Quantcast
Connect with us

The professor who was ostracized for claiming the Civil War was about slavery – in 1911

Published

on

Sometimes when we’re poking around in an archive, we come across century-old documents that are strangely relevant. That’s what the story of Enoch Marvin Banks became to me. An aging letter from 1911 that I found in the Columbia University archive revealed a story that could be in today’s headlines: people in the Jim Crow South tried to capture the memory of the Civil War for political gain.

ADVERTISEMENT

My main research involves Progressive-Era economic thought, and John Bates Clark was one of America’s foremost economists. Sifting through his papers, I came across the usual letters of economic theories and perspectives, but then something unexpected: A long letter from Enoch Marvin Banks dated April 2, 1911 (the quotes below come from this letter). Banks was a professor of history and political economy at the University of Florida, and he seemed distressed. He was “being violently assailed”, evidently over an article he’d written. I didn’t have the article at the time, but I could understand its context from the hints Banks gave. Basically, Banks had committed the crime of blaming the Civil War on slavery. Southern leaders, he stated, had made “a grievous mistake in failing to formulate plans for the gradual elimination of slavery from our States.” In his view, wise leadership would have ended slavery slowly, kept the union intact, and avoided the catastrophe of civil war.

With a google search, I later found the article in question, “A Semi-Centennial View of the Civil War” in The Independent  (Feb. 1911). Upon reading it, I discovered that Banks was even more explicit in print: “The fundamental cause of secession and the Civil War, acting as it did through a long series of years, was the institution of Negro slavery” (p. 300). Banks didn’t stop there. He attacked the South’s leadership as well, praising Abraham Lincoln and criticizing Jefferson Davis as a statesman of “distinctly inferior order” (303). Such views were incendiary in the Jim Crow South, and the cause of Banks’ distress.

Banks’ views touched off a firestorm in his native South (he was born in Georgia and spent most of his life in the South). Confederate veterans’ groups responded with widespread criticism. Banks included a clipping from the United Confederate Veterans Robert E. Lee Camp No. 58 in his letter to Clark. The clipping addressed the University of Florida for having a staff member who sought to “discredit the South’s intelligence and to elevate the North and to falsify history.” “Shall such a man continue in a position as teacher where he will sow the seeds of untruth and make true history a falsifier?,” they asked. The veterans demanded Banks be removed from the university and replaced with “a man who will teach history as it is and not mislead and poison the minds of the rising generation.”

As Banks told Clark, he simply couldn’t stand the controversy and pressure. He obliged these demands by resigning from the university and retreating back Georgia. He died only a few months later. Some suspected that the strain of the ordeal diminished his already weak health and led to his eventual death.

ADVERTISEMENT

This moment reflected the ongoing battle over the legacy of the Civil War and the ideology of the Jim Crow South. As Banks wrote his article, the South was building and codifying its system of racial segregation. Part of this project involved capturing the war’s historical memory. Confederate leaders had to be presented as noble warriors fighting for a lost cause. Jefferson Davis, who was attacked then and now for incompetence, was “one of the noblest men the South ever produced,” according to the Confederate veterans’ group. That’s why they blamed Banks for distorting history, as he challenged the history that was being constructed. As Fred Arthur Bailey wrote in one of the few articles dedicated to this affair: “This tragic incident was but a small part of a large, successful campaign for mind control. Self-serving, pro-Confederate historical interpretations accomplished their purposes” (17). I can’t help agreeing with Bailey’s conclusion.

This ordeal seems to me a perfect example of how history becomes a battlefield. It’s no secret that the historical memory of the Civil War became contentious almost as soon as the war ended. In a world where debates about Confederate statues and flags frequently make headlines, I can only conclude that the battle is very far from over.

Stephen Leccese is an ABD PhD candidate at Fordham University. He tweets at twitter.com/historythough and blogs at historicthoughts.com

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Is Trump a master of ‘3-D chess’? Expert says nope

Published

on

Politics is often conceived as a type of game. To win, a person or group must amass more power than the other players in order to advance their own goals. Victory can be achieved through cooperation with the other players, domination over them or some combination of the two.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Alternatively, a person or group can decide not to participate in this current version of politics, while they seek to invent their own game with different rules.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Watch Rudy Giuliani’s stunning confession that he has been pressuring Ukraine officials for dirt on Biden

Published

on

Attorney for the president Rudy Giuliani gave a combative, belligerent and downright incoherent interview on CNN Thursday evening, raving about a ballooning scandal involving Donald Trump and Ukraine.

Giuliani and Trump have apparently been pressuring the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a probe that could help the president’s re-election campaign. That massive scandal had been unfurling on its own for months, but it blew up Thursday when multiple reports revealed that a mysteriously suppressed whistleblower complaint in the intelligence community reportedly concerns Trump’s conduct and the country of Ukraine.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘It’s treachery if not treason’: Harvard’s Laurence Tribe destroys Trump’s claim he’s above the law

Published

on

Legendary constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe explained the legality of President Donald Trump's claim to be above the law during a Thursday evening appearance on MSNBC's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell.

The host played a notorious clip of Trump.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters. Okay? It’s like incredible," Trump argued.

"And now he has gone beyond that," O'Donnell noted. "Now the president is sayin, 'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I cannot be prosecuted for that crime. Or any crime.'"

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image