Charles Lane (1)Besprekingen

The book was interesting but I felt a bit misled by the title.
Freedom’s detective led me to expect a heroic and inspiring man. This guy was, instead, someone who got things done, usually with an eye to advancing his own interests. That’s what most people do , I imagine, and I guess I probably wouldn’t have read it if it had been titled, bit of a jerk.

The story of Hiram C. Whitley who was called upon to penetrate the Ku Klux Klan and halt counterfeiting. His unconventional methods, running on both sides of the line of legality, were effective, but may have been one of the reasons Grant's time in office was considered to be riddled with corruption. Still, many of Whitley's methods are in use today, interrogations of underlings to flip higher ups, undercover operatives, informants, were started as part of his "succeed by any means necessary" credo. The history is fascinating.
The narration was very uneven. While the narrative was not poorly read, anytime a phrase or word was a quotation, the reader went into this scratchy falsetto that was very distressing. And it was the same for any character. It distracted me certainly.

I had a superficial understanding on the state of black Americans after the civil war, and scant knowledge of the realities of the life the freed slaves faced for years. This book really gave clarity to the hardships endured by the freedmen, which didn't improve much for the next 100 years. A painful, sad saga, but a worthwhile read.

On Easter Sunday, 1873, white Democrats massacred roughly eighty blacks at a county courthouse in Louisiana. This is a detailed story of the massacre and its aftermath, which involved white resistance to Reconstruction and slowly fading white Republican commitment thereto, despite the active efforts of some white Republicans, as well as the continued activism of black Republicans—in some cases, costing them their lives, as whites were willing to kill black witnesses who were willing to testify to their crimes. As white violence in the South escalated, President Grant proved unwilling to ramp up military commitments, and the courts struck down the key laws that Republicans had meant to guarantee black rights, destroying the attempt to prosecute the massacres’ major perpetrators. Careful, depressing read.

"The Day Freedom Died" is both one of the most gripping books I've read, and one of the hardest to read. That's because it's the story of a very disturbing event in history - the Colfax Massacre, the brutal murder of dozens of blacks in rural Louisiana - and the attempts to prosecute the killers.

Charles Lane clearly did tremendous research for this book, and it pays off - the book successfully recounts both the events and their place in the events of the time. Lane can write as well, so the scholarship is woven into the story of what happened and the consequences of both the massacre and the court decisions overturning the few convictions secured. The events can make it hard to read at points; but that perhaps makes it all the more important.

Lane isn't quite as good as discussing the legal issues that were decided in Cruickshank - the consequences of the crippling of federal efforts to prosecute murder and intimidation by white thugs is clear, but he never covers in depth the technical validity of the decision. But this is a minor issue.

Reconstruction is often thought of a time of "carpetbag misrule", but "The Day Freedom Dies" shines a rather disturbing light on the time. A stunning read; and one that I'd recommend to anyone.

The Day Freedom Died is and isn't an easy book to read. On the one hand, the story of conflict in Louisiana during the Reconstruction period following the US Civil War is compellingly told. On the other hand, the story centers around the killing of some 65 blacks in Grant Parish, Louisiana, as part of the conflict over whether the more liberal Republicans or the mostly white supremacist Democrats would control the state government. It was a bloody time and Lane doesn't pull any punches, so the book is horrifying in spots.

The conflict originated in how the US government would bring formerly Confederate states back into the Union after the Civil War and how these states would integrate former slaves into society. Initially, at least, Republicans from the North and new freedmen were elected into governorships and state legislatures, while former Confederates were removed from power. As these (mostly) Democrats fought back politically, more violent means were also used, among other objectives, to affect elections. In Grant Parish, this resulted in two full slates of candidates being confirmed simultaneously for parish offices. When the black and Northern white Republicans in the parish asserted what appears to be their legal right to the offices by occupying the local courthouse, the supremacist whites raised an army of more than a hundred to take back what they viewed as their legal appointments. The result was more than 60 blacks dead and 2 or 3 whites from the supremacist group dead in what appears to have been a very unequal fight.

But the story doesn't end there. The US District Attorney in New Orleans (a Republican appointed by President Grant) wanted to prosecute at least the leaders of the supremacist faction under laws enacted by Congress to allow federal courts to enforce the 13-15th amendments to the Constitution. After significant legal drama, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the case was thrown out and the ability to enforce the amendments was gutted except for equal protection considerations. This decision effectively gutted the Reconstruction and put back in place many of the post-war racial policies that lasted until the 1960s and the civil rights movement.

All in all, this was a fascinating book, highly recommended.½