#OAH19: “Revisiting Reconstruction Political History”

Freedmen's Bureau 2Katie Lowe, a graduate student in American history at Towson University, is back from the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians where she was covering the conference for The Way of Improvement Leads Home.  In this conference dispatch, she writes about Session #AM2873: “Revisiting Reconstruction Political History.”  Read all of her OAH dispatches here.

Technically, the OAH meeting didn’t end until Sunday, but I had to catch a train, so my last panel on Saturday was #AM2873, “Revisiting Reconstruction Political History.” It was a good choice!

Corey Brooks (York College, PA) began with a discussion of Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau legislation and its eventual revision and passage. He argued that the bill represented a need for Congress to “advance meaningful liberty.” Brooks noted that there was a vocal minority, rooted in longstanding racial prejudice, against using a federal agency to help people of color. After Johnson’s initial veto, the legislation was changed in terms of appropriations, aid, and the distribution of claimed and abandoned land.

Hilary Green of the University of Alabama discussed efforts in Alabama to ensure education for African Americans during Reconstruction. These efforts were framed around the concept of “education as a vehicle for citizenship.” Delegates to Southern state conventions worked to have public education become part of state constitutions, with Alabama’s statute opening free education to all children ages 5-21. It became a right of citizens, including African Americans, to access education. This raised the question of who would be deemed worthy to gain education and the revolutionary nature of the conventions.  Texas and Arkansas had vague language in their statutes, without comment on freed or former slave status, while Florida’s statute made education accessible “without distinction or preference.” Race, class, and place continued to define access to education. Opposition from the South, philanthropy from the North, and the availability of resources could all affect the quality of schooling.

Kevin Adams of Kent State followed up with an examination of the far Western United States during Reconstruction..  He focused on the Army’s role in Reconstruction as part of a “chronological and geographically expansive approach.” Anti-Chinese mobs in the 1880’s triggered the use of the Army as posse comitatus in Seattle, even though this practice had officially ended years earlier.

Manisha Sinha of the University of Connecticut rounded out the panel with a paper reexamining Reconstruction with regard to the expansion of the state and the redefinition of American democracy to include political and civil rights for African Americans.  She began by suggesting that conventional wisdom, which paints abolitionists as political neophytes, is inaccurate. The political history of abolition and Reconstruction includes debates over the nature of the Constitution that led to political and social changes through government power.  Slaveholder influence in the U.S. government did not result in the growth of the state, but abolitionist work did. Radical Reconstruction could be seen as “rescuing the federal government from the clutches of the slave power.” She notes that suffrage and black citizenship were not new ideas during Reconstruction. The work of radical/political abolitionists remade constitutions to ensure the “[inscription] of black rights into law.” Sinha concluded by emphasizing the interaction between political citizenship and social justice.

The chair/commentator, Andrew Slap from East Tennessee State University, emphasized the “radical and revolutionary nature of Reconstruction” and suggested that the multiple approaches taken by the panel countered the idea of a “greater Reconstruction” that was too big to say anything meaningful. The floor was then opened to questions.

The first question was for Manisha Sinha.  How representative were radical abolitionists? She said that they were the “ideological vanguard” of the party, which is why they are important to the conversation and the formation of the idea of an American state responsible for the well-being of all of its citizens. Corey Brooks added that late wartime and post-war legislation had radical voices setting the parameters for congressional debate.

The next question was for Corey Brooks: Did the Freedmen’s Bureau have its own authority even after its reauthorization and realignment under the War Department?  The answer is yes. A follow up; “Why did Andrew Johnson veto the legislation? Brooks stated that Johnson claimed that eleven states did not have representation at the time and so he believed passage would be inappropriate.

Someone asked Kevin Adams if Washington was still a territory, how did federal authority extend there? He said that the Washington territory had asked for federal intervention.  Moreover, a broader view had emerged by this point giving government the power to intervene in all civil rights issues.

A member of the audience asked Hilary Green if the discussion over Reconstruction education extended to universities.   Yes, in South Carolina the University of South Carolina was desegregated. Some states agreed to build separate schools and others made provisions for students with special needs (blind, deaf).

Reflections on a First Visit to the Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians

OAH exhibit

Katie Lowe, a graduate student in American history at Towson University, is back from the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians where she was covering the conference for The Way of Improvement Leads Home.  In this conference dispatch, she writes about what it was like to attend her first OAH.  Read all of her OAH dispatches here.

#OAH19 was the first big conference I’ve attended (and my first history conference), so I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.

I came in on Wednesday night to volunteer. I’m happy to report that about half a dozen people can stuff 2000 bags full of AHA swag in less than two hours, while another team prepares conference lanyards. I’m also happy to report that the OAH meeting team, which coordinated the volunteers, are wonderful people, and were quick to resolve any issues.

One of the things that surprised me is how loud the conference could be (and that’s before entering the book exhibit). I know it’s a cliché to think of historians as quiet (until they get into an academic dispute, of course), but I was not prepared for the volume.

I’m not completely sold on the panel format. I would really like to see the field become more accessible and engaging.  For me, this would mean a history conference in which fewer scholars read their papers at the audience. I realize that this would be a pretty big change for historians, but for now I would just appreciate more visuals or printed materials.  It would also be nice if presenters did not sigh upon learning that they have to use a microphone.  As far as the panel format itself, some sessions came together better than others, which I hear is not unusual.

One highlight: RIBBONS! (C’mon, you know you wanted a few).

My top takeaways are:

1) Redcaps are possibly angels.

2) Plan your day.  Know which panels you want to attend.

3) Be prepared to abandon all of your plans.

4) If you are an introvert, figure out where you can hide between sessions.

5) Don’t drink too much coffee!!

Overall, it was a great experience and I’m looking forward to next year.

Slavery in the City (#OAH19)

Slavery in the City

Slave auction in Charleston, SC, circa 1860

Katie Lowe is an M.A. student in history at Towson University in Towson, Maryland.  She is reporting for us this weekend from the floor of the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Philadelphia.  In this dispatch, she summarizes a panel on urban slavery.  Enjoy!  –JF

Hello from Philadelphia! This is my first time attending the OAH meeting, and it’s been a positive experience overall. The members of the OAH planning team are good people, and I have appreciated getting to know them as a volunteer this year. Below is a recap of a panel I attended Friday morning.

“Slavery in the City” (#AM3149), chaired by Martha Jones of Johns Hopkins University, discussed some of the challenges of exploring the intersection of American and urban histories.

Leslie Harris of Northwestern started us off by stating that there is “no synthetic work” in the field of urban slavery.  Older work is being challenged and there is still a lot that we don’t know about the subject.  For example, we need to know more about what caused shifts in urban free black populations.  Harris also noted that slavery in Philadelphia has been understudied. She stressed that more work needs to be done on how the practice of slavery was adapted to specific locales, economic situations, and the demographics of the enslaved population in a given area. She concluded by pointing out that after the Civil War, the image and memory of slavery focused overwhelmingly on the plantation and much less on the cities.

Rashauna Johnson of Dartmouth College noted a recent “outpouring of scholarship” on slavery and urban history.  She described New Orleans as having a “confined cosmopolitanism,” suggested a need to both broaden frameworks and center particular stories of urban slavery, and challenged us to recognize  the “heterogeneous landscape” of slavery in American cities.

Jonathan Wells of the University of Michigan highlighted how cities in the North were divided over the issue of slavery and preserving the Union, especially in terms of creating coalitions to forward business interests. He mentioned that kidnapping, violence, and resistance to anti-slavery activity created dangerous conditions for African Americans in the North.