THE POLITICS OF RACE IN POSTEMANCIPATION VIRGINIA

Jabori Cox

Course

Professor’s Name

Institution

Location of Institution

Date

Book Review

Today I will be doing my book review on The Politics of Race in Postemancipitation, Virginia. The author of this book is Jane Dailey. The purpose of her writing this book, I believe, was to give people an insight into what was going on back then with politics, racism, and the educational system. She wrote this book to talk about the adjustors’ movement post-civil war and how important they were to history. Dailey argues that the disenfranchisement and segregation of black people were not foregone conclusions in the South and that the end of slavery did not prevent domination and degradation by white people. I think this argument does matter because even with the world we live in, black people do not get the same opportunities in certain situations as whites, and right now, according to law, all races have equal rights.

This book does a great job discussing the biracial democracy in Virginia for about 3 years in the south. Dailey enthusiastically talked about how the readjustors movement impacted civilization in Virginia at that time. Some key points she made were that black people were demanding to have civil and political rights and education in Virginia after the civil war. Interestingly enough, war politicians were having the same difficulties then as today, identifying black freedom.

The book begins dialogue regarding issues impacting white society in Virginia to include white people going through prewar public debt, which was draining money from their pocket and losing education. Again this is reminiscent of what is occurring in today’s society; perhaps we all can learn from this history lesson. Obviously, all white people weren’t bad then, and some had similar ideals as black people. We see people rising to the challenge abridging the gap today, just as William Mahone. He was able to get both races together and establish the readjustors. Dailey declares the readjustors third party as the “Most successful interracial democratic political movement in the post-war South” (page 5) . In 1880 the Readjustors defeated the democrats to get power in Virginia (page 53). This book charges my mind to consider what would happen today if such a political party would rise in this time of political unrest.

The deeper I got into the book, I began to get anxious. I was anxious to see what the readjustors would do with the power it possessed. I had something to look forward to; with Mahone being in charge of the party, things began to change. You could see the realization of rights for African Americans as they were being freed from slavery. How exciting it must have been. The action grew as Mahone made sure everybody could get an education and addressed segregation. Then the typical thing happened; this is epic; when good things happen, chaos often follows. Dailey talks about problems that arise with the readjustors giving rights to blacks. They said black people began to take jobs white people would usually have, and that infuriated them. (Page 119) This is when I could tell Dailey’s whole mood was changing in the tone of the book. She began to talk about how whites started to riot and how they started murdering innocent black people. (page 124) This sounds like today’s current events. Needless to say, Mahone and readjustors were out of office. At this point, I was mentally drained reading events of yesterday that could very well have occurred today. Dailey did a good job of reminding the reader that you can survive through adversity, and peaceful protesting is worth it. The book is thought-provoking and challenges its reader to consider the history lesson. If I rated the book on a scale of 1 to 5, I would give it a 4.5; it was a pretty good book read with plenty of information.

Bibliography

“Jane Dailey. Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in Postemancipation, Virginia. (Gender and American Culture.) Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2000.” The American Historical Review, 2002. doi:10.1086/ahr/107.1.204.