On Problematic Sources
In researching a Black man who lived in the United States, and particularly the South, during the mid 19th century, sources are hard to come by. Even for a person of prominence, as Justice Wright was, there is far too little written down and preserved.
Therefore, any source you find can be useful. At the same time, some histories written in the aftermath of Reconstruction come with the particular point of view reflecting racial and national upheaval throughout the world. This a point of view in which certain races or ethnicities (Blacks, Southern Europeans, Chinese, you name it), or religions (Jewish, Catholic, any non-Christian) are seen as inferior, with numerous pseudo-scientific theories used to justify what certain groups of people… just knew to be true. Any historical analysis from this time may be influenced by this persistent mindset. Reading these histories 100 or more years after they were written is a bit like looking in a funhouse mirror - you can recognize the reflection, but the distortions and exaggerations are severe and disconcerting.
So it is with “Reconstruction in South Carolina 1865-1877,” by John S. Reynolds. Originally published in The State (Columbia) newspaper, this 1905 book is a lengthy, detailed and serious work that lays out the events of this critical period, including the term of Justice Wright on the South Carolina Supreme Court.
When you read the book, the point of view regarding the Black participants (and to a lesser extent the white Republicans of the time) is dismissive and insulting. There’s a long excerpt below, with my comments in line.
Reynolds was educated at Columbia University and was a protege of William Dunning, head of the “Dunning School” of historical thought - one which embedded principles of Social Darwinism and white supremacy within serious scholarship. The result is a recounting of Reconstruction as a mistake, of Black people unfit to lead, and disfranchisement a suitable remedy. If “Birth of a Nation” was the epitome of white supremacist propaganda, Dunning and his legion of historians provided its intellectual justification.
A sample of Dunning’s thinking is this: “The negroes who rose to prominence [during Reconstruction] and leadership were very frequently of a type which acquired and practiced the tricks and knavery rather than the useful arts of politics, and the vicious courses of these negroes strongly confirmed the prejudices of the whites.”
So what to do? Ignore it? I think it’s useful as a detailed chronology of events. But as a source, no. If I see something referred to in this book related to Justice Wright, I am going to look for other sources, hopefully primary sources, and multiple ones, to really understand what was going on. I don’t expect to have a direct reference to this book in any work after today’s post.
And for the broader general historical and political context, I am not going to use it at all.
Justice Wright is mentioned a number of times in the book, but here is the largest single passage that refers to him. Some problematic passages are italicized. My commentary is in line, denoted by brackets […].
Among the more important acts passed at the legislative session of 1869-70 may be noted those of which a statement is now given. …
Associate Justice Hoge having resigned, the Legislature elected in his place Jonathan J. Wright, the negro senator from Beaufort. Wright was a native of Pennsylvania, and thirty-three years old. He graduated from a high school in Lancaster [factual error; he attended the Lancastrian School in Ithaca, NY] , and then studied law for two years in Montrose. He was admitted to the bar in Susquehanna County — being the first negro licensed to practice in that State. He had practiced only four years before coming to South Carolina and when elected was practically without experience in any of her courts [this is a strategic use of the generalizing adverb practically to be able to state an opinion corresponding to the author’s worldview without backing it up with actual facts. Wright’s letters show that he was involved in legal matters, even if not in the courts, practically from his arrival in Beaufort]. No white man of his attainments and experience (except, of course, his immediate predecessor, Hoge) could have been elected to the bench of South Carolina [a very clever construction that discredits Wright and his Republican predecessor in one fell swoop]. He was chosen because he was a negro— and most of the Democratic members of the Legislature thought it well to vote for him as against [rival Black politician William] Whipper. It was generally believed that Wright frequently had the help of a capable lawyer in preparing his opinions. [Again uses one of those strategic adverbs, generally, is written in the passive voice, thereby distancing the author from the statement while not attributing a direct source. A high school social studies teacher would mark down a student for such an unsupported assertion.] Some of those papers bear evidence of having been written entire by some good lawyer — being in their language, arrangement and citations manifestly beyond Wright's capacity [reading Wright’s letters to the AMA in the years prior to this gives the lie to this assertion. He was a very eloquent and persuasive writer. We’ll get to numerous examples of his writing in the future]. He remained on the bench till, in 1877, he resigned under impeachment for official misconduct [Wright did resign, but these allegations were discredited at the time, including by Governor Hampton, and the case relied o the testimony of one very suspect witness].
(p. 125-128)
…
Complete source note: JOHN S. REYNOLDS, RECONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA 1865-1877, Columbia, S, C. THE STATE CO., PUBLISHERS 1905