Posted on 05/04/2005 8:27:06 PM PDT by CHARLITE
GETTYSBURG, Pa. -- The most famous battlefield of the American Civil War might seem an unlikely place to look for lessons about Iraq. But as historian James McPherson leads a group of Pentagon officials in a discussion of postwar reconstruction, some startling common themes emerge.
The poison that destroyed reconstruction was racial hatred. The white elite managed to convince poor whites that newly freed blacks were their enemies, rather than potential allies. There's an obvious analogy to the Sunni-Shiite divide that has poisoned postwar Iraq. In the South, the die-hard whites began to believe that if they held tough, the North would abandon the campaign to create a new, multiracial South. And it turned out they were right.
By 1877, says McPherson, the North essentially gave up. Demoralized by the economic depression of 1873, Northern investors pulled back from projects in the South and turned their attention to the West. The troops occupying the South were withdrawn. White Southerners, defeated in war, had won the peace. The South slipped into more than 80 years of racism, isolation and economic backwardness.
What lessons does this dismal history convey for U.S. forces in Iraq? First, what you do immediately after the end of hostilities is crucial, and mistakes made then may be impossible to undo. Don't attempt a wholesale transformation of another society unless you have the troops and political will to impose it. Above all, don't let racial or religious hatred destroy democratic political institutions as in the post-bellum South. Giving up on reconstruction led to a social and economic disaster that lasted nearly a century. That's a history nobody should want to repeat, least of all the Iraqi insurgents.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
An "I'll read this in the morning" ping. Good night.
Don't know why I read it, it's 99.9999% hog wash.
I perfectly good waste of time and energy. Don't bother to read it.
Ping for a later read.
Both Professor Woodward and his son, an able historian in his own right, were friends of mine. When people do seminal work to get the facts of an era straight, it is pathetic when professors (and reporters) a generation later are still getting the story dead wrong -- because what they believe fits their preconceptions ever so much better than the truth.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, " 'L.A. Chappaquiddick,' Starring Hillary Clinton."
Both Professor Woodward and his son, an able historian in his own right, were friends of mine. When people do seminal work to get the facts of an era straight, it is pathetic when professors (and reporters) a generation later are still getting the story dead wrong -- because what they believe fits their preconceptions ever so much better than the truth.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, " 'L.A. Chappaquiddick,' Starring Hillary Clinton."
Sorry, sorry.
Billybob, Billybob
Alexis de Tocqueville, traveling around the US in the early 1830s, thought that the prejudice against black people was stronger in areas where slavery no longer existed.
Tocqueville was in Philadelphia at the time of an election and noticed that there were no black voters. He thought that the laws forbade blacks to vote. It turned out that black men were legally entitled to vote, but were afraid to do so because they would be violently attacked if they tried to. That was in Philadelphia.
Read a little closer and you'll find that the only connection between Gettysburg and these "lessons" is that a conference met there. I've really tried to grasp this attempt at a historical parallel, and I'm afraid it just isn't there. This gentleman quite evidently sees commonalities between Iraq and the post-bellum American South that I do not.
Bookmarking for tomorrow. Looks like an interesting concept.
A Washington Post pundit applying a Marxist analysis of history. Boy, is he in the right place.
Billybob, Billybob
OK. OK. No problem. No problem.
....and thanks for the correction about the Jim Crow error in the article. I'll try to notify the author that he needs a refresher course. My feeling about some of these "strained" pieces is that writers are under a lot of pressure to keep coming up with "new angles" and new topics for posted columns. However, sloppy scholarship is inexcusable.
How 'ya doin,' BillyBob?
Char :)
I once played with David Ignatius when I was about six years old. He lived across the street. What say you about his thesis? It rings true with me. David struck me as smart when he was about eight years old, and he still strikes me that way.
Ping.
According to the story, antebellum southern whites hated blacks, but no mention of southern blacks hating whites. I suggest that the Washington Post reporter read 19th century articles on this topic in the Washington Post--assuming a Post reporter can read. There was plenty of animosity on both sides.
Nice little touch there, CivilWarguy! I like it!
Char :)
"The poison that destroyed reconstruction was racial hatred. The white elite managed to convince poor whites that newly freed blacks were their enemies, rather than potential allies."
Bzzzzzzt. Thank you for playing. Be sure to get your clue on the way out.
My mother, whose family had been in the South since the 1700s, passed along to me a much more accurate understanding of these events--together with an aversion to racial prejudice.
Putting Congressman BillyBob's recommendation on my reading list.
"antebellum southern whites hated blacks"
Which is why they allowed them to give suckle to their children?
Northern white woman who came south with the occupation were horrified at the notion.

What idiot Historian would think that Sunni versus Shi'ite hate is anything new, as in, newer than 2003?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.