconstruction out of a moral impulse even though it did nothing for other minorities such as Chinese-Americans, Native-Americans and the immigrants who settled in the big cities of the North. Consequently, modern Republicans readily sacrifice Confederate statues in a futile hope of preventing the Democrats from escalating Cancel Culture to other American traditions and symbols.

Consider Georgia Governor Brian Kemp who is now falsely accused of suppressing black votes by supporting a new act to provide voter integrity in his state. In truth, the percentage of black Georgians who are registered to vote, as well as those who do vote, is higher than the national average. In 2018 when black gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams claimed the election was stolen from her, 65% of Georgia blacks were registered to vote as compared to 60% nationally. Similarly, 56% of black Georgians voted that year as compared to only 48% nationally. In truth, the new Georgia law expands voting rights beyond those in such states as New York, where Major League Baseball is headquartered, and Delaware, which is President Biden’s home state.

Nonetheless, Georgia Republicans are abused by Cancel Culture. Major League Baseball withdrew their All Star game from Atlanta, leading Georgia corporations such as Delta Airlines and Coca Cola condemn the state GOP as racist and Hollywood producers boycott the state. If corporate media is any guide, Americans imagine Georgia to be a morally depraved state where the average white attends weekly KKK meetings secretly.

Notwithstanding, such abuse Governor Kemp appointed two new members to the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association who seem to be determined to remove the bas-reliefs of “Stonewall” Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis from the face of the mountain. Georgia state Representative Billy Mitchell, who has introduced a bill that would enable the carvings to be removed, has said of the new appointees: “I think they are great choices by this governor.”

In sum, it appears that Governor Kemp’s Stone Mountain Association appointments reflect continued Republican Party dismissal of Southern Culture. The voter tally in January’s Georgia run-off elections that gave Democrats two new Senate seats in Washington were close. The margin in one race was one percent and it was two percent in the other. Notwithstanding that Confederate statues had been under consistent assault in the state, neither Republican candidate said anything in defense of the memorials. Perhaps they lost their elections because voters who do want to honor their Confederate ancestors declined to participate. If so, the consequence is that the Democrat Party may now have the power to:  

  • Stack the Supreme Court
  • Win statehood for Washington, D. C.
  • Eliminate freedom of speech.
  • Take away the right to bear arms.
  • Dictate voting requirements in all states.
  • Indoctrinate our schools and institutions with a bogus critical race theory.

The escalation of Cancel Culture might have been arrested if Americans had made a sober assessment of Southern symbols five years ago when the politically ambitious Nikki Hayley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s state capitol grounds. Instead, a false narrative took control because Cancel Culture censored dissenting voices. The result has been an ecstasy of sanctimony that has led to the mob destruction of century old memorials with no legal consequences to the mobsters.    

Ty Seidule’s Selective Criticism

(April 21, 2021) After editing the West Point Guide to Gender and Warfare, history Professor Ty Seidule applied to New York’s Hamilton College for a fellowship reserved for retired military officers. At Hamilton he has vented personal contempt for Robert E. Lee, Confederates at large and even their descendants in his recent book, Robert E. Lee and Me. His publisher’s media promotion has helped transform Seidule into a high-profile advocate for the deletion of Confederate names from schools, streets and Army bases as well as the removal of Confederate statues. Consequently, Seidule has become a favorite spokesman for so-called justice within America’s racial, gender and ethnic minority grievance coalition.

Given Seidule’s arguments that all Confederate names be removed at West Point because they are racist, he may want to consider the residence hall named for Elihu Root at Hamilton College where Root graduated. Although Root won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912 for promoting international arbitration and peaceful relations in the Western Hemisphere, there are unpleasant truths behind his legend. He waged war against people of color, abetted California racism by restricting Japanese immigration and opposed women’s equality.    

When Root was War Secretary from 1899 to 1903, he waged war against tan-skinned Filipinos who were seeking independence from the Washington government. After the Filipinos adopted guerrilla tactics, Root’s War Department responses became increasingly harsh and included the first use of the waterboard interrogation. Attacks against civilians escalated from the occasional house burning to the incineration of entire villages and their crops. Civilians were herded into concentration camps in order to deny Filipino guerrillas the logistical and emotional support of their families.  Famine quickly spread among noncombatants.  Consequently, even though only 20,000 Filipino soldiers were killed in combat, civilian deaths are estimated to have been as high as two hundred thousand, or more.  

As Secretary of State in 1908, Root negotiated an executive level agreement to limit Japanese immigration. During the preceding thirty years California’s hostility toward Chinese immigration had resulted in a series of Federal Chinese Exclusion Acts that had caused the fraction of California’s population composed of Chinese-Americans to drop from nine percent in 1880 to three percent in 1910. Since nearly all of California’s Asian immigrants were Chinese until about 1890, the state did not seek Federal limits on Japanese immigration until then. Thereafter, Californians increasingly pressed for strict Federal limits. The result was the 1908 Root Gentlemen’s Agreement that required Japan to cease issuing all passports to laborers bound for the continental United States.

Finally, as chairman of the judiciary committee for a New York State constitutional convention in 1894, Root worked to ensure that female suffrage was excluded from the constitution. He actively opposed feminism for the rest of his career, becoming the president of an anti-suffrage league in 1917. Partly because of Root’s influence, Philippine women were not allowed to vote until 1937, which was thirty-five years after the archipelago formed a United States territorial government. The islands did not become fully independent until after World War II.  

Before he censors memorials for historical white Southerners who did not conform to his supposed sense of gender equality and justice for blacks and non-white immigrants, let him first explain his acquiescence to the Elihu Root memorial residence hall on the campus of Hamilton College where Seidule now teaches.  

Intimidating the Supreme Court

(April 17, 2021) Congressional Democrats are attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court with last week’s proposed 2021 Judiciary Act. After former President Trump added three justices during his term, Democrats are now threatening to add four additional ones of their own should the nine-justice-court merely agree to review any lower court rulings contrary to the Party’s interests. President Biden has already warned the Court to avoid reviewing the sex discrimination of a male-only military draft. Attacks on the Court’s integrity have happened twice before. 

The first time was during Southern Reconstruction when Congressional Republicans passed the 1867 Reconstruction Acts and a new Habeas Corpus Act. The Reconstruction Acts were likely unconstitutional, and the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act empowered the Supreme Court to review habeas corpus rulings from state and other lower courts. 

Even though it was an encroachment upon state’s rights one Southern newspaperman who had been charged in a military court with inciting an insurrection through his editorials, used the 1867 Habeas Act to appeal his case to the Supreme Court. After the Court accepted his case and even heard lawyer-arguments in 1868, the Republican controlled Congress repealed the Court’s review authority after the fact. (After hearing the respective lawyers argue the case, the Republicans realized that a contrary decision would also draw into question the legality of the 1867 Reconstruction Acts due to an earlier Supreme Court ruling that civilians must normally be tried in civilian courts, not military tribunals.) 

Although a long legal tradition holds such ex-post facto circumstances to be irrelevant, the 1868 Supreme Court twisted itself into a pretzel in Ex-Parte McCardle to rule that Congress’ after-the-fact repeal of the Court’s jurisdiction denied it an opportunity to make a decision. The Justices rightly feared that Congressional Republicans would stack the Court, or otherwise penalize it, if it failed to appease the Party. The intimidated Justices convolutedly reasoned that they lacked the authority to rule on a case they had already concluded was undeniably within their authority to review. The laws and the facts of the case did not change when the Court agreed to review McCardle’s appeal. The only thing that changed was something that happened in Congress after the opposing sides presented their arguments to the Court. 

You can learn more about the ensuing Republican power abuse during Reconstruction from my Southern Reconstruction book.

The second time a Party tried to intimidate the Court was after Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt won a landslide election in 1936. The following year he attempted to stack the Supreme Court because it had previously made rulings contrary to his New Deal legislation. Even though his Party controlled three-fourths of the seats in both the Senate and House, Roosevelt was unable to get a bill passed to increase the number of justices. He lost by a three-to-one margin in the Senate. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the proposed bill concluded: “[The Bill] points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and . . . violates every sacred tradition of American democracy. . .” The Committee ended by erroneously predicting: “It is a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” They never contemplated today’s madness. 

Northern Versus Southern Racism

(April 15, 2021) One of the reasons that Confederate memorials are under attack is the presumption that Southerners are more racist than Northerners. In truth, however, during the past sixty years Southerners have done more to overcome racism than have Northerners.

While many Southerners respected the memory of their ancestors with Confederate memorials, they also added memorials to Southern blacks.  Consider streets named for Martin Luther King. Former Confederate states have far more MLK streets than similarly sized Northern states. North Carolina and New Jersey, for example, have comparable populations but the Southern state has twenty-nine MLK streets whereas the Northern one has only eight. Similarly, even though Ohio has four times the population of Mississippi, the Buckeye State has only eight MLK streets whereas the Magnolia State has sixteen. Notwithstanding that she has only three million residents, Arkansas alone has as many MLK streets as Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont combined.

Thirty years ago, the National Civil Rights Museum opened in Memphis. A year later Jackson, Mississippi taxpayers erected a statue to murdered black integrationist Medgar Evers. That same year Birmingham taxpayers and business leaders opened the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. In 1993 the National Voting Rights Museum opened in Selma, Alabama. Two years later Richmond, Virginia taxpayers put a sculpture of black tennis star Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue, a location previously reserved for Confederate statues.  Today it stands as the only uncontested memorial remaining on the prominent parkway. In 2007 Arkansas erected statues to the Little Rock Central High School Nine on the state capitol grounds. Aside from historical sites such as the Pettus Bridge and Central High which organically became memorials, other deliberate Southern civil rights memorials and museums are in Savannah, Montgomery, Columbia, Atlanta, Austin, Baton Rouge, St. Augustine and Greensboro, among other cities.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s recent claim that Confederate statue placements surged from 1900 to 1920 as an intentional display of Southern white supremacy is spurious. In reality the swell reflected three factors unrelated to racism.

First, the surviving Confederate veterans were increasingly dying off. Family members wanted to pay them tribute while they were still around. A veteran who enlisted at age nineteen in 1861, for example, was 68 in 1910. Second, America commemorated the war’s semicentennial from 1911 to 1915 when Northerners also put up many statues. Third, war-impoverished Southerners had little money for statues until the twentieth century. Notwithstanding that the South had 32% of the America’s population in 1900 she had only 16% of the income. Thus, the remaining 68% of the people outside the South had 84% of the income thereby translating to a per capital income about two-and-a-half times larger than that of the average Southerner.

 Although his relative prosperity and infrequent contact with blacks might have enabled the typical Northerner to generously accept geographic racial diffusion, he did not. In reality he had a low opinion of blacks and wanted them kept at a distance.  As late as 1910 ninety percent of America’s blacks still lived in the South. In 1906 ex-President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in a letter to novelist Owen Wister, “I entirely agree with you that as a race . . . the [blacks] are altogether inferior to the whites.” He regarded the black person as a child: “I do not believe that the average Negro . . . is yet in any way fit to take care of himself.” He disdained the Southern wing of his Republican Party, as a “set of black and white scalawags, with few descent men.” He regarded “universal suffrage” for blacks as a crime and a joke. Although Teddy’s racial apologists will note that he invited Booker T. Washington to a White House dinner, that happened years after white leaders in Atlanta hosted the black educator as a featured speaker for the 1895 Cotton States Exposition. Washington’s speech was widely hailed by Southern blacks and whites. 

In 1907 Harvard President Charles W. Elliot advocated racially segregated schools for Boston if the her black population continued to grow. Harvard Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, who was president of the American Historical Association and a mentor to black activist W.E.B DuBois, considered the black man to be a “moral and social cripple.” He also said that negroes “appear to be below the [Southern] whites in mental and moral status” and added “Race measured by race, the Negro is inferior.” (Due to the political left’s control of the Wikipedia, the preceding points about Hart go unmentioned.) In the early 1900s when he managed the Pullman Company, Abraham Lincoln’s son Robert refused to help Washington and DuBois in a case of racial discrimination against the Southern Railway about sleeping car accommodations. Philadelphia department store owner Robert Ogden said, “Our great problem is to attach the Negro to the [Southern] soil and prevent his exodus to the city.”

Only when Northern industrialists needed more workers during World War I did the North barely tolerate black worker migration. From 1915 to 1918 America’s unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% to 1.4%. About a half-million blacks moved North between 1916 and 1919. Although Chicago was a prime destination, the prominent Chicago Tribune urged that the blacks “stay South” and labeled their migration a “big mistake” because they were “lazy, shiftless ne’er do wells, surely to be[come] a burden on the city.” In nine months from the summer of 1917 to the spring of 1918 Chicago whites exploded fifty-eight bombs at black residences in previously all white neighborhoods.  The Chicago Property Owners Journal warned “There is nothing in the make-up of a Negro which should induce anyone to welcome him as a neighbor. . . [N-words] are undesirable and entirely irresponsible and vicious.” By 1925 the death rate among Chicago blacks approximated that of Bombay, India. A mid-summer 1919 swimming dispute on a Chicago beach caused a riot that left about 40 dead and 540 injured, mostly blacks.

I could go on at length, but the typical academic Northern racist apologists will disingenuously claim that neither she, nor any of her colleagues, deny Northerners were racists.  If the academics were really telling the story of Northern racism, Cancel Culture would be targeting Yankee statues as well as Confederate ones.