Why Did White Southern Democrats Create A System Of Legalised Segregation To Disfranchise Blacks In

The drive for disfranchisement in the 1890s was primarily racially motivated, as white Southern Democrats sought to restore the status quo of white supremacy prior to reconstruction. The reconstruction era from 1865 to 1877 witnessed the enfranchisement of blacks, as for the first time in their history African Americans achieved the right to vote. Disfranchisement ensured political segregation between whites and blacks as newly gained African American voting rights were removed at registration, marking a tactical change of de jure nature as opposed to previously favoured de facto customs manipulating and intimidating black voters at the ballot box. 'Basically, disfranchisement was intended to remove black voters from the political process once and for all.' Whilst the reassertion of white supremacy was of paramount importance to the occurrence of disfranchisement region wide, the ideology alone cannot comprehensively explain why a novel legalised system of segregation came in to being. One must first acknowledge that the disfranchisers themselves were not a homogenous organisation across the south but instead consisted of a series of heterogeneous movements with ulterior motives; locally states differed and pursued disfranchisement for political and economic aspirations, relative to circumstances within their own state. Southern conservative Democrats were the main instigators of disfranchisement, using it as a weapon to defeat political opposition, to realign party structure and to reabsorb former party dissenters. In addition inferior reasons but yet relevant to the explanation include the role of the Republican Party, the Federal Government and the fear of black insurgency from a new generation of Negro. Historians themselves have been divided over the system nascent to the 1890s, with great debate over issues regarding the form disfranchisement took and whether in substance it was a new phenomenon without precedent or whether it was part of a continuous process of segregation. Whilst historians are unanimous in acknowledging the significance of race as the frontal issue, they offer contrasting views for which of the other factors contributing to disfranchisement's origin are most worthy of our attention. This essay will assess the theses of four acclaimed historians of the subject, Perman, Hahn, Woodward and Ayers, specifically looking through the lens of Perman's Struggle for Mastery, as it provides the first state by state analysis of disfranchisement and serves as the most comprehensive study of the period to date. Moreover the essay is intended to maintain the argument, that whilst white supremacy was the most important factor behind the shift to the emergence of de jure legislation in the 1890s, other factors must be given recognition relevant to each state otherwise the unique experience that occurred within the south at the turn of the century will be generalised and misconstrued. It is most logical to take Perman's study as the focal point in this investigation as he is the first to provide the reader with a coherent state by state analysis of why disfranchisement was created. Delivering a fresh novel outlook revealing which factors behind the drive for disfranchisement are relevant to which areas, Perman's work is specifically geared to avoiding generalisations commonly made by his predecessors. Despite the worthy praise of Struggle for Mastery, it is indeed poignant to comment that Perman's greatest strength may also be his greatest weakness as he leaves his gaze inside the halls of voting, restricting his study of segregation to the political realm. The other three authors present major works on all aspects of segregation and are therefore of great use when exploring issues relating to disfranchisement; each are included in this essay to add an overall understanding of the subject. Hahn's A Nation Under Our Feet is particularly useful in assessing the role African Americans played themselves in conjuring the loss of their voting privilege, Ayers', The Promiss of the New South, puts forward a thesis that closely links the rise of segregation as a new social relation responding to modernity and Woodward's Origins of the New South seeing the removal of the Negro firmly linked with white political aspirations. For the focus of this exploration, the convincing approach deplored by Perman is the best guide to use to find out why disfranchisement occurred. Revealing the diversity of varying political incentives, Perman deduces the similarities between state drives for removing Negro voting. This approach allows him to produce an overall thesis framed by dividing his analysis of the south in to five distinctive set of pairs. Differences are immediately obvious as in Mississippi and South Carolina, farmers from the upcountry led the drive for a constitutional convention, beginning with the Mississippi Convention 1890, as agrarians felt harmed by the existing constitution. Whereas the second pairing of Louisiana and North Carolina used disfranchisement as they needed it to defeat oppositional parties, acting on the external rather than internal party interests. Perman argues Alabama and Virginia's disfranchisement can be described from more of a top down perspective as disfranchisers here had ambitions to realign and redirect the party. Texas and Georgia were the last states to disfranchise, doing so to reabsorb former party members who dissented to the Populist Party in the 1890s and consequently compares them as closest to Alabama and Virginia's process. The half way measures of Tennessee and Arkansas fit in to a different pairing, with Democrats never going as far as states like Mississippi in disfranchising but they were the first to do so acting between 1889 and 1892, shifting away from de facto customs of manipulating voters. Certainly Perman's analysis reveals how the Democratic parties of each state differed in strength, justifying that they must be treated individually rather than summed up collectively. Perman argues that Woodward, like his contemporary V. O. Key, generalised and shifted arguments too much; from initially seeing disfranchisement as being led by conservative black belt Democrats to the negro being used as a scapegoat by Democrats to defeat their political opposition. It seems that Perman's work is strong because rather than trying to take one view of why disfranchisement occurred in the south as a whole, he recognises and synthesises both the bottom up and top down reasons, to form his overall argument that he structures as the 'five distinctive pairs'. For Southern Democrats, disfranchisement was a tool to defeat their opposition; they succeeded in utilising it to cement their one party rule at the expense of Populism and Republicanism in the south. Populists and Republicans having agreed fusion coalitions had allied against the Democrats, Perman argues that North Carolina and Louisiana between 1898 and 1900 were 'the only states to use disfranchisement as a principal weapon to destroy their Populists and Republican opponents'. This is relevant because it shows the diversity of the south at a local level; whilst this cannot be applicable as a reason for disfranchisement arising across the south region wide it would be imprecise to neglect these facts. Woodward for his merit did not discount this motion but his presentation of this aspect is second to Perman's conveyance. Perman extends Woodward's original claim, 'conservatives at the same time found in the Negro vote the most effective means of defeating the Populists', revealing that agrarian radicalism was a social force directly linked with disfranchisement. This provides the best example of how conservative Southern Democrats sacrificed Negro suffrage for their own gains. Class is a contentious issue regarding the emergence of disfranchisement, though not as much as a pivotal theme as race, the class of disfranchisers and which were the most influential in the process, has sparked conflicting interpretations between scholars. This issue is whether it was upper class white conservative Democrats from densely populated black areas, trying to ensure their party dominance or rather a popular demand from the white masses below, who were more influential in the drive for the removal of the black vote. In Origins, Woodward argued that 'behind the front of racial solidarity there raged a struggle between Southern white men that is usually overlooked', affirming the view that disfranchisement grew from competing white political forces. Woodward focuses on the idea that the manipulation of the black vote by competing parties had led to corruption across the south damaging society, meaning that the redeemers sought the complete disfranchisement of the negro as a remedy. The question of who the 'redeemers' were and which were most influential according to Woodward's findings in Origins puts much blame on the black belt Democrats changing their methods to gain electoral advantages in new ways, namely disfranchising the Negro and removing him from politics. Therefore the people with the power to choose party direction decided themselves how the party would gain advantages over its opposition, with the irony being that 'the negro was supposedly the primary concern was often forgotten in the struggle of white man for the supremacy over white man'. The problem with the interpretation put forward by Woodward lies in his lack of consistency, as he changes his view on the forces acting behind the move to de jure racial divisions. In his Strange Career of Jim Crow, which put forward the 'Woodward Thesis', he argues of a capitulation to racism throughout the south, whereby 'the Negro was pressed into service as a sectional scapegoat in the reconciliation of estranged white classes'. This connotes that an overwhelming majority of southerners were disheartened with the current state of fraudulent politics and corrupt society, so much so that they put pressure on the decision making bodies to find an answer. The decadence of southern public life looked to blacks as a scapegoat in the yearning for whites to come together is indeed an attractive proposal from Woodward as it would be likely for already corrupt and politically rising Democrats to act as demagogues and reinforce their position by responding to public aspirations. Nevertheless it would be a lot wiser to view a greater drive towards disfranchisement from a top down perspective, whilst there is little doubt an overwhelming majority of the south was racist this was displayed through customary violence rather than the norm being calls for de jure legislation to be submitted. People in high politics should be held more accountable as it was the prerogative of those already in political power to use disfranchisement as a weapon to defeat political opposition. As Perman acknowledges, black belt Democrats were ever an advocate of disfranchising meaning that 'disfranchisement itself was certainly a coup d' etat since it was engineered from above'. Woodward should be commended for being one of the first historians to reveal the more elusive reasons behind disfranchisement like the political agendas; however his inconsistencies can lead to the modern day reader of disfranchisement being rather underwhelmed. Perman's framework used to explain why disfranchisement differed in form gives readers greater coherence than Woodward did, as although Woodward has provoked great response with his thesis, his work tends to be confusing. Ayers and Hahn both accept the part played by corruption, as revealed by Woodward, as a move towards disfranchisement but their theses in relation to the subject are of greater merit when presenting other insights as to what caused the push towards segregating blacks from whites politically. Ayers and Hahn are very similar in citing white fears of a new rising Negro as a factor behind white Southern Democrats legislating disfranchisement to render African Americans as politically powerless. Commenting on the 'growing ambition, attainments, and assertiveness of blacks', Ayers puts much emphasis on race rather than political competing factions. The book is strong in putting forward an argument that the changes in modernity brought new social conflicts as new social relations came with the introduction of modern phenomenon, namely the railways. Ayers clarifies firstly that with the railways came a plethora of legal cases whereby blacks argued for fairer treatment on rail carriages, such places meant a need for legal legislation to have jurisdiction over them as customary law did not extend to these new boundaries. In addition to this Ayers explains that state jurisdiction was inconsistent with laws differing place to place, according to him this wasn't because of any new ideas about race but rather a case of unforeseen circumstances meaning that segregation grew out of concrete situations. Ayers' analysis connotes that he views the need for de jure legislation, like disfranchisement, as law growing out of existing customs. New legal laws were needed in places where customary law didn't exist and were put forward not for any novel reason but for the obligatory principle to keep the races apart. Hahn's book presents some interesting points to consider, providing a thesis arguing that African Americans made and remade their politics in relation to shifting events, adopting this attitude, Hahn focuses on seeing events from black perspective. The title itself, A Nation under our Feet, is thought provoking as it connotes the nation, America, was shaped by the feet, African Americans, which stood above it. This directly conflicts with Perman's title, Struggle for Mastery, which connotes a struggle between whites for the superiority over the ruling of blacks. Thus, when viewing disfranchisement later in the book, it comes to know surprise that Hahn looks to the contribution of African American actions to their own disfranchisement. A criticism of Woodward would be, despite his undoubted extensive knowledge, he tends to view the subjects of which he describes as objects whereas the personal tone of Hahn's work allows the reader a greater sense of engagement with the text. Hahn praises the work done by Reconstruction governments, which saw Nergoes rise to prominence, which sparked a reaction from whites who rallied cries of Negro domination, focusing on the perceived threat from black power to white power in the drive to remove their voting rights. Thus, Hahn shows that whatever perspective you view the period from, whether it be through the eyes of blacks or whites, he sees disfranchisement as the reassertion of white supremacy as he defies the purpose of the constitutional conventions to take the blacks out of politics. The theory is conclusive, race was the primary motivation overall for disfranchisement much more so than the personal ambitions of Democrats across the region. Whilst Ayers describes the rise of modernity in conjunction with disfranchisement, Hahn too is useful in revealing the importance of a focus that other historians neglect in his disillusionment with the role the Federal Government played. This does not mean Hahn does not echo Perman in sighting Southern Democrats as the main group responsible for disfranchisement, 'the impulse for disfranchisement clearly came from democratic party leaders', but his inclusion of the role Republicans in Federal government played helps piece together all aspects of why black voting rights were able to be removed. 'During the 1890s the U.S congress repealed all of the federal election laws. The Supreme Court (controlled by Northern Republicans upheld the southern approach to disfranchisement.' Indeed the powers governing the whole country did not attempt to counter the drive for disfranchisement; meaning with the country being governed in such a way in the 1890s disfranchisement could spread from state to state without fear of federal intervention. In fact, it was not until the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1966 that this legislation was deemed unconstitutional. The significance of the highest form of government in relation to disfranchisement may not be as direct as Southern politicians coming up with the laws, however the Federal Government's stance meant the laws could come in to being in the 1890s without any opposition. Woodward's interpretation of the events during the 1890s led him to believe that the laws passed to segregate blacks from whites legally were a new phenomenon, however this claim has been challenged as questions have been raised whether we should view disfranchisement occurring in the same way as preluding customary law or whether it was a new phenomenon previously not in place. Joel Williamson acknowledges the absence of a legalised colour line to separate blacks and whites but argues that bears little relevance as mental separation acted to keep the races apart regardless of the need for legal measures. Woodward goes too far in his promotion of an idea of 'discontinuity' as legal measures had been introduced to legal separate the races before 1890, for example Tennesse enacted secret ballot and registration laws as a prototype in the early 1880s. However in principle it may be best to lean more towards Woodward than Williamson when one takes in to account the findings of Ayers. Ayers suggests that existing customs weren't enough to control blacks, as modernity presented new places of interaction with no experience of jurisdiction. For example, the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896 created separate but equal carriages on the railways, this was needed because of debates on what laws should exist in such novel places. Existing customs simply weren't enough; disfranchisement can be seen as a method to maintain control over Negroes which ultimately contributes to the idea of reasserting white supremacy as the main motive. Indeed racial segregation and certainly the attitude towards it from white Southern Democrats was a continuous belief employed, however the de jure legislation that emerged in the 1890s seems to be a new feature of segregation. Disfranchisement happened to reassert white supremacy, it was racially driven as were all customs in controlling blacks but the relevance of the legislation passed to disfranchise Negroes shows needed not simply to reinforce customs or to make clearer the colour line, it was an agenda to take away Negro power. This agenda came in various forms across the south as Perman's study is devoted to show. In terms of achieving the purpose of answering questions 'convincingly and conclusively' about disfranchisement that he judged yet to be answered, Perman should be praised. Perhaps it is unfair to judge the works of Ayers, Hahn and Woodward directly against Perman's findings of political segregation as their works only cover the topic in a small proportion; howev