The Massacre In Hamburg, South Carolina

Let's pick up where my post about Stephen Budiansky's book "The Bloody Shirt", left off and begin an exploration of a shocking and little-known moment in our nation's history.
It was July 4, 1876, in a no-longer extant South Carolina town called Hamburg that this episode begins. Two white farmers were driving a buggy into the center of town when they found the roads occupied by African-American soldiers who made up Company A of the Eighteenth Regiment of the South Carolina National Guard. These troops, who were on parade in celebration of Independence Day, were requested to move by the two farmers, and after the farmers demanded they step aside, opened a path for the two carts.
The next day, the two farmers went to court, presided over by an African-American judge, to swear a complaint against the commanding officer of the regiment. The judge, Prince Rivers, ordered an adjournment until July 8th, on which day roughly one hundred armed white men, mostly members of the notorious "rifle clubs" appeared at the courthouse. The officer and his men did not come to the courthouse.
The gang of men found the militiamen in a nearly structure called the Sibley Building and demanded that they relinquish their arms, that blacks had no right to carry arms. When the militiamen and their officer refused, they, as Budiansky put it "knew they had a war on their hands".
For hours the building was pounded by small arms and artillery fire as the militiamen tried to hold their position on the second floor. Their return fire, though limited, struck a 25 year old rifle club member named McKie Meriwether, killing him instantly. Eventually, the rifle club men stormed the building and took the bulk of the miltiamen prisoner.
These men were marched to an patch of ground, now lost to history, but known as "The Dead Ring" after the circle formed by the captors around their prey. In the end, four of the African-American prisoners were executed, and at least two others were killed trying to escape.
I provide you with a link to the official report from the South Carolina Attorney General, as well as a letter to now-President Ulysses Grant from the South Carolina governor. The endgame of this affair (without getting into the wholesale slaughter that took place in Ellentown, SC in September, 1876) was that seven men were indicted for murder, but after the election of Democrat and famous Confederate general Wade Hampton, all charges were dropped. The massacre galvanized both North and South, and was a pivot point in marking the end of Reconstruction and formation of the Compromise of 1877.
There are, of course, many more sordid and far-reaching components to the Hamburg Massacre, but for the sake of brevity and with confidence that you will search out the information for yourselves. One particularly frightening figure worth reading about is Ben Tillman.
Let's move to the point of how well this part of our past is remembered (or not). Please recall the name of the white man killed at the beginning of the battle, McKie Meriwether. In 1916, a monument was built to commemorate a man who "perished for the cause of liberty" in "The Battle of Hamburg". The town of Hamburg subsequently has disappeared from the maps after a series of floods, the building of a dam, and the construction of a golf course in 1998.
The monument, erected in a town called North Augusta, still stands today, and when the town celebrated its centennial in 2006, it was recognized as a monument "to the only resident of Hamburg to be killed in the Hamburg riot of 1876."
To reinforce, this was two years ago.
The obelisk itself, which can be viewed here, has inscriptions on its four sides, which I encourage you to read, especially the east face.
Having read that, keep in mind that no monument, tablet, marker, or memorial exists for the 6 African-American men murdered that day.
Now that you've read this missive, take a moment and reflect on what we know, understand, learn, and teach about the period of our nation's history called Reconstruction.

Book Review: "The Bloody Shirt"

Right up front, I'll make something plain; Stephen Budiansky's book "The Bloody Shirt" does not attempt to break new ground about the Reconstruction era. Instead, this book is designed to revive and retell the stories of a few individuals to illustrate the experiences of many. To his credit, Budiansky does not claim to be writing an authoritative study of Reconstruction, his intention is to show the impact that terrorism had in a few places and on a few persons in the South after the war as part of a larger reflection of the post-Civil War South.
He does a good job of not trying to pretend the book is more than it is, and should be regarded as such. Some criticisms of the book I've seen harp on various perceived shortcomings, but this is not Foner, Stampp, or Fitzgerald writing a definitive history of Reconstruction. "The Bloody Shirt" is a storyteller bringing nonfiction to life in the words of those who lived it, with the footnotes and bibliography to prove it.
To that end, the book is roundly successful; the personalities are well-described and evocative, the references utilize primary sources like letters and newspaper clippings, and the stories themselves are emotive, powerful, and sometimes unbelievable.
Where the book is most successful; however, is in throwing water on the idea that Reconstruction is universally understood today as a time of domestic terrorism, subversion, and racism. In his critique of this book, Professor Blum of San Diego State implies that the subject matter of Reconstruction is already well-traveled and universally accepted. Would that this were true!
Budiansky helps us see just how far we still have to go (and how wrong the idea that Reconstruction is well-understood) in the final vignette of the book where he explores an event called "The Massacre at Hamburg". This subject deserves and will receive its own post, but just by bringing it to life in the words of the victims and witnesses, then showing the recurring responses over the decades, including a striking one in 2006, Budiansky has written an important book.
His narrative technique is sometimes a bit jumpy and fragmented, and the chronology gets muddled up, but this does not detract from the larger issues at hand. Budiansky's book is a reminder of the spasms that wracked the post-war South and the racism, violence, and depredations that plagued African-Americans and Republican whites. More importantly, he illustrates how this painful history, despite a recent surge in Reconstruction scholarship, continues to elude common sensibilities. A primary example will be presented in a few days, so stay tuned!

Moving Into 2009

It's now nighttime on the first day of 2009, and The Jess and I have rung in the New Year right! An excellent New Year's Eve dinner, some games, a big breakfast and a bunch of football. She's having a nap before dinner, and I want to share some thoughts I have for the direction of this space for the year.
So a few aesthetics first. The sidebar has been cleaned up for the New Year; I've taken the Reading List for 2008 and put it into a post with an archive link in the section, same with the Reasons Why The Jess Is Cool. Both will, I assure you, rapidly fill up over the course of '09. Also, I've removed the Recent Refreshment section, but any new drinks and roasts will most assuredly be written about.
This year, I plan to pick up a new thread of study by bringing together our work on the Lost Cause with extended readings on Reconstruction and its attendant difficulties and tragedies. This was spurred by some reading just before the end of the year when I completed Stephen Budiansky's "The Bloody Shirt". This book, along with Piston's "Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant", will be reviewed shortly, but the lid has been blown off of subject matter I haven't explored since my senior year at UCLA in 1998. I'm champing at the bit to get into this, we're in for some challenging and emotional work.
Texts by Blight, Foner, and Fitzgerald are going to be the cornerstones initially; these books are chosen because of their status as pillars of Reconstruction scholarship. I need to get back to fundamentals on this subject because Budiansky's book opened my eyes to just how deep our common misperceptions of Reconstruction run (and it wasn't even that great a book!)
As we move forward, I am prompted by a recent post at "Past in the Present" about citations of sources in blog posts. There is no industry standard, but as I have done in the past, please be assured that if you ever have a question about my source material, I will gladly provide any references I have used.