Dear Kanye: Runaways and violent rebels were NOT the only enslaved peoples who resisted, and who deserve our admiration



These people did not choose to be enslaved, so let’s talk about what they did choose . . .

Dear Kanye West,

You’ve recently demonstrated that you have some educational deficiencies when it comes to understanding American slavery. “400 years” of enslavement, you said, “that sounds like a choice.”

When you said it, you were quickly shot down by TMZ‘s Van Nathan, in a “mic drop” moment that seemed to warrant no additional comment.

Yet you wouldn’t let it go at that. “To make myself clear” you tried to clarify later on Twitter, “Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will. My point is for us to have stayed in that position even though the numbers were on our side (they weren’t) means that we were mentally enslaved.”

You also tweeted that people were attacking you for having original thoughts. Further, you claimed that had you lived during slavery, you would have been a “Harriet,” meaning a runaway, or a “Nat,” meaning a rebel that violently resisted and went down fighting. You’d never be “mentally enslaved!”

But these aren’t original and new thoughts that you’ve stumbled upon. Honestly, the first thing that came to my mind was Eddie Murphy’s 1987 “Raw” performance, when he comically and frankly confronted the idea that you just put forth as new.

“The first dude that got off the boat said that,” Murphy joked.

WARNING: VERY foul language:

Murphy’s comedy aside, I could spend my time trying to educate you about the extensive mechanisms that white Southerners put into place to subjugate and control the enslaved– from laws, to slave patrols, to militia companies, (all of which continued in various forms to maintain white supremacy after the Civil War and explain, in some part, the gun culture of the South). The failure of Nat Turner’s revolt, and especially the subsequent brutal retribution meted out to the mostly uninvolved black community afterwards, is evidence of just how well-prepared and equipped Southern whites were for dealing with large-scale violent slave resistance. John Brown’s Raid further makes the point. The enslaved understood this, because it was their reality.

Or, I could use this time to point out that the chances of escaping slavery by running away were just too great to expect very many to be successful.


Amos, and thousands like him, were clearly not mentally enslaved. But neither were the ones that didn’t run.

Historians are now heavily involved in collecting, quantifying, and digitizing slave runaway ads from period newspapers, and the more they find, the more we see just how many enslaved peoples made the attempt, despite the odds against success. Yet the truth is that successful runaway attempts were relatively rare, which is why Tubman is justly famous. For most, the risks were too high, and the punishments and separation from families too great a deterrent. The enslaved also understood this.

So does this mean that the vast majority of the enslaved who were not Harriet or Nat were weak? Were they mentally enslaved, as you asserted? Were they so completely dominated and subjugated that we should consider them unworthy of honor and admiration?

Kanye, your recent words imply just that, and THAT is what pisses me off. So please let me address that here.

Listen, you are definitely not the first one that thinks this way. In fact, many white Americans during and after slavery pointed to the relative lack of Harriets and Nats as proof of the docility and inferiority of the race–and thus they viewed that fact itself as justification for black enslavement. Your words implied the same thing.

Is that really how you want to use your high profile voice–making the same argument as the defenders of slavery? That’s the point Van Nathan was making when he took you down.

But you’re also not the only person in our present time that seems to make the same point for which you have received so much backlash.  Anyone that has read many of my blog postings knows that I am annoyed by much of our recent pop cultural depictions of slavery. Thankfully, Hollywood no longer peddles the image of happy and contented slaves like we used to get prior to the Civil Rights movement (à la Gone With the Wind). And that is definitely a good thing. 9781623567804.jpgBut recent exceptional films and TV shows like 12 Years a Slave, Django Unchained, the Roots remake, and WGN’s Underground, have painted most of the enslaved as essentially subhuman, non-resistent drones, all the while casting violent rebels and runaways as the heroes.

In telling their stories that way, these films miss the same point you do, Kanye. The enslaved did not choose to be enslaved, but what the vast majority of them did choose was to not let enslavement define them, their culture, or their race.

They resisted the complete domination of their lives not by risking death or separation from family by becoming Nat or Harriet, but by constructing and living in a culture largely of their own making, much of it outside of white control.

As I have insisted before: “Slaves routinely played tricks on their owners, covertly left the plantation for moonlit social and religious gatherings, entertained themselves, and created strong bonds that enabled them to maintain sanity and hope.


There are no Harriets or Nats here, but make no mistake, these are heroes.

Slaves laughed at their master’s expense; told stories to teach their young how to outwit, control, and fool their owners; engaged in slowdowns and “laid out” to negotiate their work load; and worshipped a Christian God that they believed would one day free their people and damn their masters to hell.”

Unfortunately, there are few glimpses of this type of resistance, self-determination, and hope depicted in our current pop cultural depictions of slavery. And yet this is how most of the enslaved resisted. They were resilient, powerful people, taking the worst of what man can do to man and surviving it. African Americans live and thrive today BECAUSE of THEM.

In surviving this way, they built and passed along lessons to their descendants about self esteem, self reliance, and hope. And the culture they built has shaped America’s pop culture to a remarkable degree, especially considering all the mechanisms long in place to fortify white supremacy. Such things as America’s religious practices, foods, fashions, entertainments, and music are largely constructed upon, or heavily influenced by, what the enslaved and their descendants built and shaped in order to resist domination. (The irony, Kanye, is that your own career is part of that story).

Thus the enslaved deserve our acknowledgement and appreciation for all of this, as well as our respect and admiration. They made choices that all of America, black and white, have benefitted from and have been shaped by.

What they certainly do not deserve is your derision because they could not all be Harriets, or Nats.


Glenn David Brasher








A response to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, from a born and bred Alabamian



Dear Governor Ivey,

You recently declared that you have no interest in what “folks in Washington,” or “out-of-state liberals” have to say about Alabama’s Confederate monuments.

Ok then, how about a white native-born and bred Alabamian that has made a life out of historical research and writing, and who teaches history to college students right here in our mutually beloved state? Would you mind hearing from me?

You claim that “to get where we’re going, means understanding where we’ve been.” Yet I am not so sure you fully understand where we have been.

Stay with me here  . . .

I was born in the turbulent year of 1968 on Birmingham’s Southside, at St. Vincent’s hospital.

I’m sure you can remember the year well: the Tet Offensive in Vietnam led to President Johnson’s decision to not seek reelection; Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, sparking racial violence in many of America’s cities; Bobby Kennedy was shot down after winning the California primary; young American war protestors clashed with the police in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention; Richard Nixon won the presidency by blowing the proverbial “dog whistle” about “law and order”; And our very own George Wallace made a strong third party showing in the election, despite (and because of) his recent career of standing firmly against integration.wallace-campaign-button.jpg

Oh, that George Wallace. I’m sure you know about how he won the job you now have by proclaiming he would resist “outside agitators” that wanted to integrate our schools. “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” he declared, while harkening to the Confederacy and the “heart of the great Anglo-Saxon southland.”

Yet those “outside agitators” were mostly southern born and bred African Americans. MLK? Heck, he was just a young Georgian that got his first job in our state and first gained fame as a resident here.

And then there was that time Wallace stood in the door of Foster Auditorium on the University of Alabama campus, speaking out against the “tyranny” of Washington DC that was forcing the school to integrate.

He lost that battle as Vivian Jones and James Hood, two native born Alabamians, were allowed to register. Damn those outside agitators.


Jones and Hood, getting registered at their own state’s flagship University

In the years afterward, a lot of white Alabamians placed their kids in private academies to avoid integration, but I was part of the first generation of Alabama school children that went to integrated public schools their whole life. From first grade in 1975 until I graduated from Homewood High School in 1987, my world was filled with black faces and friends that I sat next to in class and in the lunchroom, played sports with, hung out with on the weekends, and walked across a stage with to receive our diplomas.

Turns out that integration wasn’t so bad after all, and is likely the main reason why I grew up largely judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.

Yes, that was MLK’s dream, that Georgian who lived and spent much of his life in Alabama. Oh, and remember that time he marched across the Pettus Bridge in Selma alongside native born Alabamian John Lewis, the same guy that was a leader in the Freedom Rides? Damn those outside agitators.


King and Lewis, those darn agitators.

Anyway, after finishing up high school, I went to college at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, where I majored in history. Guess what I learned in both those Alabama public schools and at UAB? I learned that the reason the southern states seceded from the Union and tried to establish their own government was so that they could prevent the destruction of slavery.

It seems that they too did not want “outside agitators” like abolitionists and a democratically elected president in Washington DC to tell them what to do with their domestic institutions.

So they seceded, establishing a Confederacy that their vice president unashamedly declared to have been built “upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government [the Confederate States of America], is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Yes, that Confederacy. The one we have all those monuments to.

While at UAB, I also learned much about the “Lost Cause,” the successful attempt of white Southerners to rewrite the history of the Confederacy after its defeat, stressing that secession had been about “state’s rights,” not slavery. Furthermore, they insisted, slavery had been a benign institution that benefitted both races, and that a strict racial hierarchy had created a much more peaceful and harmonic society than existed elsewhere in the country.

Yet if slavery had to be gone as a result of the efforts of “outside agitators,” white Southerners believed they could at least recreate its racial order through “Jim Crow” segregation laws. At the forefront of those efforts during the late 1800s and early 1900s, was the construction of memorials to the Confederacy and its gallant soldiers. Monument dedications became “teachable moments” in which speakers enthralled crowds with the deeds of the glorious dead that gave their lives in defense of a superior racial order.

Yes, I learned much of that while at UAB, from a professor that was born and raised in Mobile and received her PhD in Georgia. Damn those outside agitators.

Also while I was at UAB, Birmingham opened its beautiful Civil Rights Institute and Museum, and I took enormous pride in the facility’s effective presentation of the role of my hometown in some of the Civil Rights movement’s most dramatic events in fighting to end those Jim Crow laws.

It always struck me that the Children’s March in 1963, (when hundreds of children were jailed and firehosed in the streets of their very own hometown–damn those outside agitators), took place under the shadow of one of those Confederate memorials in Linn Park.


Confederate monument in Linn Park

You know the one. It is the one that Alabama citizens and elected officials in Birmingham now want removed. They stand in defiance of that law you so pridefully signed that prevents local Alabama communities from making their own decisions about what they want to memorialize in their own streets and cities. Damn those outside agitators.

And damn local rights.

After college, I started pursuing a PhD, and that journey temporarily led me out of state. It was then that I learned that many people outside of Alabama believed it was still 1963 down here, with racism and perhaps even Jim Crow still reigning supreme. I tried to tell them about how far our state had come, but it was a tough sell, even in the 1990s.


This had to be written by an “out of state liberal!”

I returned home when the University of Alabama lured me with fellowships and scholarships, and it was there that I earned my PhD by researching and writing a book about the roles that enslaved African Americans played in the fight against the Confederacy. Imagine that! A white Alabamian writing about such a thing! Don’t only “out of state liberals” focus on the Confederacy’s commitment to defending slavery? Damn those outside agitators.

I’m still here in Tuscaloosa, but now I am teaching—about slavery, the Confederacy, the Civil War, the Lost Cause, the Civil Rights movement. And guess what? I can promise you that even if every last Confederate memorial were to come down, those things will still be researched, written about, and taught in schools. History would not be erased.

And it will continue to be taught in ways that corrects the history that those monuments were built to distort.

The irony here is that I am actually not in favor of removal of the monuments (I support contextualization), but I am in favor of local communities deciding for themselves what they want to do with them. They shouldn’t be dictated to by people outside their community.

Even those in Montgomery.

Governor Ivey, I know that your defiant message probably plays well with many of your constituents. But please understand that when you use the language you have about “out-of-state liberals” and “folks in Washington” you’re using the same message as proslavery advocates when they resisted abolition, post-Reconsruction era politicians when they maintained white supremacy by passing Jim Crow laws and building Confederate monuments, and anti-integrationists like your predecessor George Wallace when he led the state against the Civil Rights movement.

And just like Wallace, you’re ignoring the fact that native-born Alabamians, then as well as now, are on the forefront of these efforts at racial reconciliation, Civil Rights, and an honest reckoning of our history.

You only insult and belittle them and demonstrate that you care little about listening when you label their beliefs “politically correct nonsense” coming from outside the state.

Do you really want to sound like you’re on the same side as proslavery advocates, Jim Crow, and George Wallace? If so, perhaps our beloved state actually is still stuck in 1963, and you’re definitely not the one that can lead it forward.


A proud Alabamian.


A Short History Lesson on the United States & “The Young and Fearless of Heart.”



“March for Our Lives” in DC, 3/24/2018

Flashback to the day after the 2016 election when I wrote this on my blog:

“After spending all day acting as a counselor for classrooms of college students that are angry and frightened by these results, I am actually a bit hopeful that the Election of 2016 will go down in history as the event that caused the millennial generation (and/or generation z) to create a powerful political movement that will be a force to be reckoned with. I heard them say some really powerful and encouraging things today. Stay tuned.”

Since then, more and more events have convinced me that this will turn out true, obviously none more than today’s “March For Our Lives” across the country. Yes, the shooting in Florida was the immediate catalyst for this movement, but it has been brewing well before now and is really about more than just gun control—and it is more than just teens.  The last year and a half has seen more highly attended marches, demonstrations, protests, and rallies than we have seen in a very long time. We’ve also seen several special elections that have reversed decades of voting patterns.

Is this all adding up to something big? Something revolutionary (again, beyond just gun control)? Only time will tell, but it sure looks like it today.

Besides a huge voting block, were there any future influential lobbyists and pundits, congressmen and women, judges, and presidents in the crowds of marchers? You can bet on it.

Yet it is perhaps too easy to dismiss the marches today as the product of naive, and overly emotional young people that do not fully understand the issues, or what they are up against.

To that, I say, almost every major successful movement in our nation’s history has been the result of the efforts of naive, overly emotional young people that perhaps did not fully understand what they were up against—including the protest movement that led to our independence and the founding of our Republic, and all the later movements that expanded the number of people that receive protection for their individual rights.

If you love our country and the rights that Americans have which are protected by our laws and Constitution, you must understand that those beautiful things are the results of protests movements—–usually led by the young.

To demonstrate the point, lets take a very brief look at some of those movements in our history, focusing on the ages of  just a select few  (for the sake of brevity) of the more famous and prominent leaders of those movements.

The American Revolution:

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was 26 when he was first elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and began arguing court cases in his legal profession that leaned on his belief in the “natural rights” of man and that the purpose of government was to protect those rights.


young James Madison

James Madison, considered the Father of the US Constitution, was 23 when he joined a pro-revolution militia unit. Just a year later, he was a member of the Virginia convention that broke the state free from the British empire, producing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s first constitution. At the convention, young Madison argued vehemently for separation of church and state and protection of religious freedom.

Alexander Hamilton, the “other” Father of the Constitution and current Broadway sensation,  was 17 (or 19, there is dispute about his birth year) when he too joined his local pro-revolution militia company, soon serving on George Washington’s staff and becoming part of his very exclusive inner circle as they fought a rebellious war against their own government.


Young and naive protestors in NYC  energetically and defiantly knocking down a statue of King George III.

The Abolitionist Movement:


William Lloyd Garrison was 25 when he joined the anti-slavery movement, soon becoming one of its most important leaders, later publishing the newspaper The Liberator, promising ” I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.” His paper helped unite the many localized abolitionist organizations, creating a powerful national organization that challenged a system that legalized human bondage.

Frederick Douglass was a young teen when he engaged in his first acts of defiance against slavery, clandestinely learning to read and getting into a physical confrontation with an overseer. He was about 19 or 20 years old when he successfully escaped from slavery, and 23 when he gave his first anti-slavery speech.


Bucktown Village store in Maryland, the recreated site of Harriet Tubman’s first act of defiance

Harriet Tubman was a pre-teen when she committed her first act of defiance, refusing to help a slave catcher wrangle a runaway slave and getting hit in the head with an iron as a result. She was 29 when she successfully escaped and soon began her famous Underground Railroad activities, helping undermine a system that was protected by government laws.

Women’s Suffrage

Susan B. Anthony, perhaps the most important suffrage leader of the 19th century, was in her twenties when she first began to attend and lead local social reform movement meetings.

Carrie Chapman Catt, who later built the League of Women Voters, was in her mid twenties when she first got involved in the Gilded Age women’s suffrage movement. She was later instrumental in the movement to get states to ratify the 19th amendment.


Suffrage banner held during the White House protests of 1917

Alice Paul, perhaps the most important of the 20th century suffragettes (radicalizing the movement by leading protests at the White House and engaging in a hunger strike after being arrested), was 22 when she moved to England, got involved in the British women’s suffrage movement, and came to believe in that movement’s more militant tactics. She soon came home and brought youthful energy and activism to a stalled movement that soon broke the stubborn resistance of President Woodrow Wilson and got his support for the 19th amendment.

The Civil Rights Movement

This is perhaps the best example of the point being made, so the number of names here is WAY too few in number to do it justice, . . . yet still enough to support the point.

The 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movement was largely energized by the defiant actions of 14 year old Emmett Till, which led to his lynching and the subsequent moral outrage from a nation shocked by his mother’s decision to have an open casket funeral so the world could look directly in the face of the violence of white supremacy.

Claudette Colvin was 15 when she was arrested for breaking Montgomery’s bus segregation laws, the often forgot progeny of the legal case that gained larger attention after the arrest of Rosa Parks and the subsequent bus boycott.

The “Little Rock Nine” were 16 and 17 year olds that choose to participate in the integration of the city’s main public high school, causing a confrontation that soon


The young, but exceptionally brave “Little Rock Nine” led the way in school integration.

involved the Arkansas governor, President Eisenhower, and US troops, beginning the slow and torturous process of school integration in America.

The lunch counter sit-in movement was started when 18 and 19 year old college students in Greensboro, NC., planned and executed a protest of local segregation laws at their local Woolworth Store.

The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC, often pronounced “Snick”) was organized and led by college students in their early 20s. The violent resistance the movement received in reaction to its efforts brought wide-scale media attention to the Civil Rights movement’s agenda, creating many moral crises that repeatedly forced the federal government to intervene. Perhaps their greatest results came with the Nashville Sit-ins, where 22 year old Diane Nash emerged as a particularly well spoken and charismatic leader, and the Freedom Rides, which included the 20 year old John Lewis, who later at the ripe old age of 25 led the March across the Pettus Bridge in Selma which pushed LBJ into pressuring Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.


The young, marching off to jail in Birmingham, 1963

Gwendolyn Sanders was 13 years old when she helped organize her classmates to participate in the 1963 Birmingham protests which led to the famous confrontation between young blacks and Eugene “Bull” Conner’s firehoses and police dogs, an event that sparked JFK to propose the Civil Rights Bill, which later ended public segregation.

And let’s not forget that Martin Luther King Jr. himself was only 26 when he was asked to help lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott movement.

Further, the Civil Rights movement’s successes were an inspiration for the Vietnam War protests that successfully turned public opinion against the War in Vietnam. It too was a youth movement in which upwards of 80% of college campuses held some form of protests, eventually resulting in the end of America’s involvement in a senseless war in which the young were paying the greatest price.

Of course this short list of names misses hundreds of thousands of others, from prominent leaders, to the largely unknown names of young Revolutionary soldiers, picket-sign makers, and tireless and brave marchers that were carted off to jail by the hundreds, frequently beaten, and all-too often killed because of their determination to change America in ways that made it live up to its promises of protection for the natural rights of all.

“And that’s what the young people here today and listening all across the country must take away from this . . .” our last inspiring president reminded us a few years ago while standing in front of the Pettus Bridge in Selma:

“You are America. Unconstrained by habits and convention. Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be. For everywhere in this country, there are first steps to be taken, and new ground to cover, and bridges to be crossed. And it is you, the young and fearless at heart, the most diverse and educated generation in our history, who the nation is waiting to follow.”




Recent history-based TV shows; Time travel, Gilded Age New York, strong women, and the really, really, Wild West

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 5.19.20 PM.png

Clockwise from top left: NBC’s Timeless, TNT’s The Alienist, Netflix’s Godless

Recently, the University of Alabama hosted a screening of The Free State of Jones, featuring comments and a Q&A with historian Victoria Bynum, the author of the book on which the film is loosely based. It was interesting to see the film for a second time, as it validated most of the perceptions I had after my first viewing (you can read the review I wrote then here), although I felt the Reconstruction scenes worked better upon a second viewing than I did initially. If you have not seen it yet, be sure to catch it on disc or cable.

Anyway, the event got me thinking about more recent Hollywood stabs at history. During this past award season, exceptional films like Dunkirk and Darkest Hour received much warranted awards and nominations (I highly recommend them both, and Gary Oldman was stunningly effective as Churchill). But ever since the cancellation of PBS’s Mercy Street and WGN’s Underground it seems to me that there has been a dearth of quality, high-profile history-based dramas on television.

(Thankfully, it appears that the creators of HBO’s Game of Thrones have backed away (at least temporarily) from their proposed series featuring an alternate timeline in which the South wins the Civil War, turning their attentions instead on a new set of Star Wars films. I like that idea MUCH better).

Still, in the last few months there have been three big budget TV shows that have caught my attention: The second season return of NBC’s Timeless, TNT’s limited series, The Alienist, and the best of the three, Netflix’s limited series, Godless.

The first season of Timeless was pretty harmless fluff, featuring a few episodes that were truly riveting. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy-driven shows (the stand-alone episodes of The X-Files are the best ones, and I’ll debate anyone on that). Thus, Timeless’s focus on an Illuminati-like organization’s attempt to control the world (“Rittenhouse”) became a bit annoying as our three time traveling heroes (Abigail Spencer, Malcolm Barrett, and Matt Lanter) unraveled more and more of the shadow ageny’s secrets and reasons for trying to alter history.  Further, Spencer’s character, historian Lucy Preston, was depicted as far too much of an expert on every period of time in history, having readily retrievable knowledge about minutia that only a specialist on a particular topic would have (to be fair, the show can’t have a regiment of historians, each with their own specialities). These quibbles aside, I watched almost all of the first season as mindless entertainment. You can catch up with it all by streaming it on Hulu.

NBC was ready to cancel the show after one season, but it was saved by social media outcry (which I wish could have saved the much more valuable Mercy Street), and thus season two premiered last Sunday. The first episode took our heroes into World War I in the midst of American troops fighting at St. Mihiel.


The cast of Timeless fires back up their time machine. It is not exactly a DeLorean, . . . or a hot tub .

As usual, the producers did their homework and got much of the details correct, focusing on Marie and Irene Curie (just in time for Women’s History Month), their nursing efforts, and their technologically advanced mobile X-ray. NBC’s budget was reflected in the nice visuals of a charred WWI landscape, and quick glances at aerial dogfights over the trenches. It all looked pretty good and bodes well for future episodes.

Yet the thing that has me the most excited about the second season of Timeless is that Smithsonian is going to be commenting each week on each episode’s historic accuracy. That should prove interesting to follow.

But speaking of time travel, I have always joked in my classes that whenever I hear blowhards like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck criticise the progressive movement, I wish I could put them in a time machine and drop them somewhere in Gilded Age New York. I wonder how they would feel about Progressivism after living in the fetid slums, working in a sweatshop in disgusting  and dangerous conditions for god-awfully long hours and unfairly low pay, all while seeing the “robber barons” ostentatiously displaying the unprecedented wealth they derived from the misery of the impoverished. I have a feeling the progressive movement might appear a little bit more appealing to them, and perhaps it would give them a different outlook on current events.

(PBS recently aired an American Experience episode on the Gilded Age, disappointingly focusing almost exclusively on the barons and almost completely ignoring the era’s racial dynamics).

Anyway, it is this Gilded Age New York that TNT’s The Alienist effecitvely re-creates. Set in 1896, the limited series is about a psychologist (Daniel Bruhl), a newspaper journalist (Luke Evans), and a police stenographer (the always effective Dakota Fanning) teaming up with two police detectives (Douglas Smith and Matthew Shear) to track down a serial killer. Based on a series of novels that are themselves based loosely on actual people, the show depicts the use of then cutting edge investigative techniques, such as finger printing and criminal profiling. The events are completely fictional, but the world the characters inhabit is stunningly and accurately brought to life.

One of The Alienist’s merits is how Fanning’s character, Sara Howard, is career-driven in a place and time when women pursuing a professional career were a rarity.


Fanning as Sara Howard and Brian Geraghty as Theodore Roosevelt in The Alienist

She confidently pushes back at workplace condescension and mistreatment (#MeToo in 1896), and yet simultaneously and realistically deals with her conflicted desires to adhere to societal pressures to fall in love, quit work, and start a family. Fanning’s performance in the role of a woman ahead of her time, protecting herself behind a bland and no-nonsense exterior, is a strength.

As a fan of Theodore Roosevelt, I especially enjoy his presence as the NYC Police Commissioner determined to clean up police corruption and take on both political and criminal bosses. This is accurate, though actor Brian Geraghty plays Roosevelt as too subdued, depriving the show of the energetic gusto that it sorely lacks. TR was a force-of-nature, and thus his personality should dominate every scene in which he appears. Sadly, that is not the case. Yet The Alienist captures TR’s virtues and has some good scenes between him and JP Morgan (Micheal Ironside, in some good makeup) that nicely foreshadow the hostility the men would have towards each other when TR ascended to the White House and battled Morgan’s horizontally integrated banking trust.

Unfortunately, ten episodes has proven too long to tell the show’s story and after eight episodes I am anxious for it to end (yet still hoping the ending will be rewarding). It is dark and brooding, increasingly disjointed, and besides Fanning, lacks performances that keep you glued to the screen. I’m still hooked, but it feels a little like a slog.

Yet it is still compelling television that you should catch because of how well it depicts Gilded Age New York and what it says about that time in our history. From the ridiculously ornate and ostentatious homes of the super wealthy, to the slums and seething nastiness of the streets, the enormous disparity between classes is impressively demonstrated in The Alienist, reminding us of how Progressivism eventually saved American capitalism from itself.

You can catch up with the series by streaming it at TNT’s site.

From a purely entertainment perspective (but not historical), however, the best of these recent shows is Netflix’s limited series Godless. Set in a Gilded Age western town in which most of the men have been killed in a mining disaster, the show was advertised as a feminist take on the Western, as the women run the town and defend themselves from some VERY bad men. [Warning: the trailer below drops one F-bomb]

Yet that’s not exactly what you get. In the end, Godless is a pretty standard Western dominated by dastardly but complex bad guys, and emotionally traumatized good guys. Which isn’t a bad thing, it is just not as advertised (which is not the fault of the show’s creators).

I discovered Godless because of historian Megan Kate Nelson’s article for the Civil War Monitor about the lack of Civil War battles and campaigns in western movies. Of course she is right, although I think she is a bit harsh on Sergio Leone’s cinematic masterpiece, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, and her discussion of how Civil War animosities do often drive the tensions in many western films glaringly misses such classics as The Outlaw Josey Wales and Shane. 

As with those classics, almost every character in Godless is interesting and well acted, and in my mind the series rivals Lonesome Dove as riveting television (yes, it is that good). It also manages to deliver some surprises, one of which is its rather conventional ending. Yet unfortunately, the show’s most interesting characters are the ones that are explored the least—the females—which is all the more frustrating given how the series was advertised. Getting an even bigger shaft is a local community of former Buffalo Soldiers! Ugh! What could have been!

Yet the most troubling aspect of Godless is the level of graphic violence. The “Old West” has always been romanticized and depicted as more violent than it actually was. In the wake of the Florida school shooting and the fresh energy that high school students have injected into the gun control movement, this sort of depiction of the West is all the more untimely (to be fair, it was released before the events in Florida).

Gun control laws have been common throughout the history of the United States (look for an upcoming article about this from me soon) and in fact were pretty rigorously enforced in Western towns.  Yet Godless indulges in just about every cliché we have ever had about the “Wild West” frontier, and ramps it up to a ridiculous level.

The villains, (led by Jeff Daniels in a wickedly good performance) go around doing things that would have brought down upon them the full weight of the US government and military.


Jeff Daniels leads some VERY bad men in Godless

Since the show is set in New Mexico, a student of history can’t help but think about how the territorial governor (Civil War general and author of Ben-Hur, Lew Wallace) got directly involved in the capture of Billy the Kid, yet in Godless a large group of criminals is able to go around practically unopposed (except by our heroes) doing things that Billy Bonney would have never even dreamed of in his most violent nightmares. Further, the climactic battle scene is largely a nonsensical mess (though nevertheless thrilling).

Godless didn’t create our myth of the Old West, but it certainly sustains and significantly adds to it.  Still, if you can divorce yourself from all that and embrace Godless as a “shoot ’em up” with plenty of interesting characters, uniformly strong performances (particularly by Merrit Wever, Michelle Dockery, and Thomas Brodie-Sangster), and beautiful cinematography, do not miss this one. It is well-worth every penny you paid for your Netflix subscription.

Now, I think I’ll go watch the recent episodes of Drunk History. Did you see the one featuring the Children’s Crusade in Birmingham, 1963? Brilliant, and very timely just now when we need a reminder of what younger generations have done in our history to bring power and life to a movement.

In praise of my Alabama: Doug Jones & the Crimson Tide


Alabama Senator Doug Jones happily watching the Crimson Tide’s championship victory with the D.C. chapter of the Alabama National Alumni Association at Willie’s Brew & Que

Well it has been a month since I’ve posted, and my last one was on the day of our special election here in the state of Alabama. Much has happened since then that I have wanted to blog about, but Christmas vacation trips (more on that in another blog), the new year, a writing project, and the start of the new semester have kept me too busy. I’ve finally gotten a second to breath again, so I wanted to quickly comment on the two events that have had my beloved state in the national news over the last few weeks.

My last posting was a pretty emotional one, as I was not quite sure whether my state would do the right thing by putting its normal commitment to the Republican Party aside to vote against Roy Moore and for Doug Jones. I have been voting since 1988 and I have to tell you, I never felt more exhilarated in exercising my suffrage rights than I did in voting in this senate election.

With no other elections going on, and with an enormous amount of interest in results that would have major consequences, much of the nation’s eyes were on Alabama that night.  Sadly, when my state brings national attention to itself like this it is usually something negative . . . except for football.

That’s one major reason why football is so beloved in the state of Alabama. Starting with their unexpected 1926 Rose Bowl win and 1925 national championship, and continuing into the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, the University of Alabama’s football team has been about the only thing that has brought national praise to the state.

During the Civil Rights era, Alabama appeared on television stations across the country when Freedom Riders were firebombed in Anniston, and beaten in Birmingham and Montgomery. A few years later, Americans watched in horror as police commissioner Eugene “Bull” Conner had children fire hosed in the streets of Birmingham as they demonstrated for desegregation.  Having been arrested earlier in the same demonstrations, Martin Luther King wrote his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail garnering worldwide attention.  Later that year, Alabama Governor George Wallace defied the Kennedy administration live on national television by forcing the president to nationalize state troops to integrate the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. The nation was then stunned into numbness when four black children were killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church.16th_Street_Baptist_Churchs_Neon_Sign_(268472006).jpg And then as if for a brutal encore, the state grabbed attention again as the country watched Civil Rights marchers get pummeled and gassed marching across the Pettus Bridge in Selma while attempting to walk to Montgomery to demonstrate for African American suffrage rights.

The media’s attention on those events rocked the conscience of our nation, shaming it on a world stage during the height of the Cold War and thus leading to the Civil Rights movement’s biggest victories. Yet the black-eye brought to the state solidified people’s opinion of Alabama in ways that still very much shape outside perceptions of the Heart of Dixie.

Still,  during those very same turbulent years, the University of Alabama gained national attention because of the dramatic success of its football program under the direction of Paul “Bear” Bryant.


Bryant & Namath

Winning three national championships in the 1960s with legendary players like Joe Namath and Ken Stabler, the Tide brought adulation to the state instead of the typical scorn (they would have one a 4th in 1966, but the AP punished them for resisting integration). This of course intensified the pride and love that people in the state had for their football.

This dynamic outlived the 1960s. The state of Alabama consistently ranks near the bottom in far too many lists, such as literacy, funding for public schools, quality of life, health and healthcare, infrastructure, wealth, and tax base. Yet all the while, football continued to bring accolades as the Tide has won national championships in 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2015. Auburn too has added to the pride, winning a championship in 2010 and playing for another in 2013. If there is only one thing the state of Alabama does well in the eyes of the nation, it’s football.

And then came the special senate election in December, 2017. The campaign received an unprecedented amount of national attention, as Alabama voters had to choose between a candidate who’s politics seemingly came from the state’s ugly past, and a man who promised to keep it moving in a progressive and inclusive direction.

Roy Moore was woefully unqualified and shamefully undeserving of the job of US senator. He believes in theocracy, that America was “great” during the era of slavery, that we were better off before the 14th and 15th amendments (which made the Civil Rights era’s successes possible), and apparently believes women’s suffrage and officeholding is bad for the country. I’ve no doubt in my mind that Roy Moore would have stood with Bull Conner and George Wallace.

Doug Jones, on the other hand, also conjured up the state’s ugly past, but only because he was the lawyer that finally successfully convicted two of the KKK members responsible for the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. He is also a rather moderate Democrat with political positions that align well with Alabama values (besides abortion).


Doug Jones successfully convicting a Klansman

Those scandalous sexual allegations about Moore aside, the election thus seemingly came down to whether voters wanted to reinforce the  image of the state’s ugly past, or move boldly away from the reputation that still haunts it and shapes perceptions. The choice seemed clear, but would enough white Alabamians be able to put the state’s image and future ahead of their strong party loyalties? The whole country was watching . . .

The turnout of African American voters was of course crucial, but so too was having enough white Alabama Republicans willing to vote for a Democrat. I went to the polls that day unsure of whether we could depend on either. Still, as I looked around at the people voting in my precinct, I was hopeful when I quickly calculated that about one third of the voters I saw were blacks. My precinct here in Tuscaloosa County is actually a pretty good racial mix that’s probably a good representation of the county as a whole. I felt that if one third of people voting across the state were black, there was a chance of a Democrat victory. Yet it would also require a significant amount of white voters for Jones, and of that I was most uncertain.

Watching the returns that night was about as tense and dramatically exciting as it gets. Because the polls in the evangelical North Alabama counties came in first, Roy Moore took a lead that seemed to indicate the election was going down a predictable red path. Yet with the New York Times election meter consistently indicating a Doug Jones victory, I became cautiously optimistic.

And then there was that late surge as the returns came in from Tuscaloosa (where Wallace had defied Kennedy), the so-called “black belt” counties (where the Selma marchers were beaten), and Birmingham (where Bull Conner had once reigned with terror) . As those votes came in, the whole country watched with bated breath as Jones pulled even, took a slight lead, and then in almost an instant was declared the winner by the Associated Press and other media outlets.

The victory was exhilarating, all the more so because of the late night dramatic shift in the numbers and from where they had come. I have to tell you, I cried real tears of joy, and I can’t even recall the last time I’ve done that.

I was very proud of my state because we were in the national spotlight again, with everyone thinking that the home of George Wallace and Bull Conner was going to screw it up . . . but then, dramatically, we didn’t. African American turnout was larger than normal (how proud the Selma marchers must be!), but I believe a much larger number of white Alabamians voted for Jones than the flawed exit polls indicate.

It was as if we as a state, both black and white, collectively said, “chill out America, we got this.”

And then just weeks later, as if the state pride could not get any larger, the Alabama football team found itself in the national spotlight yet again. Looking unbeatable in the Sugar Bowl, they took down last year’s national champion in a revenge game. One week later, they found themselves in a championship game that mirrored the previous month’s special election. Like Jones, Bama got down big early, fought to tie it up, and then with the whole country watching on the edge of their seats, pulled off a late night win in what seemed like an instant.

Jubilation abounded across the state as Coach Nick Saban tied Bear Bryant in number of national championship wins.

As I sat on my porch that night with friends smoking a victory cigar and sipping champagne, I couldn’t help but once again well up with pride in my state. We’ve won a lot of national championships down here, but this one was special. For once, we didn’t need football to save our reputation. This time, it was just the cherry on top.

And to that I have but one thing to say:

Roll Tide.



Dedicating my Vote


As I left the University of Alabama campus today to head to my polling station, I drove by the Antebellum ruins of the state capitol building from when the capital was here in Tuscaloosa. There are many other buildings in the area that date to the eras of slavery, Reconstruction, and segregation, a constant reminder that those days are not so bygone.

As a native Alabamian born in the chaotic and transitional year of 1968, I am proud that my state has recently done much to preserve and memorialize historic sites that tell a more inclusive story;  Pettus Bridge in Selma, Montgomery’s Civil Rights Memorial and Museum, the Civil Rights District and National Monument in Birmingham. To name but a few.

Here on the University of Alabama campus we now have a beautiful bell tower, plaza,  and monument commemorating George Wallace’s stand in the schoolhouse door, honoring the first African American students (Vivian Malone, Autherine Lucy, and James Hood) that broke down segregation at the state’s flagship University.

Near capitol park, I also drove by one of the more recent efforts at memorialization, a humble historical marker placed just last spring by the Equal Justice Initiative in front of the Old Tuscaloosa Jail, detailing the county’s dark history of lynching. As I drove by, a “Doug Jones for US Senate” sign planted in the ground near the site caught my attention.

There are many other issues in this election, but I was struck by emotion as I thought about how my vote today was for a man that prosecuted the 1963 murderers of four African American girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church, and against a man that seems to feel that America was “great” during slavery. 

The marker discusses the 360 documented lynchings in the state, and details the story of eight of those that took place in Tuscaloosa County between 1884-1933. Mobs dragged some of the victims from the jail that still stands today.  The murders were a product of the desire of many to preserve the racial system of white superiority that was weakened by the 13th amendment of the Constitution which ended slavery, and the 14th and 15th that conferred citizenship rights to the freedmen.  The efforts of white supremacists were largely successful at preventing the state from moving forward, chaining it by law and through violence to the past.

Much has changed in Alabama since then, as the markers, memorials,  and museums attest. Yet today we are going to the polls in an election that in many ways will demonstrate how much we want to keep moving forward,  away from our ugly past and image.

I honestly don’t know what tonight’s returns will decide (I am not optimistic), but after voting today I felt compelled to return to the lynching marker to take a picture of it and my “I voted” sticker.

Call it over-dramatic, but I am dedicating my vote to these victims of the state’s attempt to forever hold on to the dark days of racial slavery and white superiority:

Bud Wilson (murdered in 1889), Andy Burke (1884), Charles McKelton (1892), John Johnson (1892), Sidney Johnson (1898), John Durett (1898), Cicero Cage (1919), and Dennis Cross (1933).

You can read their stories here.

I feel pretty sure that if they could, they would vote exactly as I did today, and for much the same reasons.

On Roy Moore, American history, Christianity, abortion, and Doug Jones


So have you heard? There is a special election going on in Alabama on Tuesday, December 12 to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacated senate seat. This has become a major focus of the national media’s attention.

Unlike many of the people that have commented on this election, I have a vote in it. So please let me share my humble opinions from deep down here in the Heart of Dixie.

Outside the state of Alabama, the focus has been on the allegations that Roy Moore pursued underage girls, painting him as a predatory pedophile. Thus, the nation can not imagine how Alabamians could place a man like that in the U.S. Senate. For them, there seems to be no other logical choice but to elect Doug Jones.

Inside the state, however, the election has largely come to be seen as a choice between the lesser of two evils: an alleged pedophile vs. a liberal proponent of late-term abortion/murder. Polls show that in the age of Trump and “fake news” Alabamians simply do not trust the media enough to fully believe Moore’s accusers, especially when the alleged predatorial activities took place over four decades ago. Meanwhile, Jones is an admitted pro-choice Democrat, and a majority of Alabamians find THAT to be abhorrent.

Whatever your own views of abortion, set them aside for a moment and try to place yourself in the mind of these people. (It is called open-mindedness, you can do it if you try). If you truly and passionately feel deep in your heart that abortion is murder, what would mean more to you? Voting to try and stop the murder of infants, or allegations about a man pursuing young girls 40 years ago but who has been loyally devoted to his long-time wife ever since?

In that light, I think it is important that we stop trying to oversimplify this election, looking judgmental noses down at people who find it difficult to vote for Doug Jones and that still side with Roy Moore. These are not sick and demented people, they’re largely good folks that are sick of being mocked and ridiculed.

So instead of insulting them, let’s set aside the stereotypes that both sides in this election have created, and instead look at all the other reasons why Roy Moore is unfit for office, and why Doug Jones is perfect for Alabama.


Roy Moore, circa 1974

Roy Moore was the wrong man for this job, or any publicly-elected job, WAY before all this stuff about underage girls surfaced. His law-school professors and fellow students long ago labeled him “fruit salad” because of his twisted legal opinions and his dogmatic inability to compromise or debate fairly with people who held different opinions than his own.

His entire career as a judge has demonstrated this failing, and that he has some fundamental problems understanding the founding principles of this country. He believes in theocracy; that government should be used to enforce a moral code on its citizens. For him, the separation of church and state goes only so far as to not use the government to deprive non-believers of their rights, as long as doing so does not violate Christian beliefs or undermine a Christian-basis of our laws. For Moore, the government should promote the Christian religion over all other religions, by enforcing Christian morality through laws that make “sin,” as he defines it, illegal. So, if you’re a “sinner” by his definition, there go your rights.

His effort to use the government to promote Christianity is why he defied the federal government when they insisted that he remove the Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse.

These theocratic views are somewhat similar to that of the Puritans that established the Massachusetts Bay colony, so there is a connection to our founding. But where did these beliefs get the Puritants? Because of the Salem Witch Trials, are they not now viewed as the epitome of backwardness and religious persecution? In establishing a nation founded on the concept that government should not be used to force or promote a religion on its citizens, our founders were purposely rejecting the very type of government that Moore and the Puritans believed in and that has been responsible for centuries of persecution all over the world.


Here’s what theocracy gets you

The separation of church and state that our founders created purposely protects all religions. I have to wonder how Christians would feel upon entering a courtroom with a presiding judge that is Muslim, and in which he prominently displayed Sharia law as his guiding principles. Yikes!

That won’t happen however, because the same principle that Moore defied with his Ten Commandments monument, is the same principle that would prevent such a situation. Praise our founders for that protection.

This is why Moore was removed from his job the first of TWO times. The other time also involved him trying to enforce his religious beliefs on citizens, in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. (If Republicans truly believe that less government interference in our lives is a good thing, I have to wonder why they think the government should be in the business of telling someone who they can or can’t love?)


Grave of Chief Justice John Marshall. We may need to check to see if he’s rolled over in there.

But the whole episode also revealed that the so-called Judge Roy Moore clearly does not understand the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, as well as the landmark supreme court cases under Chief Justice John Marshall in the early years of our republic that established the concept of judicial review. I feel as though we need to send the man a copy of a basic high school level history/civics book. He was removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court BOTH TIMES because the man does not understand basic foundational principles of our nation.

This alone makes him unqualified to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Doesn’t it?

But back to religion, I personally wonder how truly “Christian” someone is if those beliefs were forced upon them by government laws, as Moore promotes. Instead of striving to make this is a Christian nation by forcing a certain moral code on people, wouldn’t it be more beneficial and meaningful for Moore to promote Christian values by focusing on changing people’s hearts and minds? In our nation, that’s the job of the church, NOT the government.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I find no scriptures in which Jesus asked his followers to strive for changing Roman laws, making them reflect scriptural values. In fact, he submitted to Roman law to the point of death. His mission was not political or legal.


Christ’s preferred method of changing the world? Um, no.

Which brings me to the damage that Roy Moore’s brand of Christianity does to the church. For many people, Christianity seems to be a religion of hypocrisy. They see it in how many Christians live their day-to-day lives, and they really saw it when evangelical Christians abandoned their moral principles (the same ones they used to rightfully condemn the actions of Bill Clinton) when electing “grab ’em by the *ussy” Donald Trump. Watching this happen has been the most painful thing to me about Trump’s rise. It troubles me that many fellow Christians simply refuse to see the damage that the embracing of Trump has done to the church’s mission. If you never talk to non-Christians, you probably have a hard time fully comprehending the damage it’s done, but trust me, it’s real.

As a Christian, I have to ask, would electing Roy Moore do even more damage to people’s perceptions of the Christian faith? Would it make the faith more appealing to people, or less so? Would the hypocrisy of it continue to harm the church’s mission of spreading the gospel? If we are honest with ourselves, I think the answer is clear.

But, what about abortion? Moore is pro-life. We have to fill the government up with pro-lifers if we ever hope to end abortion. Right? The problem is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and the election of more Republicans is not going to change that. It has been the law since 1973, and since then, Republicans have politicized this issue to tie Christians to the party, successfully becoming the majority party for most of the last few decades. Yet has this brought us any closer to banning abortions?

Electing Roy Moore to the U. S. Senate is not going to advance the cause of ending abortions.

If abortions are going to be substantially reduced in this country, pro-lifers will have to stop thinking that government is the answer (isn’t that a core belief of the Republican party? That government is the problem and that less reliance on it is the solution?) I’d love to see the church focus their anti-abortion passions and efforts exclusively on sex education and mission work to help young and distressed mothers feel less alone in those trying moments of their life.

Even if government outlawed abortion, you’re not going to end them unless you end the demand for them (you know, the same way that outlawing drugs has not ended the drug problem). I can’t help but feel that the pro-life movement is better served by not relying on government, but by relying exclusively on providing love, support, and the guidance of Christ to women facing pregnancies and choices that can be overwhelming.

Yet as damaging as I think Moore is to the Christian faith, and as troubled as I am about his ignorance of the basic foundational principles of country and the Constitution, I am even more troubled by his other views on America’s history.

It has recently come to light that Roy Moore believes that America was “great” back when we had slaves. I listened to his comments to make sure that his words were not taken out of context and to try and get some sense of the point he was making. His words came in response to a question from an African American who challenged him to name a time when America was “great” (a clear reference to Trump’s inane campaign slogan).

Moore struggled to find an answer and did not define a definite moment in time, relying instead on acknowledging that our country has rightfully had to expand its freedoms to larger numbers of people through war, constitutional amendments, and Supreme Court decisions. True.

And yet he then vaguely referred to a time when our families and country were united behind a goal and a destiny. Perhaps the only time this comes close to being true was during WWII, but Moore then said that we had slavery during these years to which he was referring.


Does he mean Antebellum America? Revolutionary America? Colonial America? In all three cases, a belief that we were all united during those times would be ridiculous in the extreme.

More problematic, however, is that he could regard slavery as anything less than horrific, and that he mentioned it in the context of us having unified families. Let’s keep in mind that during slavery, African American families were split up by masters that sold spouses away from each other (evidence suggests this happened to 1 out of every 3 slave families in the upper south), and children away from parents (1 out of every 2). But to Moore, this seems to have been a great time for America’s families.


Here’s America being great to families, according to Roy Moore

Let’s also keep in mind that any era that included slavery in our nation’s history, was an era in which women, white or black, could not vote or enjoy most citizenship rights guaranteed to white men. While Moore acknowledges that we have expanded rights through constitutional amendment, in 2011 he co-authored a book (which promotes theocratic government) arguing that the women’s suffrage movement was bad for the country and that women should not hold public office. (He apparently did not write that particular chapter, but his name as a co-author definitely denotes approval).


Suffragette Lucy Burns exactly where Roy Moore would apparently want her. “Lock her up!”

Aside from Moore’s alleged fetish for teenaged girls, he apparently has a fetish for a time when white protestant men exclusively controlled the country and white woman and African Americans were “in their place.”

Again, these things alone make Moore unfit for the U. S. Senate, or any public office.

Don’t they??

Business leaders in the state of Alabama seem to agree. They have made it clear they fear the impact that Moore’s election would have on the image of the state. Down here in the Deep South, we are still playing catch-up to the rest of the country in trying to lure industries to our states that bring jobs, and a higher tax base. Moore’s beliefs and image would damage those efforts, business leaders agree, because companies would not want to relocate to a state that is seen as intolerant, backwards, and hypocritical.

Potential jobs (both skilled and unskilled) for Alabamians would be lost, as would the higher tax revenues that would help us get better roads, government services, schools, and teacher pay.  Please think about that when you go to the polls.

And then there is Doug Jones.

Sure, he is a Democrat, and most Alabamians would rather shoot their dog than vote for a Democrat. But any objective look at the man’s beliefs reveal that he is no Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi. He’s no liberal Democrat.

Jones is clearly a moderate, and deep in my heart I still believe that most Alabamians actually line up well behind his beliefs.  Let’s look at just a few that I think are at the forefront of the thoughts of Alabamians:

Screen Shot 2017-12-10 at 3.51.04 AM.png

Doug Jones, enjoying his 2nd amendment right

-He is an avowed hunter with a large gun collection that he believes the 2nd amendment protects. He only wants moderate gun control laws, like more extensive background checks.

-He is an outspoken man of Christian faith, being raised his whole life in church.

-He believes in a strong military and peace through strength.

-He believes in expanding medicare and medicaid and working WITH Republicans to try and create something better than Obamacare.

-He wants our criminal justice system to focus more on rehabilitation so that we can lessen the burden on our extremely overcrowded prison system, keeping the truly dangerous behind bars.

-He is dedicated to pursuing bi-partisanship. The #1 thing plaguing our current political situation right now (in my opinion) is the complete inability or desire of our politicians to work with each other to fashion compromises that move us forward. Instead, compromise is seen as weak, and the goal is domination over our political opponents. Our political system was a product of compromise that was meant to facilitate compromise. “Fruit salad” is dogmatically incapable of such efforts (as his whole career and avowed beliefs attests), but Jones is committed to it. Isn’t that what this country needs now more than ever?

-Lastly, no matter what Roy Moore’s TV commercials try to tell you, he believes in the state’s abortion laws as they are now, supporting late-term abortion ONLY in the case of when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. screen-shot-2017-09-24-at-6-1.33.29-pm-300x260.png

And let’s not forget that while Moore was out there tarnishing our state’s reputation and sewing seeds of division and racial discord, Doug Jones was prosecuting the criminals in perhaps our state’s most infamous crime: the 1963 killing of 4 black children at the 16th Street Baptist Church.

The fact that our state FINALLY put those KKK bastards where they belong was a signal to the nation that our state was moving forward from its ugly past. A vote for Moore, and his nostalgia for an era before women’s suffrage and emancipation of African Americans would send the opposite signal.

Come on Alabama, who are we? I pray the answer is clear.

Let’s be on the right side of history:




Do we really have to keep doing this?

Image result for angry professor cartoon

A few years ago, I heard one of our most respected Civil War historians proclaim that the “Lost Cause” narrative of the Civil War had been obliterated by academics and that this was finally true in mass popular culture, suggesting it is only among fringe groups (that would never change their minds anyway) that it still holds sway. I thought it was a strange and misguided thing to say then, and the events of the years since have certainly proven him wrong.

Yes, a slew of movies and TV shows lately have demonstrated that the Lost Cause is seemingly dead in pop culture: Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave, the Roots remake, Kingdom of Jones, Birth of a Nation (2016), PBS’s Mercy Street, and WGN’s Underground, for examples.

Still, Mercy Street and Underground have been cancelled, and Sophia Coppola’s recent remake of The Beguiled essentially ignored slavery’s connection to the Antebellum south and the Civil War, and rolled out the old-Hollywood trope of southern women vulnerable to the lusts of dastardly Yankees.

More upsetting, the recent controversy over Rebel monuments and memorials has revealed just how deeply divided the nation is in regards to Civil War causation. It also seems that every day the Civil War is back in the news again in some fashion, and usually in ways that demonstrate that the general public is still woefully misinformed about the conflict’s causes.

A perfect recent example is this long diatribe of a blog post from sports journalist Clay Travis. (Who, by the way, recently used Twitter to challenge Ta-Nehisi Coates to a debate on the Civil War. Is there some way we can make that happen?) He gets just about everything in his posting woefully wrong (he especially needs to study up on Southern Unionism), but it is an instructive read because it reveals what I think is pretty mainstream belief about the Civil War among educated people who actually take the time to read. (They’re just reading the wrong things and labeling everything that disagrees with them as a product of the liberal media).

Another recent example is General Kelly’s comments about the Civil War, insisting that the conflict had been caused by a failure to compromise. He also explained Robert E. Lee’s act of treason as honorable because it came at a time when loyalty to state was more sacred than to country (he—and Clay Travis, who makes a similar point—have clearly not read Gary Gallagher’s The Union War). The response of historians to his comments was swift, condemning, and corrective, with the strange exception of Allen Guelzo.

—-Just a quick dismissive of the Guelzo piece: he understands but doesn’t seem to appreciate the importance of the fact that the only compromise the South would have accepted was a guarantee of slavery’s expansion, the resisting of which was the core platform the Republicans had just won an election standing upon. That issue had been put to a vote of the American people, and they decided. Guelzo seems to argue that efforts at compromise after that election largely failed because the Republicans thought southern leaders were merely bluffing when they threatened secession and thus Lincoln decided to call their hand. Um, no.  Had the Republicans conceded the only thing the south would have accepted, they would have been repudiating their own election victory, betraying the very people that had voted for them. Most disturbing, Guelzo admits that Lee’s actions were treasonous, yet defends them based on a tortured logic about the “uncertain constitutional relationship between state and national citizenship.” He then asserts that Lee was an honorable man because “no one was ever able to accuse him of ordering wartime atrocities.” Maintaining that position requires Guelzo to do the same thing Lee did: look the other way and say nothing to condemn the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia when they engaged in hunting down and enslaving free blacks in Pennsylvania and shooting down surrendering African American soldiers in the lines around Richmond and Petersburg.

Just to be clear, I am not accusing Guelzo of embracing the Lost Cause. He definitely does not. But the whole Kelly episode is a recent example of the myth’s continual existence. (I just felt the need to address Guelzo’s response to it).

One last recent example: The other night PBS’s Finding Your Roots featured an episode in which Bryant Gumbel’s family history was revealed to him by preeminent Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. I won’t go into much of the details, but Gates told Gumbel that one of his ancestors had been a black Confederate soldier!

In fact, he had been a member of the famed Louisiana Native Guards, a group of mostly free blacks that were compelled by economic self interest to offer their services to the Confederacy in the war’s early days. The Rebel government rejected their offer BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK and the group later fought for the Union.

The myth of “black Confederates” is one of the most ridiculous tenets of the modern “Lost Cause” supporters, and one that the academic community (including myself) has fought aggressively against. Now, a high profile guy like Gates has helped to give it new life by interjecting it into a show that has a large number of educated PBS viewers. It would have taken little energy for Gates to correctly inform Gumbel that because the Confederacy was fighting in the name of white supremacy and the defense of slavery, they rejected the black volunteers, refusing to enlist blacks as soldiers until the war’s very last desperate days.

Yet apparently because of his desire to complicate the motives of African Americans, Gates refused to do. (His discussion of the economic self-interested reasons why those men chose to offer their services to the Confederacy already accomplished the goal of pointing out the complexity of African American motivations during the war).  No one has worked more tirelessly to dismantle the black Confederate myth than historian Kevin Levin, and he has been waging a war on his blog Civil War Memory and on other social media platforms against Gates and the Finding Your Roots producers, calling for an apology and a corrective.  Yet he is well aware that in order to effectively counter such a high profile guy like Gates, it will take an equally high-profile and respected historian.

Where are you, Eric Foner???

So as just these few recent examples reveal, the war against the Lost Cause rages on. To answer my own question, YES, we still need to keep doing this, and as Levin has suggested, WE NEED MORE ACADEMICS TO GET INTO THIS PUBLIC FIGHT. Teaching your classes and writing your books by themselves are not going to cut it. Join us, won’t you?

My Top Ten “Spook Movies” of all time!


As many of you may know, I am a big fan of ghost stories. I enjoy them as folktale, and for what they say about the culture and time from which they emerged. But, I’ll admit I also love them simply because they are fun. Last Halloween I discovered Colin Dickey’s Ghostland: An American History in Haunted Places (winner of a Best Book of the Year Award from NPR).  It was so good that I read it again over the last few nights to get in the Halloween spirit. Dickey is a fine writer with a healthy cynicism about ghosts. He explores many of the more famous American ghost stories that are a product of particular moments in American history, and he effectively roots the tales within solid historical context (such as the rise of spiritualism in the 19th century). He is less interested in the alleged ghosts than he is how these stories came about and how true events help to explain their creation. I cannot recommend the book highly enough.

But for today’s blog I wanted to do something different than I normally do. Besides ghost folklore, I am also a big fan of what I call “spook movies.” These are films about ghosts, and are not horror movies filled with shock and gore. They’re more subtly scary stories about what may or may not be paranormal.  I am most impressed with films that do not utilize a ton of over-the-top special effects, as I am a big believer that nothing has the potential to scare you more than your own mind. With the right lighting, camera angles, sounds, and intelligent storylines, ghost movies can produce a lot of eery fun without cheap shocks or gross visuals.

Every Halloween I enjoy watching such films. They create the perfect mood, staying with you long after the lights go out and you crawl into bed. So in very carefully considered descending order, let me present my top 10 spook movies—all from an historian’s perspective.

10. The Ghost Breakers (1940) and Scared Stiff (1953) ghostbreakers1940.76190_080820140135.jpg

-Why not start with a little comedy before we descend into darkness? The Ghost Breakers is a Bob Hope film which was remade by the legendary comedy team of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis as Scared Stiff. I have a fondness for both films because at a young age they introduced me to the joys of ghost movies. Both are played for laughs, but there are some truly creepy moments involving both “zombies” and ghosts. Of the two, Ghost Breakers is superior, with Hope playing a radio show host during the Golden Age of radio broadcasting. It was made at a time when celebrities like him did double-duty as both radio and film stars. (Whenever I teach my classes about the American home-front during WWII, I am dismayed by the increasing number of students who have never even heard of Bob Hope, much less the role he played in entertaining our troops during so many of the 20th century’s wars).  The film also provides a glimpse of how zombies were portrayed in films before George Romero changed the rules with Night of the Living Dead (1968). Prior to that groundbreaking film, zombies were creepy, but essentially harmlessly catatonic and tied to voodoo practices. The film is also set in Cuba before the Cuban revolution, when it was a fashionable tourist destination for wealthy Americans. Shamefully, it features a comedically stereotypical black character such as Hollywood was prone to depicting in the Jim Crow era, reinforcing white America’s racist assumptions. Willie Best’s performance in the major role is laudatory, however. Meanwhile, Paulette Goddard plays a spunky woman who shows much less fear than Hope or Best, and it is her bravery that fuels most of the action. For you that may not know, Goddard was married to Charlie Chaplin and was a finalist for the role of Scarlett O’Hara. (I believe she would have been perhaps equally as stunning in the role as was Vivien Leigh). This one is great to pop in before the kids go to bed.

9. The Innocents (1961). innocents-the-1961-004-miss-giddens-in-the-dark.jpg

Starring the magnificent Deborah Kerr, this film is based on Henry James’s classic novel, The Turn of the Screw. I love it because like most of the movies on this list, it is more psychological drama than horror. A governess in charge of two young children, Kerr becomes convinced that their house is haunted, and/or that the children are possessed. But are they? Or is she just slowly losing her mind? Everything about how to make a truly creepy movie without shock and special effects is on display in this intriguing character study.

8. The Sixth Sense (1999). the-sixth-sense-4.jpg

No real reason to say much about this movie because I am sure that most of you are familiar with it.  I like that it is set in Philadelphia, where colonial ghosts abound. And while I was one of those that sensed the surprise twist ending coming, it still carried quite a jolt. The best thing about it, however, is that in an age when CGI special effects could have really sent this movie over the top, director M. Night Shyamalan opted for restraint and traditional special effects. The film is all the more effectively creepy because of it.

7. The Innkeepers (2011)


Okay, here is one that many of you may not have seen even though it is a more recent film. I am not a big fan of most current horror movies because I feel that they rely too much on shock and CGI special effects. Director Ti West’s The Innkeepers is an exception—for the most part. Set in an old New England hotel (filmed in Connecticut’s real-life Yankee Pedlar Inn, founded in 1891), the film is purposely slow at delivering its story and relies mostly on character development. We come to really like the two protagonists, and are fascinated by their interest in capturing proof of the paranormal in a hotel with a ton of history.  The film builds its suspense in the old-fashioned way and, like the hotel itself, seems a product of a bygone era.  There is no use of CGI in it at all! Sadly, I feel that it goes over-the-top in its climactic finale, but like any truly great spook movie, the biggest chills come from what you do not see rather than what you do. (FYI: The cast and crew claims to have had some paranormal experiences while filming the movie at the historic inn).

6. The Shining (1980).


Again there is probably not much to say here about a movie that most have seen.  To me the power in this film is that like The Innocents, it leaves you wondering if the protagonist is simply losing his mind. Some 1920s Jazz-era spooks are truly and clearly haunting the deserted hotel, but the real terror comes from Jack Nicholson’s slow-burn dissent into madness. If you ever get a chance to see this film on the big screen, take it. It is a much different experience than on TV. Trust me. Danny’s big-wheel rides and the pursuit through the maze are stunningly more effective and terrifying on the big screen.

And now the top 5!

5. The Body Snatcher (1945). boris-karloff-body-snatcher.jpg

Here is another one that many of you may not have seen. The film was produced by legendary filmmaker Val Lewton, who was hired by RKO in the 1940s to tap into some of the success that Universal studios had with “creature feature” films like Dracula (1931) Frankenstein (1931),  The Mummy (1932), The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), and The Wolf Man  (1941). (All great movies–especially the Bride of Frankenstein— with an appeal all their own, but this list is about spook movies). Working with a very limited budget, Lewton and his team of directors and editors were masters at using lighting, music, camera angles, and sound to scare you with what they did not show rather than what they did. Lewton’s greatest masterpieces are Cat People (1941) and I Walked with a Zombie (1943), but neither of those involve ghosts. The Body Snatcher is directed by Robert Wise, featuring Boris Karloff (who had played both Frankenstein and the Mummy for Universal) as a seedy early 19th century slum-dweller who makes a living producing freshly dead bodies and selling them to a prestigious doctor who uses them for anatomical research. Does Karloff dig them up, or murder them? Either way, the doctor is unconcerned. The plot is rooted in historical fact (and based loosely on a series of Scottish murders in 1828).  In the 1700 and 1800s, this sort of thing did indeed occur in the name of medical progress, and even Benjamin Franklin was probably somewhat involved in this nefarious trade when he lived in London. A ghost does not make an appearance in the film until the very last moments and it is a situation where we have to question whether or not it is supernatural, or if there is a more psychological explanation. This ambiguousness is its brilliance, and either way, the ending provides a powerful punch.

4. The Others (2001).


This is another one that many of you have probably have seen. It is heavily inspired by The Innocents (with the always brilliant Nicole Kidman), building its drama by forcing us to consider whether the events are paranormal or if there is a psychological explanation. It is set just after WWII, but one scene builds the plot and creates a very eerie mood by portraying the mourning photographs that were popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s (In which grieving families took photographs of their beloved dead, often propping them up and posing with them). It has a surprise twist ending, and to me the brilliance of it is that once you know the ending, watching the film again creates an almost completely different movie because you see events from a totally different perspective.

3. The Uninvited (1944).

the-uninvited.jpgNot to be confused with the 2009 film with the same title, this film broke the mold for how Hollywood dealt with ghosts. While Universal studio’s “creature feature” movies gave us real monsters in the 1930s, ghosts were almost always explained in the end with a natural explanation–usually involving some bad guy trying to fool people. (à la Scooby Doo).  But during the dark days of World War II when many films started exploring darker themes in almost every genre, The Uninvited played the ghosts straight. This makes it perhaps our first true spook movie. It features a haunted house with two spirits, and a mystery that our protagonists (including the ever-dapper Ray Milland) must solve in order to give rest to the restless dead. This storyline and many of its scenes seem clichéd now, but this is because this film created the clichés. For instance, a séance scene (that is very rooted in the practices of 19th century spiritualists like the Fox Sisters) harkens to almost every ghost movie you have seen that was made after 1944. And like all the other movies on this list, the film’s power derives from character development and eeriness generated from what you do not see rather than what you do. This one was a game-changer.

2. The Changeling (1980)


Again do not confuse this film with a more current one with the same title. This George C Scott film will truly freak you out. If you think The Shining is scary, I dare you to watch this one alone. The film is set in a Gilded Age mansion that carries a dark secret involving a quintessential robber baron magnet who was determined to pass his empire on to a son that could maintain the fortune and make it grow. Mourning the recent loss of his family in a car accident, George C. Scott’s character moves into the mansion during the present day, and while dealing with his own problems, discovers a spirit with much bigger emotional issues than his own. Like The Uninvited, the film also has a séance scene straight from the practices of 19th century spiritualists, and provides subtle moments of terror that will freak you out the more you think about them afterwards. The power of this film is that it will terrify you with simple images, such as a child’s ball rolling down the stairs.

And my #1 spook movie!

1. The Haunting (1963)


Please forget about the 1999 remake. It is crap.

The less I tell you about this film is probably for the better, because everyone deserves to watch this brilliant movie the first time without any preconceived notions. All I will say is this: if you’ve read all of my list so far, you’ve now got a good sense of what I feel creates the best spook movies. Simply put, The Haunting is the finest blend of all these elements, and regardless of genre is a true cinematic masterpiece. Produced and directed by a Val Lewton protégé, the legendary Robert Wise (who also directed The Body Snatcher, but also such classics as West Side Story, and The Sound of Music), the movie is an adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s brilliant novel The Haunting of Hill House. Though toned down, the film still exhibits the 1959 book’s reflection of 50s gender role tensions, Cold War era paranoia and suspicion, and the era’s marginalization of those that don’t conform to societal norms. But none of that gets in the way of a just plain creepy and scary haunted house movie.  Honestly, I am still waiting for it to be topped by a better spook movie, though I suspect it never will. Watch this one and then try not to dream about Hugh Crane as you drift off to sleep.

And remember, no one will hear you cry out for help.

“In the night.

In the dark.”



How long?

Maybe I’ll eventually have something cogent and worthwhile to say about the news from Las Vegas today. But as I watch the news I feel emotionally exhausted, and all I got is this:

Back in June, I was fortunate enough to have caught U2’s 30th anniversary tour of their Joshua Tree album. It was perhaps the greatest concert I have ever seen, and one that was very emotional for me, having grown up a huge fan. Many of the band’s songs have spoken to me at various moments in my life: first love, first lost love, good times shared in high school and college with close friends, distance from loved ones, 9/11, career uncertainty, my book’s publication, and the death of my father. Through it all, their music has been a constant in my life, in good and bad times, and often a source of emotional support.

During the show, lead singer Bono said that many of their songs seem to have taken on a new and more important meaning than when he first wrote them. Anyone that knows their work, knows this to be very true. In many ways, the whole concert was brilliantly structured to make that very point. It was U2 being U2 again.

Unfortunately, one of their first and greatest hits seems to have pretty the same message today as it did way back in 1983. The events are different, but the point remains the same.

So yet again, U2 perfectly speaks to what I am feeling.

And as Ken Burn’s Vietnam series just reminded us though its brilliant soundtrack, sometimes our music just says it better.