US Civil War was Deeply Partisan

US Civil War Deeply Partisan

Kalmoe (2020), Weaver (2022)

Reconstruction was Violent and Partisan

Republican “revolution” for biracial democracy

• military occupation
• disenfranchisement of rebels
• Constitutional Amendments
• new federal enforcement powers

Democratic resistance

• violence against federal agents, Republicans, African Americans
• voter suppression, assassinations, violent overthrow of local/state gov’ts

Is history written by the victors?

Republican “Won Cause” narrative praised political rights …

… and condemned white supremacist violence

Within 50 years, “Lost Cause” narrative of war and Reconstruction triumphant

How did this happen?

More broadly…

How are discourses that justify or prohibit violence transformed?

• particularly relevant to partisan violence and claims to (il)legitimacy of regimes

Changing discourses about violence is consequential

• (Yanagizawa-Drott 2014; Adena et al. 2015; Mueller and Schwarz 2021, 2019; Weaver 2019)
• May enable or constrain political violence.

Publicity as a Mechanism

Reach

Geographic scope of audience

• alter scope of conflict (consequences of discourse)
• censor/reveal events or details that align with discourse

Inclusivity

Inclusion of different voices in public debate

• determines whether frames/narratives are un/contested
• determines which events are reported
• particularly relevant if victims of violence are included

Publicity as a Mechanism

Changes in publicity may endogenous or exogenous:

• Rapid changes in communication technology; unanticipated consequences
• During Reconstruction, changes in publicity endogenous and strategic

Republican narratives of Reconstruction facilitated by increased reach and inclusivity

Democrats successful by reversing this: contracting reach and excluding Black and Republican voices.

Republicans and Publicity

Increasing reach

• Northern audiences invested in southern events
• military occupation, federal agents, new telegraph/rail
• northern reporters went south
• Congressional investigations

Increasing inclusivity

• Voices of freed people in government reports
• Republican newspapers (gov’t, army printing contracts)
• Republican and Black elected and appointed officials
• Testimony in Congressional hearings

Democrats and Publicity

Limiting Reach

• use of clandestine violence
• Klan costumes/pageantry
• Ignore/deny reports of violence against Black/Republicans
• Control over telegraph lines/press associations/wire service contracts

Limiting Inclusivity

• Targeted violence against Republican leaders
• Efforts to weaken Republican, strengthen Democratic newspapers
• Cultivate relationships with Northern reporters
• Attack credibility of Republican/Black testimony (false flag, paid witnesses)

Democratic Consolidation

After reducing Republican/Black voices in the South:

• Paid lip service to Northern demands for Black civil and political rights
• Controlled news headed North: suppressed, reframed violence that might trigger Northern intervention

In the long run, re-wrote narrative of Reconstruction:

• By 1890s, Southern members of Congress openly admit violent voter suppression. Able to frame it as ‘legitimate’ and ‘necessary’

Next Steps

Empirically, did changes in reach/inclusivity alter Northern press coverage of Reconstruction?

Data on violence is suspect, but…

• data on newspaper partisanship, wire service membership, Army occupation, black office-holders
• content coding newspapers for coverage of civil rights, Reconstruction gov’ts, racial/political violence