The arrival of Europeans in Mesoamerica and South America has had a profound effect on the day-to-day lives of its inhabitants then and especially now. The growing complexity and sophistication of the Spanish Conquest has demanded more analysis and interpretation for some of the misconceptions viewed by some. The collection of documented cultures and biographical accounts has stimulated debate among scholars and academics as to how these events and figures should be interpreted and viewed. Since 1492, the demographic landscape of the Americas has changed with the introduction of disease and conquerors. Paralleling this change, attitudes and outlooks regarding colonization have conformed to the political climate and first-hand accounts of famous explorers while neglecting to consider alternate and informative accounts of other participants. Because of this, the subject of the Spanish Conquest has been shrouded with myths in this important period of time in human history.
Christopher Columbus, Francisco Pizarro, and Hernán Cortés will forever be remembered as explorers who made significant marks in discovery and conquest of the New World. Their motivations and justifications to sail west into these new lands are solidified in historical books and well known to those taught about colonial expansion. In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Matthew Restall, a professor at Pennsylvania State University who specializes in Colonial Latin American history, contributes to the discussion of exactly how perpetuated myths dominate modern thought of the Conquest while offering clarity to readers that may have false notions of the seven myths analyzed in the book. He defines “myth” as a fictitious idea that is commonly taken to be true, partially or absolutely.[1] Restall argues that these myths surrounding the Spanish Conquest have been mistakenly adopted as truths and seeks to clarify the historical accounts of these three men and, more importantly, other European and native participants.
The purpose behind Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest is to establish alternative understandings to curious readers and offer a middle ground to the complex causes and effects of European and Native American interactions. The author attempts to prove through different perspectives of historical figures and paintings that these three explorers were not “exceptional” in their successes, the men-at-arms accompanying them were not soldiers of the Spanish crown, and, also, these conquistadors were not all fair-skinned individuals. In addition, Restall challenges the idea of Spanish completion of the conquest, miscommunication between Native and Spanish leaders, and Native desolation. The myth of Spanish superiority is addressed lastly in this historical piece.
The methodological approach in making this book involves the collective assistance of ten different students from a graduate seminar unsurprisingly titled “Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest.”[2] It seems apparent that the author’s intention is to revise prior thought on this topic to ensure a wholesome understanding of the issues presented and dissected. Anyone who decides to read this book will gain a clearer picture of the Spanish Conquest, but the emphasis of this work seems more fitting for those who have at least some background knowledge in Colonial Latin American history. The focus of this collectively-crafted book is the social history of the beginnings of European expansion, as well as brief discussions on the diplomatic, military, and intellectual histories.
The sources the author uses range from documents written by Spaniards, Native Americans, and West Africans who experienced the conquest and its aftermath, to the tomes of academics produced in colonial and modern times, to Hollywood movies.[3]Bernal Díaz, an accompanying foot soldier of Cortés’ conquistadors, offers a different glimpse – used as a main primary source – of the perceptions and reactions of himself and others. His paintings are used by historians like Restall that depict a Spaniard’s view of what these people and areas looked like, mentioning the interactions that took place. Mesoamerican narratives are also referenced to blend accounts into an interpretation that attempts to settle confusion over what perhaps may have taken place. The life story of the black conquistador and slave, Juan Valiente, is also used to provide a perspective of someone not identified with Europe or the Americas. Translated letters and transcripts can be considered primary sources along with these.
As far as secondary sources are concern, the author uses some of his previous works, and others, to provide the framework of the Conquest’s history. Supplementing this, he uses publications that cover specific parts of the Conquest, newspaper articles supporting these myths, autobiographies for background information on historical figures, and journal articles printed and published online that share related ideas. Illustrated novels, recordings, film, television, and content from the World Wide Web are utilized to determine popular culture surrounding the Conquest and its parts. In an unorthodox method, the students’ essays of Restall’s 2001 graduate seminar were used to borrow cited works and ideas. All of these are types of secondary sources shown in the reference section of the book.
Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest is organized topically into a seven chapters, each covering the seven myths mentioned earlier. The chronological scope of this historical work starts from the late 15th century C.E. to the late 16th century C.E. Geographically, the book covers the areas of Central America (Yucatán Peninsula, Panama, and central Mexico), the Caribbean islands (modern-day Cuba and Jamaica), and the northern part of South America (modern-day Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Columbia, and Venezuela). The groups of people included in these discussions are the Mexica (Aztecs), Inka, and Maya, along with their respective sub-groups within the kingdoms, empires, or tribes of these Native Americans.
Chapter one illustrates that Columbus, Cortés, and Pizarro were not “exceptional” men in their roles in discovery and conquest. These men, although famous for their accomplishments, might deserve less credit than what has been propagated through the centuries. Restall affirms that conquistadors such as Cortés and Pizarro were not original in their decision and actions and took part in patterns of western European imperial expansion and warfare[4], which debunks the myth of their exceptionalism. Many might assume that these conquistadors were soldiers of the Spanish crown. This is almost completely untrue. In fact, Restall presents to readers, from occupational documentation of the conquistadors of Panama, Peru, and the New Kingdom of Granada (Columbia), “Only two of them claimed to be professional soldiers whereas 60 percent claimed to be professional men and artisans.” [5] They were obviously differing individuals who were not formally trained as warfaring, national soldiers. This argument is presented in chapter two. Both of these chapters reveal and disprove the most common myths about the leaders and ordinary conquistadors of the Conquest.
The idea that the Spanish were somehow superior to the people and cultures from another hemisphere is another mythic explanation, seen in chapter seven, worth noting. Restall sums up one of five presented forms by saying, “native resistance was hindered or forestalled by the belief that the Spaniards were (or may have been) gods, with the interrelated blaming of the Mexica and Inca emperors for the subsequent collapse of their empires.”[6] Instead, he offers a counter-explanation formulated by suggestions that weigh distinctly different interpretations from Native leadership and people. Restall also states that Native disunity, disease, and Spanish steel were the reasons for the Conquest’s outcome, but remove one and the chances of Cortés and Pizarro failing would be substantially higher.[7]
“Paradigms of Conquest: History, Historiography, and Politics,” an essay authored by Steve J. Stern, examines, “what the conquest of America by Spain meant to those who lived it (‘history’), and what it has meant to professional historians who have interpreted it in the twentieth century (‘historiography’).”[8] This is an identical aim of Restall’s own historical mission. Stern affirms, “there was no single meaning of conquest among its promoters, but multiple paradigms and fantasies,”[9] which is an idea shared in Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest.
In class, we discussed the importance of historiography because of its role in exhibiting existing thoughts on a subject, something congruently appropriate that is shown in Restall’s book. As it contributes greatly to the field of Colonial Latin America history, this book satisfactorly corrects falsely-held beliefs about the Conquest, although the “Myth of (Mis)communication” was slightly hazy. Based on the tone of Restall’s words, a reader might be inclined to see him as impartial in his writing. There is no doubt that his qualifications in writing this subject is adequate because of his notable background in Colonial Latin American history. This book is seemingly convincing in its delivery and language. It is to my satisfaction that Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest effectively proves the thesis made by Restall. Unquestionably, this book brings vital clarification for those unaware of their possibly mistaken beliefs of the Conquest. This well-written and informative text certainly brings to light accurate and intriguing explanations that anyone can appreciate and take interest in.
[1] Matthew Restall, Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), xvi.
[2] Ibid., ix.
[3] Ibid., xvi.
[4] Ibid., 26.
[5]Ibid., 36.
[6]Ibid., 134.
[7]Ibid., 143.
[8]Steve J. Stern, “Paradigms of Conquest: History, Historiography, and Politics,” Journal of Latin American Studies 24 (1992): 1 – 35.
[9]Ibid., 23.
The story of the German prisoner of war (POW) in the United States during World War II is hardly remembered. While the subject of Japanese-American internment camps is highlighted in this period of American history, most Americans today do not even realize that almost half-a-million Nazi prisoners were held inside the country during the war.[1] During the last years of the Second World War, American officials initiated a classified program to instill in German POWs negative attitudes about the Nazi ideology and regime and to encourage them to think in more democratic ways.[2] It was vital for this initiative to remain secret, at least initially, for the safety of American POWs in Germany, but more importantly for the security of POW management in the United States, especially since Nazi elements in the camps had enough power to disrupt this program’s effort.[3] This program was administered through reeducation. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, reeducation has two different meanings—(1) to teach someone to do or understand something in a new way or (2) to train someone for a different job.[4] For thousands of German POWs imprisoned in the South, reeducation meant both. This geographic designation was chosen because many of these POW and reeducation camps were largely constructed and located in this rural region where industrial and agricultural needs existed. For a small group of these German soldiers, reeducation resulted in significant changes in their lives.
From 1943 to 1946, the continental United States saw an influx of POWs from WWII. The United States military, which had little experience with POWs since the Civil War, hastily threw up seven hundred internment camps to detain numerous enemy soldiers who were arriving sometimes at a rate of 30,000 per month.[5] This decision was ultimately made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Internment camps were built and prepared across the southern United States near small, rural communities or active army installations. Camp Concordia, located in Kansas, became the site of the first implementation of the reeducation program after first lady Eleanor Roosevelt was approached by two female columnists from New York Herald Tribune. They presented a problem which was brought to light by the forced suicide of two German prisoners, Capt. Felix Tropschuh and a Nazi private.[6] These two POWs lost their lives because of their curiosity about American culture and willingness to cooperate with camp officials. Nazi prisoners, especially elite officers and officials, did not like the attitude changes of their men, so they would (like at Concordia) find ways to cause harm to whomever they observed being treacherous. The two Concordia deaths, and among other incidents, in American POW camps outraged first lady Eleanor and led to an unprecedented education initiative that changed the lives of thousands of German POWs.[7]
In 1945 the US government implemented the IDP to enlighten German POWs on the American way-of-life and increase their appreciation for the United States.[8] Military officials were told to cease using the terms “reeducation” or “reorientation” for this new program.[9] This paper seeks to prove that the implementation of this type of reeducation program was effective and resulted in significant changes in the lives of many of its participants and those affected directly or indirectly. The program used media and educational outreach in its design and implementation[10] and encouraged democratic practices exercised by these POWs. A total of 24,158 German POWs would eventually graduate from official reeducation schools in the United States.[11] These affected participants contributed greatly to the reconstruction effort of post-war Germany, led different lives as naturalized citizens of the United States, and shifted their feelings and attitudes about themselves and the United States. To quote Rudolf T., a former POW at Camp Forrest, Tennessee, “captivity was liberation.”[12]
Some historians believe that the IDP was not effective. Ron Robin, a cultural historian and expert on the German POW experience, argues in his book, The Barbed-Wire College, that the reeducation program had little if any lasting effect at all. Antonio Thompson, an associate professor at Austin Peay State University who specializes in POWs, seems to also agree that reeducation was unsuccessful in his book Men in German Uniform. From the accounts and testimonies of various German POWs and those who were directly involved in the program, this paper will effectively show that this once classified effort of denazification was indeed a success. These sources will provide evidence for the counter-argument against the interpretations of Robin and Thompson. The success of reeducation should be measured not by the small number of participants or the rare cases of POW opportunists, but by the effect this POW experience in America had on the lives of these Germans and their commitment to help spread these adopted ideas of democracy to a damaged Germany. Success, as opposed to how Robin and Thompson measure it, originates from the apparent changed attitudes of these Germans, as well as their roles in post-war Germany. Captivity in the southern United States was reeducation. The American POW camp experience would directly impact and significantly change these German mens’ lives.
The successful 1943 allied campaigns, in North Africa and Italy, was the cause of the first large influx of enemy POWs to the United States.[13] There were 430,000 POWs interned in the United States with approximately 380,000 of them being considered Nazi soldiers[14]. Of the 700 internment camps, about 466, or close to seventy percent of them, were located in the American South.[15] It is necessary to mention that the South, from the article, does not include other southern states outside of the culturally recognized region. It is safe to assume that that number was likely higher. Most of these imprisoned German soldiers were between the ages of eighteen and thirty years old[16] and probably grew up in the Hitler-Jugend (Hitler Youth) or a Nazi household. The United States War Department was the main agency in charge of overseeing POWs but had help from the Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG), a branch of the United States Army that also controlled military police and legal matters, and the Military Police Corps (MPC).[17]
The reason for transferring German POWs to the Western Hemisphere was because the British did not have the means to look after them. Fortunately the vast resources of the United States could help the situation.[18] Prior to their coming, the Provost Marshal had to formulate policies for these POWs that conformed with the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The document clearly stated that captured soldiers were entitled to adequate food, shelter, and health care while interned and, in return, all enlisted POWs were required to work for their captors at a wage comparable to that in the host country.[19] According to a War Department film shown to the American public in 1944, these guidelines for prisoner treatment could be found in field manual 27-10, as well in the training film 19-1360 Handling Prisoners of War.[20] In that same year, the Special Projects Division (SPD) of the OPMG would be founded, and its mission was to eventually implement the IDP for 360,000 German prisoners of war and to select and specially train leaders to return to defeated Germany, pick up the shreds, and guide their crippled nation toward democracy.[21] Not everyone wanted to reeducate Hitler’s soldiers though. A 1945 questionnaire concerning German POWs showed that only 3% of the American public thought at the time that these members of the Nazi party ought to be reeducated.[22] The importance of reeducation was unknown to Americans, and it did not help that they already carried an unfavorable opinion about Nazi affiliations. Reeducation meant the potential democratization of Germany, which was important, but protecting the safety of the POWs from harm was also of high importance.
Proper prisoner treatment was instituted by the United States military because of its commitment to provide safety and comfort for German POWs. American officials hoped this would ensure equal treatment of the 90,000 American POWs in the hands of Nazi Germany.[23] Special schools were established in places like Fort Eustis, Virginia, Fort Getty, Kansas, and Fort Benning, Georgia where courses were organized to prepare prisoners for their safe return home. The majority of these Germen men spent between one to three years interned in POW camps. At Ft. Benning, German POWs were sent there if their previous profession was as a farmer, official, or railroad worker.[24] The occupational background of POWs helped determine where they would be transferred for reeducation. These POWs were hand-picked to eventually assist in post-war Germany. Some of these selectees would later provide assistance communicating with American camp officers and commanders because of their (usually elementary) fluency in English. This collective group of reeducated men would come to play active roles in healing a Germany that desperately needed direction and rebuilding. The US government needed Germans to help with reconstruction, but how would they go about this effort?
For purposes of the program, Assistant Executive Officers (AEOs) were assigned to all POW base camps where their job was to gain the confidence of POWs through work as an interpreter or assistant to the chaplain.[25] AEOs’ various roles included helping organize recreational programs, securing books and magazines, selecting movies, and setting up special interest courses for internees.[26] It was essentially their duty to create a democratic environment for POWs to self-organize and generate reeducation activities, which they were unknowingly participating in. The objective of the program was summarized by the OPMG as followed:
The prisoners would be given facts, objectively presented but so selected and assembled as to correct misinformation and prejudices surviving Nazi conditioning. The facts, rather than being forced upon them, would be made available through such media as literature, motion pictures, newspapers, music, art, and educational courses. Two types of facts were needed; those which would convince them of the impracticality and the viciousness of the Nazi position. If a large variety of facts could be presented convincingly, perhaps the German prisoners of war might understand and believe historical and ethical truth as generally conceived by Western civilization, might come to respect the American people and their ideological values, and upon repatriation to Germany might form the nucleus of a new German ideology which will reject militarism and totalitarian controls and will advocate a democratic system of government.[27]
There were two well-known organization that supported American reeducation efforts—the International Red Cross and YMCA. Both regularly monitored the progress of the program. In October 1945, Edouard Patte (a YMCA representative) noted the existence of courses in civics, American history, and geography—which wereall available to curious German minds. The freedom to voluntarily participate in these classes was treasured by these POWs. These German men also had the freedom to write in camp publications. From the successful program at Ft. Benning, Georgia, POWs published, in a special edition of Wille und Weg (“Will and Way”), a voluntary pledge signed October 25, 1945 in accepting further reeducation[28]:
We accept the Re-education Program “American Government and Democracy” to
develop a new basis for the spiritual reformation of the Germans and the reconstruction
of the German Nation. Since the inner collapse of our people was last due to a systematic
seclusion from the word and ideas of Western Democracy, we saw our first task….to
create for ourselves….a glance into the construction and life of a state, which from the
beginning of its history had only one desire, the freedom of its citizens, the welfare of
their life, and the peace of all those who lived within its borders.
These POWs became active participants due to their own desire to think differently. A letter by a converted POW, Hans T. from Camp Bowie, Texas, stated, “Believe me most of the Germans, who formerly promote the poisonous and false propaganda are thinking differently today.”[29] An AEO at Camp Concordia had a very realistic attitude when he wrote, “The prisoners of war leaving this camp cannot be considered as having suddenly become thoroughly democratic as a whole, but they have been given, and have seized the opportunity, to study America as a nation and functioning democracy, and under reasonably equitable circumstances this study will bear fruit.” People directly involved, like this AEO, thought that these reeducation efforts would not go to waste.[30]
It was fairly obvious to the general American public that these Germans were being treated quite decently after learning about their quality of life and comfortable treatment. Apprehension and fear were the first reactions of many American communities when they learned that enemy soldiers would be interned in their neighborhoods, although there were some who became interested in these POWs.[31] For instance, many Americans in South Carolina were only interested in the work German POWs could provide for a labor-starved agricultural and pulp and paper industry.[32] Even in places like Georgia and Alabama, German POWs provided much needed relief for farming labor needed in peanut fields.[33] Labor shortages were widespread in the United States, and this was especially true for the labor-poor southern industry and agricultural. Because these POW laborers had experienced American culture more directly, it is safe to assume that this form of reeducation was, unofficially, an extension of the program.
After Roosevelt’s death, President Harry Truman decided that labor shortages still existed in the United States and that POWs should remain the country until the shortages were over.[34] The jobs that most POWs worked in America were not the professions they practiced in Germany. Farmers and other overseers were training these Germans in different professions, which is undoubtedly one form of reeducation. Whitey Yamamoto, a former Japanese-American camp guard, says that guards were instructed to protect prisoners and, of course, make sure they did not escape.[35] Camps were usually miles from civilization, so escape, which was originally feared by American officials, became unimportant. In Mississippi, German veterans would come back to visit—after WWII and the reconstruction of Germany—to Southern camps which, in a strange way, became the place that saved their lives.[36] Even in the town of Aliceville, Alabama, community members organized, in March 2003, a reunion for former prisoners on the camp’s 60th anniversary.[37] The POW experience of these former German soldiers made them feel grateful and appreciative for their treatment and education.
The duration of German POW internment lasted from 1943 to 1946, but the United States began holding prisoners as early as December 1941 with the last leaving in 1947.[38] But through this five-year period of life in the United States, changes of political identity and perceptions took place amongst the masses of German POWs. Based on the best approximation of the total number of German POWs in the US, along with the number of former soldiers returned to the United States who became naturalized citizens, one out of seventy two ex-prisoners would eventually emigrate to American soil. This figure is moderately significant. According to Arnold Krammer, author of Nazi Prisoners of War in America and professor at Texas A&M University, about 5,000 former POWs returned and gained citizenship.[39] 2,200 inmates were recorded to have escape during this Axis POW experience.[40] Interestingly, there is one particular former POW (referred to as “Hitler’s last soldier”), who never left American soil decades after imprisonment.
Georg Gaertner, an escapee of Camp Deming, New Mexico, had an experience in America that is able show evidence for the apparent genuine transformation of a former German POW’s thinking and appreciation of the United States. Gaertner, who is famous for being the last fugitive German POW, has much to say about embracing the American spirit. Being a former sergeant in Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps, Gaertner was just like any other German soldier, someone who had misconceptions about the United States that were seen through the lens of a political ideology that was seen as morally destructive. After spending forty years on the run, Gaertner’s life changed considerably and forced him to change his identity to Dennis Whiles, among other names.[41] Although forced to live a cautious lifestyle, Gaertner, through many obstacles, became an American citizen. Gaertner stated, in an interview by historian Arnold Krammer, that he had experienced so much in the last ten years in America—travel, friendship, moderate successes, close calls, and above all, the freedom he longed for all his life.[42] Because Gaertner, while imprisoned, was the camp translator, it was his responsibility to read the news to his fellow men. This former POW learned that whatever the drawbacks of democracy, it still represented truth in practice.[43]
Gaertner’s assignment as a worker and translator helped him perfect his English, but convinced him, perhaps more than others, about the importance of freedom to the growth of the human spirit.[44] Gaertner had to experience the pains and traumatic scenes from footage of concentration camps and mass executions in Europe. The War Department placed particular emphasis on the showing of atrocity films to the all of these German POWs both as a lesson in “collective guilt” and as a tool in the reeducation effort.[45] Although Gaertner was not directly involved in any specific reeducation program, his experience as a POW, being a trained worker, and long-time US resident transformed his feelings and appreciation for a country that he use to consider his enemy. Gaertner, under informal reeducation, led a very different life indeed and eventually became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Reeducation came in many forms, and its application was done in a broad fashion, by the War Department, to provide government support in ways that benefited the POWs’ physical, spiritual, and intellectual well-being.[46] Capt. Robert Lowe Kunzig, a former executive officer of the Army’s POW Special Projects Division, offered testimony to the effectiveness of reeducation efforts as a successful change. Kunzig, in an article in the November 1946 issue of The American Magazine, thought that reeducation was an obvious success and paid-off:
In the Getty-Eustis program, largely financed by the prisoners’ own funds, the American taxpayer had gotten one of the best “bargains” of the war. It wasn’t necessary to predict, it was already evident that the rank and file of the prisoners were an excellent leavening influence in their communities, and leaders were taking prominent roles in the re-education of a nation. [47]
Being directly involved in the administration of reeducation, Kunig’s assessment of the program’s effectiveness brings clarity to the extent of its success.
Ted Lusniak, a camp guard at Camp Wheeler, Georgia, conveyed to online columnist, Brian Albrecht, that some German POWs did not want to return to their war-ravaged nation, and insisted on fighting the Japanese for the Americans.[48] After their capture in 1943, many of these German POWs would ask Lusniak how to become an American citizen.[49] As stated earlier, some 5,000 former prisoners returned to the US after the war and decided to take up permanent residence and eventually become American citizens. Though this figure is small, it does not make the result insignificant. While it was not unusual for individual former POWs to visit the places of their imprisonment many years after the war, the return migration and settlement of large numbers of former prisoners to the land of their activity is unusual. A major part of my research comes from the interviews of former German POWs who immigrated to the United States between 1948 and 1961. Conducted by Barbara Heisler, a political sociologist at Gettysburg College, these accounts show significant changes in the lives of those exposed to the reeducation program. For privacy reasons, the full last name of each interviewee has been omitted in Heisler’s book From German POW to American Citizen: A Social History with 35 Interviews.
The right to act, think, and speak without restraint was an idea absent in Nazi Germany. Freedom is a fundamental concept on which the United States of America was founded. For these German POWs, freedom was something they craved more for their homeland than their time in these POW camps. Hermann B., a former soldier of the Afrika Korps who spent time at Camp Aliceville, Alabama and other southern camps, states what he most liked about the United States was “the ability to have more freedom.”[50] This realization would enhance his admiration for a country he would eventually migrate to in 1949.[51] Because of his desire to learn the English language while detained, Hermann would leave his life behind in Germany and land a job with the South Bend Tribune where he worked for thirty-one years.[52] These changes resulted from exposure to reeducation and American ideals.
Many of these German POWs saw immigration to the United States as an attractive alternative rather than staying in war-torn Germany. For Gunther K., a POW who spent time in many southern camps and took reeducation classes in Camp Opelika, Alabama, the possibility of moving to America—where opportunity and freedom existed—would provide him with a considerably better life. Gunther’s POW experience made a positive impact on his life and a change for the better. Gunther would become a self-made man. He started as an insurance underwriter in Alameda, California and wound up owning his own business selling imported German manufactured awnings.[53] Gunther is another prime example of how a POW experience in reeducation would motivate a lifestyle change and appreciation for the land of freedom. Gunther would eventually receive a certificate of appreciation at a reunion of Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Hans B. is another example of a former POW who experienced significant changes and led a different life as a naturalized citizen of the US. Captured by British troops in Zaghouan, Tunisia in May 1943, Hans would travel with his captured comrades in Liberty ships (cargo and supply ships) to rural America and be placed at Fort Robinson, located in Nebraska.[54] Later, Hans would be selected and placed in a reeducation camp at Fort Eustis, Virginia, where he spent two weeks “learning about democracy.”[55] Being a part of the “swing kids” movement – a counter-culture of the 1930s that involved German youth who loved jazz music – during his youth, Hans’ appreciation of American culture would eventually deepen after his POW experience. Before the war, Hans aspired to be an artist, having studied at an art academy in Germany. But with his English-speaking skills perfected while abroad, Hans would land a job as head translator in his homeland which he “could not have done, had he not been in America.”[56] His POW experience justifiably explains his transition from Nazi soldier to American citizen. Many POWs would find refuge in America, but there was also many reeducated POWs whose political outlooks would change, along with their feelings toward the United States.
Ludwig N., another former German POW, said, “When I look back on my experiences, I learned that the world was larger than Germany. I was brought up in the narrow, traditional Germany way.”[57] The effect of his POW experience would change his narrow view of the world that was shaped by Nazi ideology and propaganda. Other POWs would come to follow suit.
In Heisler’s POW book, there are two former POWs, who were officers of the Afrika Korps, that were subjected to official reeducation—Wolf-Dieter Z. and Horst von O. Like many others, Horst and Wolf-Dieter were captured in May 1943 and became POWs. Both of these Germans would participate in the reeducation program. Wolf-Dieter, who was part of the 10th Panzer Division, was selected for a possible position in the US military occupation government of post-war Germany. He remarked that America had communities in peace, a population that was well dressed, and cars everywhere, something distinctly different from life in Germany.[58] He would relocate from Camp Concordia to Ft. Getty, where some 455 German POWs were being reeducated.[59] Rather than quickly assist in reconstruction, Wolf-Dieter would continue to spend several months as a teaching assistant at Fort Getty, as did Horst.[60] Horst, who served in an armored reconnaissance battalion, would also take part in reeducation at Ft. Getty, where he spent two weeks taking courses.[61] Horst’s whole attitude toward America was sparked by his own curiosity. His interest in America began a path of evolution from a Nazi automaton to a democratic thinking individual. Through the camp’s extension program at Kansas State University (then Kansas State College), Horst would receive credit for classes completed.[62] Both men’s attitudes toward America, along with their political thinking, would change for the better thanks to the reeducation they experienced.
For many Nazi soldiers imprisoned, loyalty to the Führer and the National Socialist Party was absolute. Because of this stipulation, officials found it difficult to sway political beliefs and initiate reeducation. German POWs who loosened their devotion to Nazism would have to remain cautious because of fear of violent action by Nazi leaders in these camps. Several German prisoners later published accounts of their experiences in these camps but no one better described the political conflicts than former POW Hans Werner Richter, who after the war became a prominent member of a liberal German writers’ organization Gruppe 47.[63] Richter explained why threatened prisoners did not complain to the IRC (International Red Cross) whose representatives periodically investigated conditions in the camps:
It would have been absolutely impossible. I believe I saw a IRC representative
once, but he was passing so far away. And besides, if we had dared to tell him
something, you can imagine what the consequences would have been slaughtered in the middle of the night.[64]
To avoid such tragedies from unfolding, the OPMG presented opportunities for “self-education” in democracy, history, civics, and the English language.[65] As with all other facets of the reeducation program, the teaching of English was designed to produce a much broader and, in the long run, “a more important objective: … to strengthen these anti-Nazis’ understanding of democracy.”[66] The US provided a safe environment, which was a form of freedom unknown to them in Germany, conducive to practicing religion, discussing ideas, learning, and self-expression.[67] The fact that just over 2,000 POWs tried to escape while thousands of others volunteered in some aspect of these programs can be taken as a sure sign of success.[68] The results of questionnaires given over a six-week period to about 25,000 POWs before their repatriation seem to indicate attitudinal shifts. The survey showed that 74% left the United States with “an appreciation of the value of democracy and a friendly attitude toward their captors.”[69]
One former POW named Jakob, who was a part of the specially-trained Germans missioned to the reconstruction effort, exclaimed, “Ft. Eustis is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. Even though it was only a short course, it was an experience that you remember for a lifetime. Only the United States could have created such a place”[70] This statement came as a response to a fellow Captain accompanying him along his journey back home. His opinion about the reeducation program was undoubtedly shared by many who studied in these southern camps. We know how reeducation significantly changed the lives, ideologies, and feelings of these former POWs, but how did these reeducated soldiers contribute to the reconstruction effort of post-war Germany?
In the November 1947 issue of the American Magazine, Capt. Kunzig mentions a former German POW named Karl, labeled as a “leading prisoner of war” and “sincere” believer in democracy, who became (after his POW experience) Educational Director of Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg—a position that involved undoing propaganda to substitute with truth and facts.[71] His prominent role in a major media outlet in Germany enabled him to reach out to the German public to promote democratic ideals. Before a group of ex-prisoners, Karl paid tribute to the United States for providing intellectual freedom and pledged a lifetime effort in bringing democracy to Germany.[72] Karl helped with policy and adult education initiatives in post-war Germany. He is but one of many former German POWs to contribute to the reconstruction effort.
A 2008 journal article from War & Society challenges interpretations that cast doubt on the success of US reeducation programs and says that these American POW camps did in fact contribute, in a small but crucial way, to the ‘miracle of democracy’ in post-war Germany.[73] This scholarly work primarily uses the correspondence between former reeducation instructor Henry W. Ehrmann and over 100 fellow-prisoners, from 1945—48, to reveal supporting material that proves the success of the American reeducation program. These letters indicate that the majority of these writers became involved in political activity and were genuinely committed to reeducating Deutschland.[74] This informative source certainly sheds light as to how their social and political reintegration into post-war German society gave them significant and important roles in rebuilding a crippled Germany. These returning Germans did not bring back an ‘American way of life’ but a desire for a new German ideology.
Friedrich Boeker, who was a teaching assistant to Ehrmann at Ft. Getty and former POW, commented on the challenges of future development and political enlightenment of the German people:
Wherever I can find a possibility to discuss political, economic and educational problems, I do it. In America I have learned about the high value of discussion. You know that the Germans are good in discussing problems. Most of them have still to learn this art.[75]
For ordinary Germans whose minds were still shrouded with Nazi beliefs, the idea of open debate and discussion would become a unique change. German citizens had many problems to face such as food shortages and financial troubles, but the introduction of these adopted ideas would ease their troubled reactions of Nazi atrocities that were previously withheld (by the Nazi regime) from public knowledge. Through journalism, politics, and education, these former POWs brought understanding and a new direction to the German nation. Alfred Andersch, who was interned at a POW camp in Ruston, Louisiana, reported in 1947 that returnees “quickly took up their tasks and, ever since then, they have been been working, each one according to the extent of his abilities, in lower and higher positions in ministries, administrations, schools or newspapers.”[76] These former POWs held high-profile and influential positions throughout Germany. Former POW Walter Hallstein would later become state secretary in the foreign ministry. He was one of many reeducated who occupied roles in politics as government officials.[77] Carl-Heinz Moser, who worked as a writer for the POW newspaper Der Ruf (The Call), eventually found an influential role as a journalist for Neue Zeitung in Munich, Germany.[78] Their assigned place in postwar society was at the forefront of spiritual and material reconstruction because of their attained knowledge in American POW camps.[79] Most might assume that if it were not for US military occupation, these former POWs would not have found the jobs that they were specially trained to fulfill. The fact is that their special training quickly gained them places in the administration of post-war Germany, even without American assistance.[80] These men were successful in leading a war-torn, dictatorial society on the path of lasting pacification and thorough democratization.[81] Based on the Ehrmann letters, the crucial contribution to the success of this reeducation program was the commitment of these few thousand Germans, which is also evident in the US War Department’s Moulton Report.
The purpose of this paper is to ensure that the readership has a clear understanding of the story of the reeducated German POW in the Southern United States. These testimonies illustrate how their experience in the United States led to unique transformations. These changes resulted from being exposed to American culture inside and outside of the classroom. The United States War Department was heavily criticized early on by American citizens who believed that the decent treatment and management received by POWs was completely undeserved. However, there is no question that the results of these reeducation efforts proved effective and became successful in the eyes of Germans and Americans. Critics point out that the US went against the Geneva Convention by indoctrinating these German POWs, but based on these findings, it is certainly clear that this was not the case. The War Department cleverly avoided this condemnation by initiating a form of “voluntary” indoctrination, which was undeniably necessary to rid these German minds of the historically destructive force of Nazism. This form of intellectual freedom would spread from the mouths of reeducated Germans to the ears of the German public, and, like those POWs, readjust their day-to-day lives in favor of freedom. With other important issues plaguing Germany, these men affected by reeducation, whether directly or indirectly, concentrated their time and energy on bringing the idea of individual liberty and democratic principles for the betterment of Germany and, most importantly, the rest of the world. Although the program was aimed at a few thousand men, the German POW would come to appreciate the United States, embrace democracy, and help restore a broken and blinded Germany.
[1] Georg Gaertner and Arnold Krammer, Hitler’s Last Soldier in America (New York: Stein and Day, 1985), 16.
[2] Michael R. Waters, Lone Star Stalag: German Prisoners of War at Camp Hearne (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004), 140.
[3] Arnold Krammer, Nazi Prisoners of War in America (New York: Stein and Day, 1979), 212.
[4] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., s.v. “reeducation.”
[5] Elliot Minor, “Many German POWs spent much of the war in Southern camps,” The Daily Courier, May 5, 2002, 17A.
[6] Lynn Earmann, “Learning Freedom in Captivity,” Washington Post, January 18, 2004., 18.
[7] Ibid.
[8] “Camp Forrest,” Arnold Air Force Base, accessed March 14, 2014, http://www.arnold.af.mil/shared/media/ document/AFD-070213-027.pdf.
[9] Judith M. Gansberg, Stalag: U.S.A.: The Remarkable Story of German POWs in America (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1997), 89.
[10] Camp Forrest.
[11] Christina Morina, “An Experiment in Political Education: Henry W. Ehrmann, German POWs in US Reeducation Programs, and the Democratisation of Germany after the Second World War, ” War & Society 27, no. 1 (May 2008): 80.
[12] Barbara S. Heisler, From German Prisoner of War to American Citizen: A Social History with 35 Interviews (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2013), 39.
[13] Joseph Foote, “Reeducation of German POWs during World War II in the State of Oklahoma,” Tau Sigma Journal of Historical Studies 20, (Spring 2012): 152.
[14] Ibid., 153.
[15] Minor, “Many German POWs spent much of the war in Southern camps, ” 17A.
[16] Fritz Hamer, “Barbeque, Farming and Friendship: German Prisoners of War and South
[16]Carolinians, 1943—1946, ” Columbia, South Carolina Historical Association (January 1994): 61.
[17] Foote, “Reeducation of German POWs during World War II in the State of Oklahoma,” 153.
[18] Hamer, “Barbeque, Farming and Friendship: German Prisoners of War and South Carolinians, 1943-1946, ” 62.
[19] International Committee of the Red Cross. “Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of
[19]War. Geneva, 27 July 1929.” Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/52d68d14de6160e 0c12563da005fdb1b/eb1571b00daec90ec125641e00402aa6.
[20] WW2: Controlling German Prisoners of War (1945) War Department Film Bulletin, No. 164., pro. by the United States War Department (1944; Department of Defense, online archive), accessed March 16, 2014, https://archive.org/details/FB-164.
[21] Robert Lowe Kunzig, “360,000 P.W.’s: The Hope of Germany.” The American Magazine, November, 1946, 1.
[22] Amy C. Hudnall, “An Historical Analysis Of The Psychological Trauma Suffered By German Prisoners of War” (PhD diss., Appalachian State University, 2001).
[23] Gaertner and Krammer, Hitler’s Last Soldier in America, 18.
[24] Susan E. Copeland, “My Experiences as a Knegsgefangen: Heinz Gaertner’s Account as a Prisoner of War in Tennessee and Georgia,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 92 (2008): 251.
[25] Robert D. Billinger, Jr., Hitler’s Soldiers in the Sunshine State: German POWs in Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 200), 142.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Krammer, Nazi Prisoners of War in America, 197.
[28] Gansberg, Stalag: U.S.A.: The Remarkable Story of German POWs in America, 118.
[29] Ibid., 99.
[30] Ibid., 119.
[31] Hamer, “Barbeque, Farming and Friendship: German Prisoners of War and South Carolinians, 1943-1946, ”64.
[32] Ibid., 66.
[33] Whitey Yamamoto, “Camp Shelly: Guarding German POWs.” University of Hawaii Online (2006). Accessed on March 16, 2014, http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149140408406.html.
[34] John Ray Skates, “German Prisoners of War in Mississippi, 1943—1946,” Mississippi Historical Society (2001). Accessed on March 16, 2014, http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/index.php?id=233.
[35] Yamamoto.
[36] Skates.
[37] Minor, “Many German POWs spent much of the war in Southern camps, ” 17A.
[38] Antonio Thompson, Men in German Uniform: POWs in America during World War II (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2010), 103.
[39] Minor, “Many German POWs spent much of the war in Southern camps, ” 17A.
[40] Hamer, “Barbeque, Farming and Friendship: German Prisoners of War and South Carolinians, 1943-1946,” 64.
[41] Georg Gaertner and Arnold Krammer, Hitler’s Last Soldier in America, 12.
[42] Ibid., 122.
[43] Ibid., 22.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Krammer, Nazi Prisoners of War in America, 210.
[46] Thompson, Men in German Uniform: POWs in America during World War II, 103.
[47] Robert Lowe Kunzig, “360,000 P.W.’s: The Hope of Germany, ” The American Magazine, November, 1946, 4.
[48] Brian Albrecht, “Parma Heights World War II Veteran Recalls Guarding German POWs.” Northeast
[48]Ohio Media Group LLC. October 15, 2011. Accessed on March 18, 2014, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro /2011/10/ vet_ recalls_duty_as_german_pow.html.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Heisler, From German Prisoner of War to American Citizen: A Social History with 35 Interviews, 106.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid., 114.
[54] Ibid., 54.
[55] Ibid., 55.
[56] Ibid., 118.
[57] Ibid., 139.
[58] Ibid., 61.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid., 62.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Lewis H. Carlson, We Were Each Other’s Prisoners: An Oral History of World War II American and German Prisoners of War (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 157.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Krammer, Nazi Prisoners of War in America, 198.
[66] Ibid., 208—209.
[67] Thompson, Men in German Uniform: POWs in America during World War II, 115.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Billinger, Hitler’s Soldiers in the Sunshine State: German POWs in Florida, 164.
[70] Kunzig, “360,000 P.W.’s: The Hope of Germany, ” 4.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Morina, “An Experiment in Political Education: Henry W. Ehrmann, German POWs in US Reeducation Programs, and the Democratisation of Germany after the Second World War, ” 79.
[74] Ibid., 88.
[75] Ibid., 89.
[76] Ibid., 91.
[77] Ibid., 94.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid., 95.
[80] Ibid., 97.
[81] Ibid., 102.
Before the arrival of Europeans, the Western Hemisphere was home to humans whose past has been shrouded in mystery and wonder. Since the discovery of the New World, scholars and academics have attempted to correctly theorize as to what actually occurred but neglecting to realize its inhabitants’ unique and rich history. It is in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus that the reader can find helpful interpretations of the cultural influences, consequences of interaction (benefits and detriments), significances, and importance in the histories of these two massive continents. These distinct differences between Europeans and pre-Columbian tribes, kingdoms, or nations – that has usually been taught to middle and high school students inaccurately – might perhaps be less different than previously thought.
The idea that cultures and civilizations before Christopher Columbus in the Americas were more sophisticated, advanced, and influential in their historical legacies is the argument made in 1491, which opposes the contemporary viewpoint of what the author, Charles C. Mann, refers to as “Holmberg’s Mistake.” A researcher of the Sirionó in South America, Allan R. Holmberg thought, “…they existed almost without change in a landscape unmarked by their presence.”[1] From his time spent with these people, he published his findings in the 1950 book Nomads of the Long Bow – an influential account that would dominant pre-Columbian historical thought for the decades that followed. These revelations discussed by Mann originate from previous researchers whose ideas were either dismissed or heavily criticized in their particular field. In addition, the contributions from the scientific community shed light on past events that have begun to support these same notions.
The purpose of this book is to demonstrate and prove through the research of people, including the author himself, with different and modern understandings and explanations regarding pre-Columbian societies’ political, intellectual, diplomatic, social, cultural, and economic history. This journalistic-styled historical piece reflects that of peoples such as the Mexica (Aztecs), Inka, Maya, Inuit, North American Indians, and even those who predate these cultures. It seems obvious that Mann’s purpose in writing this work is to revise prior thought to effectively change the way these subjects are treated and studied. One could gather from this three-part book that there is a definite emphasis on the cultural aspect of this broad history.
The stories depicted on pre-Columbian relics and artifacts are used in reference when discussing religion, government, and warfare of these cultures, even material on the mummified remains of people, as discussed in class, can be considered primary sources. The accounts from Mann and researchers’ time abroad are also used in these discussions. The accounts, however, of colonial visitors to the Americas – like Hernán Cortés or Francisco Pizarro – help make sense of what might have actually happened from the time of discovery to centuries thereafter. Scientific analysis on agriculture and environmental change show information that is fittingly used to support the ideas of Mann and others. Archeological evidence cited in this book unveils cities beneath cities and with remarkable differences not just in the time between them. By combing all these sources, understandings can be made for an interpretation worth considering.
As far as secondary sources are concerned, Mann utilizes a vast range of historical sources. The arguments and ideas from older books are referenced to help the reader understand what was previously understood as pre-Columbian history. Academic journals that cover the same topics and sub-topics in 1491 are excellent supplements to the scope of Mann’s work. Articles from recent and older times are used by Mann for reference and, more importantly, to address unanswered questions that he investigates in the book. The information pulled from related books has obvious use for gaining the background information necessary. Additionally, Mann has e-mails and transcripts from colleagues and fellow researchers that are listed in the bibliography as helpful sources.
1491 is broken topically into three separate sections. The focus of part one covers speculation and theories on the new estimations of pre-Columbian groups’ population. Part two discusses the age and correlation between Mesoamerican and Peruvian people, covering technology, food, and archeological remains. Part three illustrates how Indians did not adapt to nature in America but, essentially, created it (at least their own version). The geographic scope of the book covers places in Central America (Yucatán Peninsula and Central Mexico), South America (modern-day Chile and Amazônia), and North America (Ohio River Valley, Southeast and Southwest region, New England, and Northern Canada). The period of this broad historical piece ranges from the 10th millennium B.C.E. to the 15th century C.E., mentioning the likes of ancient Peruvians and the Clovis people.
Disease was a major cause of the reduction of people in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans. This is a well-known fact. Mann, on the other hand, has taken a position that suggests other important reasons for their demise. In the case of the Narragansett and Wampanoag people, the reason for their population decrease comes from their refusal to massacre European settlements like Europeans practiced on native villages.[2] Europeans triumphed because they would eventually outnumber these natives, according to Mann.[3] He also states that when the Spaniards conquered the Inka, it was not steel or horses that caused their demise but factionalism and disease.[4] The cataclysms that afflicted Indians settlements between 1100 C.E. and 1300 C.E. from the Hudson Valley all the way to Florida is another explanation worth mentioning.[5] These examples give the reader a broader understanding and different take as to what else is to blame for the reduction of Indians aside from deadly disease.
It seems the goal of Mann’s book is to attempt to change how people perceive earlier cultures before Columbus. For instance, Mesoamerican societies apparently invented their own writing, astronomy, and mathematics, including the number zero.[6] These cultures were special in their identity because they did not steal or borrow ideas like many known cultures of the Eastern Hemisphere. Heavily populated civilizations in Amazonia used different means other than slash-and-burn agricultural techniques to combat ecological constraints of the Amazonian rainforests. These people, surprisingly, found a way to successfully harvest from artificial soil that could last much longer with the method of terra preta – a slash-and-char technique that provides a higher rate of production come harvest time.[7] Mann says that Indians were a “keystone” species in most of the hemisphere before Columbus.[8] What can be gathered from this is that these environments were shaped by their presences and dependent on their methods. After the coming of new settlers from across the Atlantic, the landscape would alter considerably and violently, which is a main point made in 1491.
1491 sets out to reveal the new revelations about the Americas, discussing other notable ideas such as the collapse of the Maya from political failure, the existence of an urbanized civilization before Sumer, or the suggestion of other people (not genetically similar to the Clovis) migrating trans-continentally. From our essay reading assignment Historiography of New Spain, there is relevant information regarding the development and research of translated text from languages like Nahuatl of the Mexica. Researchers, like Mann, value the potential of translations like these. It can be assumed that these translations provided a valuable tool in research of Mesoamerican history. The idea that early people in New Spain were culturally different from each other, something reinforced in 1491, is also mention in this essay.
From the introduction of this book, it seems that Mann might be slightly prejudiced in his overall tone. There is no denying how this work bridges the pre-Columbian past with modern thinking, but as far as the big picture is concerned, it is as if Mann is forcing the belief that all of these societies and cultures were sophisticated and technologically unique. The author should have focused more attention on how people in the Western Hemisphere were genetically predisposed to fail.[9] Being prone to microbes, viruses, and bacteria not native to their lands is the strongest case for the collapse of pre-Columbian cultures by far. If anything should make it to academic textbooks, their contents should at least include that. As an undergraduate history student, it feels that Mann’s writing presents more of a report rather than a historical work. His research is plentiful and writing concise, but the nature of this book deserves more attention in making these connections more noticeable. Being here and there, almost sporadically, with topics and sub-topics overwhelms a reader when starting a chapter. Although the names of the chapters seemed appropriate, the names of the parts seem unfitting and need renaming, something more concrete. Because he is not an actual historian, it is no wonder his work does not flow smoothly when reading. Although, it comes to no surprise that 1491 is meticulously crafted since he is, after all, a journalist. Nevertheless, 1491 will leave any reader convinced with no trouble that Holmberg actually did make a mistake when he generalized the history of an entire hemisphere based on findings on one group of people.
The founders of Georgia, a place originally meant to be a sanctuary for debtors and planters, sought to make it prosper into a profitable land. But unexpectedly, Georgia shifted from this vision into a unique form of slave society that evolved into a social-class system that spurred racism and slave dependence. In Cultivating Race: The Expansion of Slavery in Georgia, 1750-1860, Watson Jennison examines the factors race played in the economic, geographic, and political order of a rising American society that would become attached to the use of slave labor. Starting chronologically, Jennison begins his book by introducing Georgia at a time where prohibition has ended. He concludes with the discussion of Georgia’s transformation to what non-elite white Georgians promoted as the ideal racial order for white dominance and black inferiority. Jennison argues that nonelite whites in Georgia not only benefited from the rise of white supremacy but pushed hardest to enact legislative changes to make Georgia conform to the tenets of the ideology. (4)
From this reading, one can learn that Georgians experienced problems accepting the intermixture of racial groups in their developing society. Except for “friendly” Indians, Native Americans were believed to be uncivilized savages who interfered with the prosperity of the state. These Indians – those of the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes – became a threat to American expansion to the west, which would become the main reason that justified Indian removal for white Georgians. Blacks were largely enslaved for labor purposes with some free from the institution of slavery. Some blacks, as well, played a part in obstructing white Georgian efforts. As Jennison points out, it was important for white Georgians to preserve slavery from interference by blacks and Indians and their French, British, and Spanish allies during a series of wars – the American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Indian War, Muskogee War, Patriot War, Creek Civil War, War of 1812, and the Seminole War. (6)
Jennison shows how planters benefited from the practice of slavery. Their status rose to an elite level that enabled them to monopolize on rice cultivation and later with cotton. But with these planters protecting their property, the British forces, during the American Revolution, took advantage of this by offering ways out of slavery – blacks would take up the red coat uniform. Their strategy became effective. Slaves sought independence from their masters and began to realize the possibilities outside of bondage. The aftermath of the American Revolution directly affected the planter elite with the loss of two-thirds of the slave population. (52) This crippled the institution of slavery and weakened Georgia economically. The idea of freedom spread quickly to places like France and Haiti. The threat of insurrection, because of theses revolutions, would prompt restrictions on incoming foreigners, thus reinforcing the importance of slave depedence.
Jennison examines two independent states that reflected the different attitudes of some Georgians. Elijah Clark’s Trans-Oconee Republic, which was short-lived, showed how backcountry settlers’ subverted federal and state interests of neutrality with the Creeks. Taking these ceded lands was important to these frontiersmen because they thought these Indian-occupied lands would interfere with American expansion. Jennison says, “These rebels understood themselves as true guardians of the American revolution.” (125) Created by William Bowles, the State of Muskogee, which largely consisted of Seminole Indians, offered refuge for runaway slaves and others in a distinct multi-racial society. The Muskogee state became well established in trade and harshly opposed plantation slavery. From these two unique states, one can recognize the effects of these rebellious movements on slave influence and Indian relations.
The expansion of slavery in Georgia remained a constant battle. The growing demand for cotton in the early nineteenth century pushed plantation-based slavery to expand in Georgia’s frontier. Jennison show that this brought major consequences with local Indians who resisted alongside their European allies but white Georgians would eventually prevail. This, in turn, extended boundaries and ended opposition against Georgia’s plantation-based economy. With an influx of new white settlers, slave labor become almost a necessity to prosper in the antebellum era where cotton was becoming increasingly important. In the example of one particular slave, a skilled slave laborer would become less important in the unskilled labor of cotton picking. Non-elite whites found it unfair that skilled slave laborers, who were hired out by their owners, worked at sought after jobs. This was but one of the many problems whites had with slave restrictions and the rights of freed slaves. Whites believed in the inferior nature of blacks that would create a recognizable class distinction between the two groups.
Jennison writes in a concise and orderly manner. In his historical piece, the repeated themes of revolution, expansion, and slavery portray the societal evolution of Georgia impressively. This chronological work depicts the impact of slavery in Georgia’s economy, geography, and politics. But most importantly, the established racial order came from “cultivating” racial groups to the interests of white Georgians – this is the main point and heart of what the book is largely about. Jennison effectively proves this. With the help of primary sources, which include newspapers, government records, manuscripts, books, and articles, Jennison has produced a book that is sufficiently supported and argued. The expansion of slavery in Georgia is suberbly covered for one who would like to study this particular history in Cultivating Race: The Expansion of Slavery in Georgia, 1750-1860.
Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1880–1930, as the title suggests, revolves around lynching – murderous mob acts used as means for social control. W. Fitzhugh Brundage, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, takes the reader on journey through this fifty-year period of hate and violence that comprehensively illustrates this apparent Southern obsession. It describes how lynching – something difficult to properly define – varied and took form in the two distinct states of Georgia and Virginia. The author categorizes four different mob groups – posses, private, terrorist, and mass mobs – that were active in lynchings. This historical work attempts to clarify and explain a distinct phase – the most southern and virulently racist phase – in the history of mob violence in the United States.[1]
He describes the motivating factor behind lynching by stating, “Whites almost always believed that mobs punished real transgressions and that the lust for vengeance played a prominent role in lynching.”[2] (49) This further reinforces the notion that mobs acted in the name of their own perceived justice, which largely occurred in response to alleged sexual and murderous criminal acts, although trivial acts also provoked lynching too. Another motivating factor legitimating mob violence was the threat of black men raping white women.[3] Moreover, the preservation of the racial hierarchy in the South[4], above all, was a necessary method to assert white dominance and black inferiority.
Lynching has a history in the United States even before this postbellum period, but what makes this period unique is how this “extralegal” act of lynching became prevalent in the day-to-day lives of southerners. Brundage makes mention as to how lynching not only involved blacks, but whites as well. However insignificant the number of lynching against whites, the significance, as Brundage suggests, lies, “…not in their tiny number, but rather in the way in which they both exposed and molded whites’ attitudes toward mob violence.”[5] (101) Observers would shift the cause of mob violence from race relations to generalizations about court laws.
Along with how lynching spurred in southern society, Brundage demonstrates how race relations varied significantly over time and location. Chapters four and five explore regional variations of mob violence in Georgia and Virginia. During times of stress, like in Georgia, the culture of racism sanctioned and focused white rage on black transgressors.[6] However, in Virginia, this was not necessarily the case, and lynching, at least in the rural area, was almost completely absent. Brundage offers an explanation by stating, “…the simple fact that mob violence was not nearly as integral to the logic of socioeconomic and race relations in Virginia as it was in many other southern states.”[7] (187) Georgia and Virginia had its similarities in mob violence but this notes one of the major differences between the two.
The struggle against lynching in Georgia ultimately proved to be ineffectual. The example of how Georgia’s Governor, James M. Terrell (1903–7), failed to prevent the lynching of two black men, at the request of local authorities, illustrates how little effect opposition – even from the state – could suppress these brutal agents of destruction.[8] But unlike the decades prior, the period of 1910 – 30 credits the activities of antilynching activists, like the NAACP, for the accelerated demise of lynching in Georgia. Additionally, the effects of World War I and the Great Migration equated to lesser cases of lynching.
Brundage estimates that lynching in the United States claimed somewhere between four and five thousands victims.[9] Although this is not nearly substantial as other violent acts against humanity, the atrocities committed against unlucky blacks, and few whites, signify how social order and moral standards of the South created savagery, extralegal doings, and systematic racial oppression. The themes of lawlessness, violence, and citizen insubordination are clearly reoccurring in this concisely written piece of history. Brundage set out to prove the causes of the decline of lynching and the extent of lynching as a social ritual. Impressively, he does this by citing specific cases and events through the period, as well as examining social traditions that sprung during the Reconstruction Era. The primary source of his research comes from local newspapers in Georgia and Virginia, with his secondary sources being information from related historical works. In Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1880–1930, Brundage sufficiently gives an informative and engaging perspective of mob violence during this dark period of southern history.
[1] W. Fitzhugh Brundage, Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1880–1930 (Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1993), 14.
[2] Ibid., 49.
[3] Ibid., 61.
[4] Ibid., 85.
[5] Ibid., 101.
[6] Ibid., 138.
[7] Ibid., 187.
[8] Ibid., 202.
[9] Ibid., 259.
Georgia Democrats, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Shaping of the New South is a comprehensive examination of the political history of Georgia from 1946 to 1976. At the start of the thirty-year period, the divide between the Democratic Party starts to occur with the unfolding of the Civil Rights Movement. Tim S. R. Boyd, former instructor of American studies at Vanderbilt University, attempts in his historical piece to explain how factional differences between state democrats led to the rise of Republican prominence and also how the political climate adjusted in the wake of the rising social injustices in Georgia politics. Boyd asserts that, “…the civil rights movement did not destroy the Democratic Party in the south; rather, the ability of New South Democrats to adjust to it at the regional level allow them to take the lead in shaping a more progressive political culture for the South.”[1] (7) This narrative piece illustrates elements of desegregation, Southern politics, and modernization and its effects applied to the political climate today.
In the 1940s, the Democratic Party experienced a split in its members. On one side, there was the “regulars” who were against desegregation and majorly supported white supremacy[2] and state rights. They made efforts to combat racial changes in Georgia initiated by the federal government. In short, they saw themselves as traditionalists and described by Boyd as being morally opposed to progressive change. The other faction of the democrats was the “loyalists.” As suggested in their title, these members were loyal to the national platform and wanted to change the South into a more modernized social, political, and economic region. They supported the policies of Truman and Roosevelt and wanted to bring industry and funding for public education to the South. Loyalists recognized that black voters would become more active in voting and began practicing a something called “color blindness” – a political tactic used for the purpose of not directly addressing the issue of inequality by focusing on other issues shared by both white and black citizens.
Despite early control of regular democrats in the state government, the loyalists eventually found things going their way by 1960. The reason behind this change was the end of massive resistance to desegregation and the county-unit system – something that misrepresented the will of voters by its flawed design. These two reasons helped propel the political momentum of loyalists, though there would still be problems from future office holders that would temporarily frustrate their political agenda. With the Brown v. Board of Education decision at hand, Georgia lawmakers passed legislation that conflicted with federal law that blocked funding for public schools that desegregated. This caused a response from white, middle-class citizens by creating HOPE (Help Our Public Education). Almost indistinguishable from loyalists, these members fought to prevent the closing of these functioning schools.
Georgia politicians, and southerners alike, generally agreed that there needed to be focus on economic progress and education, and not obsess over racial issues.[3] Many policy makers and state officials shared this attitude. However, for the opposition, this imposed on their idea of what the social order ought to be. But with the help of black activists in the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) working jointly with politicians, the Civil Rights Movement became stronger in its cause and resulted in this gradual shift in Southern politics to accommodate this change, as Boyd points out. Using interviews, state documents, newspaper, and voting records, the author pieces this history concisely with what he set out to prove.
Although politics is an important part of government and leadership, political history is not one of the “most” interesting subjects to read over, especially from reading this particular historical work, which concerns such an extended period of history. In my entire career as a history major, I have not come across a book that has been this difficult to read as Georgia Democrats, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Shaping of the New South. It is not that his language or vocabulary was harder to comprehend or that it suffered from poor word choice, but the fact that his writing style excluded necessary commas and dashes, along with lacking adequate introductions to terms and figures, makes this the most unpleasant reading experience by far. For an average reader, following this text can be a bit confusing. On a more positive note, Boyd does an excellent job explaining the gradual process of how Georgia democrats successfully responded to the Civil Rights Movement and their contributions to the future political order of the state and nation. Others can see this book as a great tool for enhancing their knowledge of Southern politics during the middle of the twentieth century.
[1] Tim S. R. Boyd, Georgia Democrats, the Civil Rights Movements, and the Shaping of the New South (Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2012), 7.
[2] Ibid., 34.
[3] Ibid., 118.
The Holocaust – the mass systematic slaughter of six million Jews during World War II – is at the central focus of Hitler’s Willing Executioners. The author, Daniel J. Goldhagen, presents a book that comprehensively explains, in gruesome detail, how ordinary Germans, by their own notions of justice, willingly acted in the killing of Jews. Goldhagen argues that these perpetrators – people who had any direct or indirect involvement with these deaths – were “ordinary” Germans that chose to participate in the mass genocide of European Jews and other “sub-humans.”[1] The primary concept for explaining his thesis comes from a concept he refers to as “eliminationist antisemitism” – a common belief that Jews needed to be eliminated from German society. This concept is used throughout the book in reason to explain how ordinary Germans were able to easily shift toward “exterminationist antisemitism” to make Germany judenrein – clean of Jews.
Goldhagen explains the origin of the eliminationist mind-set from a brief history of anti-Jewish attitudes in Europe and Germany. Hitler’s regime perpetrated, encourage, and tolerated violence against Jews, which became part of the Jews’ everyday existence in Germany[2], but the importance lies in the fact that antisemitic beliefs and behaviors were around centuries prior. Catholics and Protestants considered Judaism a blasphemous theology because of its denial of Jesus Christ as the messiah. Jews were believed to be the work of Satan himself and known as the “Christ-killers”.[3] In the middle of the nineteenth century, the Jewish population was threatened with alienation from German society. In an attempt to “eliminate” Jewish presence, German Jews were pressured to renounce their faith to become converts and true Germans. This pressure was recognized as a failure by clergymen and state officials because of remaining Jews’ refusal to conform. It became established that the Jewish people was part of a different race.[4] The incorrigible Jew was perceived to be the source of all evil.[5] It was because of Christian influence that this new perception quickly became widespread by the beginning of the twentieth century. The cultural cognitive model of Jews that governed Germany during its Nazi period had deep historical roots, in Weimar and before, and was but an intensified variant of the one that had taken its modern form in the nineteenth century.[6] At the end of the Great War, the German people started to blame all of their misfortunes on the Jew, and it was Nazism that encouraged these feelings to help solve the “Jewish Problem”.
The belief that Jews were sub-human made German citizens unfazed by the persecution and brutal treatment of these thought-to-be lesser people. The public opinion on the Jew was uncontested when Hitler came to power in 1933. Anti-Jewish polices and measures had no difficultly being enacted because of these preexisting beliefs about European Jewry. The Jewish population in Nazi-controlled Germany became physically isolated and stripped of societal privileges. The Nazis’ assault on the Jews was effective.
Goldhagen analyzes three agents of genocide – police battalions, “work” camps, and death marches – to support his argument that ordinary Germans acted out of pure willingness to exterminate Jews. He reveals that Jews were treated considerably different than other groups and German policemen – typically older and not affiliated with the Nazi party – had a choice, without fear of penalty or punishment[7], to not participate in killing Jews. German personnel at “work” camps exploited Jews with unproductive labor and brutally-savage treatment. This Jewish “work” became part of their annihilation in camps like Lublin and Lipowa. Jewish prisoners were discriminated against in every conceivable manner.[8] Even after the notorious Heinrich Himmler ordered to cease killing Jewish prisoners, Germans in these death marches continually killed and tortured Jews.[9] They voluntarily acted with zeal and determination, in spite of this, to make sure the Jews suffered until their imminent deaths. These ordinary Germans, who had families, values, and lives outside of duty, did not think their actions to be immoral but righteous and justified. SS men and other “willing” executioners did not feel remorse from the systematic slaughter of Jews in camps, ghettos, or death marches.[10] They only stopped from these killings to rest from dealing with the gruesome nature of the act itself. The purpose of these Jews was to die at the hand of their German masters. Goldhagen affirms based on these examinations that Germans acted from their own convictions and not from external social pressures or Nazi influence.
The abundance of evidence in this book justifies the conclusion that Germans did not suffer punishments for refusing to kill Jews. The author uses “ordinary” in the sense that these Germans weren’t Nazi automatons. Readers of this book can recognize that Nazi propaganda and indoctrination had little effect on the actions of ordinary Germans involved in the extermination of Jews. Eliminationist antisemitism was deeply rooted in German culture, and it was the initiation of the “Final Solution” to the Jewish problem that compelled these Germans to act accordingly. Goldhagen impressively writes a comprehensive explanation behind the genocidal motivation of ordinary Germans involved in the Holocaust, as well as confronting conventional explanations. This historical account gives graphic detail to the horrors experienced by the Jews and the nature of humanity during the time of Nazi Germany.
Conventionally, capitalism is an economic and political system in which private owners for profit in a free market control a country’s trade and industry. From reading these pages, I have become informed about the developments of capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. Since the decline of mercantilism in the mid-eighteenth century, Europe has seen a transformation into this mode of production – especially in England. With technological advancements in labor force, England became the forefront of industrial capitalism. Starting with the textile industry, the innovative English found ways to increase capital by having commodities commercially available. The growth of the English textile industry initiated a social order built upon this new mode of production. Though its slow start did hinder this transition, they eventually surpassed other competition. The development of a synchronized workforce and in factories, along with new machinery, helped propel England into the nineteenth century, as Wolf points out.
Mercantile relations changed as farmers switched crop cultivation to sheep herding and merchants finding new ways to flourish in this mode of production. As shipping improvements began, trade increasingly happened under the British. The profiteering American south supplied huge quantities of cotton to England, which the East India Company would export to Latin America. This gives evidence of how vital it was to keep trade connected to a world market.
Industrial capitalism created two zones: the core and the periphery. It brought the entire world under its dominance in a hierarchical system with the use of capital as stock of wealth and strategic financial element combined with machinery, raw materials, and labor power. Capitalists know that the drive for higher profits demand that they invest continuously in new technology in order to maximize their means of production, but sometimes investing in the machinery conflicts with the wages for labor. There is a measure of influence from pre-existing noncapitalist when it comes to understanding how capitalism evolved as it expanded further. This variability is generated by the limitations in economic growth that differentiate from location and period.
As for my reflection, I feel that Wolf adequately described, in-depth, how industrialization and large-scale cash cropping progressed in this new mode of production. I think this material is a contributing historical reference for individual commodity movement, the origin and evolution of capitalism in Europe, and the laborers that worked in this period. Wolf analyzed various perspectives about capitalism and briefly reviewed previous economic and political systems. Part three of Europe and the People Without History does an excellent job providing me with a lengthy background over capitalism and its many angles in eighteenth century European history.
Jefferson Davis’s Generals is an organized and edited collection of essays compiled into a single volume that focuses on the relations between five Confederate Generals and the President, Jefferson Davis. These contributing authors – eight distinguished Civil War historians – give absorbing examinations of the generals, Joseph E. Johnston, Robert E. Lee, P. G. T. Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, and John Bell Hood, who independently commanded the separated South in one of America’s bloodiest conflicts – the Civil War. The editor, Gabor S. Boritt, organized these essays with the purpose of shedding light on Davis’s leadership and his general’s leadership. Although the primary focus is on Davis and his select generals, three other chapters explore other issues concerning his military strategy, public image, and two marriages. Boritt’s volume introduces an engaging perspective focused on the consequences of relationships amongst Confederate leadership and the personalities each carried. The influence of personal relationships in the military sphere, and the effect these relationships possibly had on the war, is the reoccurring theme seen in the book.
Firstly, Craig L. Symonds’s essay reveals a war between Davis and Lee, along with their actions in the Civil War. The two men, though similar, bashed heads repeatedly until Davis finally wrote out for Congress, but never sent, his explanation of why he couldn’t again give Johnston command of the army. In a fair, careful examination, Symonds awards the palm for valor to Davis, but possibly overstates the case in calling this dysfunctionality a major reason of defeat.
In Emory M. Thomas’s paper, he states that the Confederate president, and historians after him, believed that him and General Lee were in strategic agreement when, in fact, they weren’t. Davis wanted defense while Lee wanted climactic battle. Conceding that “Lee never spoke or wrote his heresy,” Thomas seeks proof in Lee’s two invasions of the North. But he fails to mention that Davis approved both campaigns and that it was Beauregard, not Davis, who refused to supply the diversion Lee wanted in 1863.
T. Michael Parrish’s contribution to Jefferson Davis’s Generals points out that General Beauregard’s thought-up grand strategy was never considered or adopted by Davis – one cause of the friction between the two. Parrish treats their spitefulness evenhandedly, pointing out that Davis put the general in the right role at Charleston, South Carolina and that the two were able to extinguish their feelings for the greater good of the Confederacy. Parrish’s detailed style helps to make this essay a resourceful reference.
Steven E. Woodworth’s essay blames Davis for, of all things, not supporting General Bragg – failing to provide an understood command system along with reliable officers. Whether or not this makes Davis liable for Bragg’s failures, we at least learn that the two were not special friends. Some assertions in this essay seem unconvincing, but reading that Bragg was a good general with suitable talent – whose soldiers sometimes failed him – is a refreshing change.
Both having mutual admiration, Herman Hattaway’s paper impressively discusses the aspects of General Hood’s rise to the top command and the friendship with Davis. Generally, Hattaway is not inaccurate by showing that Hood deserved promotions for his battlefield performance, yet not knowing how to direct an entire army. Hattaway dismisses the idea that Hood was a spy for Davis. However, the essay seems to accept the common, but flawed notion, that Davis approved Hood’s grave move to Nashville, Tennessee.
Jefferson Davis’s Generals – in a pleasant shift of focus toward women – presents an essay by Lesley J. Gordon. The author shows Varina Davis, Lydia Johnston, and Elise Bragg with devout husbands, in contrast to Caroline Beauregard, whose husband acted in the opposite manner. More understanding of Lee’s circumstances might have sweetened the author’s view of Robert and Mary. The other portraits in Gordon’s contribution are well done and naturally thorough.
From military president to a seen traitor, Harold Holzer’s piece uses illustrations to showcase a printed image of Davis in the Northern press, and then later – in an iconographic miracle – to a restored hero. Davis never wore the Confederate uniform, which some prints depicted him wearing. Holzer says he was always the living symbol of the Confederacy.
In the last chapter of the book as he puts the Civil War in the broad context of history, James M. McPherson’s work gives a vivid analysis’ of strategy and clears some foggy points presented in the book’s other essays. In the face of Southern soul-searching, he ends with the notion, “…maybe the Yankee army had something to do with the Confederate defeat.”
The book’s interest comes from the contributing essays of the different historians who wrote them. Each of these authors displayed a tremendous ability to convey their messages clearly and without dullness – giving it even more appeal. In addition, they did an excellent job staying unbiased and neutral in this collective account. However, it is important to remember that these respected Civil War scholars are enthusiasts, and that their interpretations might not reflect the true nature of relationships in Confederate leadership. This riveting historical volume gives ample fuel on the question over the reason the South’s war effort slipped. The book concludes that Davis, the military professional, couldn’t rise above personalities, which would cost him victory for the CSA. Boritt’s work shines a crucial aspect of the Civil War and presents a perspective that is definitely worth considering. Being well illustrated and definitively sound, Jefferson Davis’s Generals offers a detailed collection of important topics central to Jefferson Davis’s role in the Civil War and the direction of the Confederacy.
Blase Leverett: Review of Jennison, Watson W. Cultivating Race: The Expansion of Slavery in Georgia, 1750 – 1860. University Press of Kentucky, 2011.
The founders of Georgia, a place originally meant to be a sanctuary for debtors and planters, sought to make it prosper into a profitable land. But unexpectedly, Georgia shifted from this vision into a unique form of slave society that evolved into a social-class system that spurred racism and slave dependence. In Cultivating Race: The Expansion of Slavery in Georgia, 1750-1860, Watson Jennison examines the factors race played in the economic, geographic, and political order of a rising American society that would become attached to the use of slave labor. Starting chronologically, Jennison begins his book by introducing Georgia at a time where prohibition has ended. He concludes with the discussion of Georgia’s transformation to what non-elite white Georgians promoted as the ideal racial order for white dominance and black inferiority. Jennison argues that nonelite whites in Georgia not only benefited from the rise of white supremacy but pushed hardest to enact legislative changes to make Georgia conform to the tenets of the ideology. (4)
From this reading, one can learn that Georgians experienced problems accepting the intermixture of racial groups in their developing society. Except for “friendly” Indians, Native Americans were believed to be uncivilized savages who interfered with the prosperity of the state. These Indians – those of the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes – became a threat to American expansion to the west, which would become the main reason that justified Indian removal for white Georgians. Blacks were largely enslaved for labor purposes with some free from the institution of slavery. Some blacks, as well, played a part in obstructing white Georgian efforts. As Jennison points out, it was important for white Georgians to preserve slavery from interference by blacks and Indians and their French, British, and Spanish allies during a series of wars – the American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Indian War, Muskogee War, Patriot War, Creek Civil War, War of 1812, and the Seminole War. (6)
Jennison shows how planters benefited from the practice of slavery. Their status rose to an elite level that enabled them to monopolize on rice cultivation and later with cotton. But with these planters protecting their property, the British forces, during the American Revolution, took advantage of this by offering ways out of slavery – blacks would take up the red coat uniform. Their strategy became effective. Slaves sought independence from their masters and began to realize the possibilities outside of bondage. The aftermath of the American Revolution directly affected the planter elite with the loss of two-thirds of the slave population. (52) This crippled the institution of slavery and weakened Georgia economically. The idea of freedom spread quickly to places like France and Haiti. The threat of insurrection, because of theses revolutions, would prompt restrictions on incoming foreigners, thus reinforcing the importance of slave depedence.
Jennison examines two independent states that reflected the different attitudes of some Georgians. Elijah Clark’s Trans-Oconee Republic, which was short-lived, showed how backcountry settlers’ subverted federal and state interests of neutrality with the Creeks. Taking these ceded lands was important to these frontiersmen because they thought these Indian-occupied lands would interfere with American expansion. Jennison says, “These rebels understood themselves as true guardians of the American revolution.” (125) Created by William Bowles, the State of Muskogee, which largely consisted of Seminole Indians, offered refuge for runaway slaves and others in a distinct multi-racial society. The Muskogee state became well established in trade and harshly opposed plantation slavery. From these two unique states, one can recognize the effects of these rebellious movements on slave influence and Indian relations.
The expansion of slavery in Georgia remained a constant battle. The growing demand for cotton in the early nineteenth century pushed plantation-based slavery to expand in Georgia’s frontier. Jennison show that this brought major consequences with local Indians who resisted alongside their European allies but white Georgians would eventually prevail. This, in turn, extended boundaries and ended opposition against Georgia’s plantation-based economy. With an influx of new white settlers, slave labor become almost a necessity to prosper in the antebellum era where cotton was becoming increasingly important. In the example of one particular slave, a skilled slave laborer would become less important in the unskilled labor of cotton picking. Non-elite whites found it unfair that skilled slave laborers, who were hired out by their owners, worked at sought after jobs. This was but one of the many problems whites had with slave restrictions and the rights of freed slaves. Whites believed in the inferior nature of blacks that would create a recognizable class distinction between the two groups.
Jennison writes in a concise and orderly manner. In his historical piece, the repeated themes of revolution, expansion, and slavery portray the societal evolution of Georgia impressively. This chronological work depicts the impact of slavery in Georgia’s economy, geography, and politics. But most importantly, the established racial order came from “cultivating” racial groups to the interests of white Georgians – this is the main point and heart of what the book is largely about. Jennison effectively proves this. With the help of primary sources, which include newspapers, government records, manuscripts, books, and articles, Jennison has produced a book that is sufficiently supported and argued. The expansion of slavery in Georgia is suberbly covered for one who would like to study this particular history in Cultivating Race: The Expansion of Slavery in Georgia, 1750-1860.
The History Experience 