Historical Context
In his article “‘Your Old Father Abe Lincoln is Dead and Damned’: Black Soldiers and the Memphis Race Riot of 1866,” Kevin R. Hardwick analyzes the potential factors of racial conflict that occurred in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1866, between May 1 and 3, white population groups, including laborers, Irish firefighters and police officers, and small businessmen, brutally attacked the Third United States Colored Heavy Artillery regiment’s former soldiers, the black residents of Fort Pickering, and the black community’s property and civic institutions (Hardwick 109).
As a result, by the time federal troops arrived in the city and restored peace, multiple black citizens were killed, wounded, and robbed, while several black houses, churches, and schools were burnt and destroyed. As the riot is currently regarded as the expression of racism, Hardwick aims to provide clear and distinct reasons for this brutal episode in American history (110). In particular, the author’s purpose in writing this work is to provide a better understanding of the sequences of events related to the Memphis riot, to close a knowledge gap, and to confront existing historical viewpoints.
Author’s Thesis and Use of Evidence
Hardwick’s central thesis is that the Memphis riot occurred due to racial hatred determined by the consequences of the war and emancipation. Rioters aimed to set boundaries for black residents and limit their rights and opportunities (Hardwick 123). In general, the Civil War and emancipation were characterized by substantial social changes that required the evaluation of an old cultural code that regulated human relationships under slavery.
However, other rules, “more appropriate to the new black status, had to be established after blacks claimed their freedom” (Hardwick 123). Meanwhile, black people’s desire to be equal with other residents faced whites’ disagreement, which led to tragic outcomes. The author’s research and findings are supported by multiple historical documents, including memoirs, newspaper articles, and letters, that reflect the opinions and evidence of the riot’s witnesses and strengthen the article’s validity.
Competing Interpretations and Hardwick’s Rebuttal
At the same time, in his article, the author confronts other historical viewpoints related to the reasons for the Memphis riot. Specifically, Hardwick writes, “contemporary observers attributed the violence to the unruly conduct of black soldiers in Memphis and to the longstanding animosity between blacks and the Irish, who competed for work as manual laborers” (109). In other words, according to historians, the Memphis riot was based on racism and conflict between Irish and black porters, dray and hack drivers, and other low-skilled workers for employment.
In addition, the dissatisfaction of local whites with the behavior of the former black soldiers in Memphis is regarded as a possible reason for conflict as well. However, these hypotheses are not supported by the demographic and racial analysis of the rioters. Thus, only 50-60% and 27% of them were Irish and laborers, respectively (Hardwick 110). Moreover, soldiers did not report an offensive attitude of white commanders toward them. Instead, they aimed to establish a new order in Memphis based on equality and freedmen’s rights, which was not accepted by former slave-owners and other white residents.
Evaluation, Implications, and Further Scholarship
In turn, Hardwick insists that the Memphis riot may be regarded as a logical outcome of a long-lasting confrontation between a growing black population and white locals. First of all, during and after the war, this Southern city attracted thousands of blacks due to the Union commanders’ established order that guaranteed protection and employment for slaves (Hardwick 111). The author cites a comment from a Freedmen’s Bureau official who wrote that “large numbers of negroes are arriving daily” (Hardwick 112). Moreover, the former soldiers brought their families with them, enlarging the black population in Memphis.
However, their willingness to escape plantation labor, as it guaranteed exploitation, receive wages for their work, have adequate working conditions, and remove seniors, children, and women from the workforce faced whites’ non-understanding, refusal, and aggression as the absence of black people’s human rights was embedded in their cultural code (Hardwick 114). Blacks were presented as lazy and worthless people who preferred to steal rather than work. Therefore, the intention of the white community to limit Black citizens’ freedom led to a brutal riot.
From a personal perspective, Hardwick’s article is an outstanding work that enriches readers’ understanding of the United States’ history, contributing to the elimination of knowledge gaps and the debunking of unreliable hypotheses and information related to the Memphis riot. Moreover, it provides a broader perspective of slavery and racism that should be considered to minimize the manifestation of this crucial social issue in the present day.
The article does not have substantial disadvantages; however, developing a theme related to interpersonal conflicts within the black community of Memphis could potentially strengthen the work. At the same time, the author excellently explains the white population’s willingness to keep an old order and demonstrates their attitude toward the consequences of the emancipation of black residents as the main reason for the Memphis riot. The work may be interesting not only to researchers but also to the general public.
Multiple other materials may accompany this paper and attract individuals’ attention to the issue of racism. In his article, Walker states that “the major ideological element of the 1866 Memphis riot was a manifestation of the collective frustration of the Irish of Memphis resulting from the fragile and dissolute status of their whiteness” (32). In turn, in “When the Rule of Law Breaks down: Implications of the 1866 Memphis Massacre for the Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Donald investigates the factors and consequences of the riot from a legal perspective (1607). Finally, for individuals who would like to get acquainted with the topic, “Memphis Race Riot (1866)” by What Was Done is recommended. This short video provides a comprehensive introduction to the Memphis race riot, suitable for the general public.
Works Cited
Donald, Bernice Bouie. “When the Rule of Law Breaks down: Implications of the 1866 Memphis Massacre for the Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment” Boston University Law Review, vol. 98, 2018, pp. 1607-1676.
Hardwick, Kevin R. “‘Your Old Father Abe Lincoln is Dead and Damned’: Black Soldiers and the Memphis Race Riot of 1866.” Journal of Social History, vol. 27, no. 1, 1993, pp. 109-128.
“Memphis Race Riot (1866).” YouTube, uploaded by What Was Done, 2021.
Walker, Barrington. “‘This is the White Man’s Day’: The Irish, White Racial Identity, and the 1865 Memphis Riots.” Left History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and Debate, vol. 5, no. 2, 1997, pp. 31-55.