What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Deadliest Election: The Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent Election in American History
“Let chaos come.”
The fast-paced story of the extraordinary election that led to hundreds of murders, warfare in the streets of New Orleans, two governors of Louisiana--and changed the course of politics in our country.
The Election of 1872 was the most contentious in American history. After both parties complained of corruption, neither candidate would concede, two governors claimed office and chaos erupted. Rival newspapers engaged in a bitter war of words, politicians plotted to overthrow the government, and their supporters fought in the streets and attempted assassinations. The entire country watched in grim fascination as the wounds of the Civil War were ripped open and the promise of President Grant’s Reconstruction faltered in the face of violent resistance and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.
In this riveting book, Dana Bash and David Fisher tell the incredible, little-known story of the election that pushed democracy to the breaking point, and sparked historic events including:
• The Colfax Massacre, in which at least 150 Black men were killed by white supremacists
• The extraordinary train race from New York to New Orleans for control of the state government
• The election of the first black Congressman from Louisiana in the face of violent resistance
• The Supreme Court ruling that ended Reconstruction and became the foundation of Southern segregation, changing the American legal system for the next century
Readers will find eerie parallels to today's divided political landscape and leaders willing to seize power no matter the cost. An eye-opening warning of what's at stake and what it takes to protect our democracy, this is a must-read tale of America's deadliest election.
The fast-paced story of the extraordinary election that led to hundreds of murders, warfare in the streets of New Orleans, two governors of Louisiana--and changed the course of politics in our country.
The Election of 1872 was the most contentious in American history. After both parties complained of corruption, neither candidate would concede, two governors claimed office and chaos erupted. Rival newspapers engaged in a bitter war of words, politicians plotted to overthrow the government, and their supporters fought in the streets and attempted assassinations. The entire country watched in grim fascination as the wounds of the Civil War were ripped open and the promise of President Grant’s Reconstruction faltered in the face of violent resistance and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.
In this riveting book, Dana Bash and David Fisher tell the incredible, little-known story of the election that pushed democracy to the breaking point, and sparked historic events including:
• The Colfax Massacre, in which at least 150 Black men were killed by white supremacists
• The extraordinary train race from New York to New Orleans for control of the state government
• The election of the first black Congressman from Louisiana in the face of violent resistance
• The Supreme Court ruling that ended Reconstruction and became the foundation of Southern segregation, changing the American legal system for the next century
Readers will find eerie parallels to today's divided political landscape and leaders willing to seize power no matter the cost. An eye-opening warning of what's at stake and what it takes to protect our democracy, this is a must-read tale of America's deadliest election.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published September 3, 2024
515 people are currently reading
1433 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
October 3, 2024
In America’s Deadliest Election, Dana Bash seeks to prove that as bad as things are right now in our political world, America has seen worse. Time and place - post-Civil War Louisiana. The Reconstruction Acts had been passed by Congress over President Johnson’s vetoes. Henry Warmouth, a young Republican carpetbagger, had been elected as governor in 1868, thanks to the first election in which Blacks could vote and many Confederates still couldn’t. He was corrupt, and pretty much a despot. He was a firm believer that he was above the law. He was willing to make a deal with whomever offered him the best political opportunities. Meanwhile, the Democrats were resorting to violence (think the KKK) and other means of voter suppression to stop Blacks from exercising their right to vote. This is the background for the gubernatorial election of 1872.
The book is engrossing and a reminder that history does tend to repeat itself. States rights, the right to bear arms, the role of the electoral college vs. the popular vote and validating votes - these issues were fought over then as now. Parts of this book would be considered humorous if it weren’t a scary reminder of the means parties will go to to ensure a win or what happens when neither side will concede. If someone tried to pass this story off as fiction, readers would balk saying it was too unbelievable. I felt like I was watching an insane political tennis volley, back and forth, back and forth with neither side relinquishing. Imagine a state with not just two governors, but two sets of legislative bodies, judges, sheriffs and militias. Yup, it really happened. Needless to say, violence erupted over and over again. The Colfax Massacre was just the best known of all the confrontations. The media were all biased one way or the other and kept the flames fanned. And the repercussions of this election and its aftermath led directly to the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow.
I love nonfiction that teaches me something new while keeping me entertained. This does that in spades. It was fascinating to see how this one election has repercussions through the present.
I did find it odd that as a nonfiction book, there weren’t any footnotes or citations. I’ll admit to rarely following that far into the weeds, but I like to know statements can be traced back to a specific source.
Highly recommend this for anyone who loves a political story.
The book is engrossing and a reminder that history does tend to repeat itself. States rights, the right to bear arms, the role of the electoral college vs. the popular vote and validating votes - these issues were fought over then as now. Parts of this book would be considered humorous if it weren’t a scary reminder of the means parties will go to to ensure a win or what happens when neither side will concede. If someone tried to pass this story off as fiction, readers would balk saying it was too unbelievable. I felt like I was watching an insane political tennis volley, back and forth, back and forth with neither side relinquishing. Imagine a state with not just two governors, but two sets of legislative bodies, judges, sheriffs and militias. Yup, it really happened. Needless to say, violence erupted over and over again. The Colfax Massacre was just the best known of all the confrontations. The media were all biased one way or the other and kept the flames fanned. And the repercussions of this election and its aftermath led directly to the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow.
I love nonfiction that teaches me something new while keeping me entertained. This does that in spades. It was fascinating to see how this one election has repercussions through the present.
I did find it odd that as a nonfiction book, there weren’t any footnotes or citations. I’ll admit to rarely following that far into the weeds, but I like to know statements can be traced back to a specific source.
Highly recommend this for anyone who loves a political story.
July 4, 2024
Now that the United States has decided to stop selecting its leaders by election, it is a perfect time to look back, and celebrate some of the remarkable ones. I am sure that you have your own favorite. I remain a 1864 fan. A popular choice is 1876. America's Deadliest Election is about the Louisiana gubernatorial race of 1872, which is like saying that you liked 1876 before it was cool.
The story starts with the career of Henry C. Warmouth (honestly the names in this book are like a Dickens novel), who is what happens when you wish for civil rights on a monkey's paw, and his election in 1868 and subsequent benevolent kleptocracy, which leads (but maybe put a pin in that?) into the disputed election of 1872, the result being that Louisiana had two governments. The situation lead to violence, lots of violence, most particularly the Colfax massacre of 1873. Then the presidential election of 1867 happens, which leads to more violence, notably the Battle of Canal Street1. All then ending up in the Bargain of 1877, the end of Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, and the failure of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution to amend much. Thus, we briefly end on the Civil Rights Movement of the late 20th Century.
In short, due to corruption, racism, and political opportunism, Louisiana's election in 1872 turned it into a failed state. This persisted in one form or another until the presidential election of 1876, where its electoral votes would determine the election. The end result was the federal government empowering racism for decades.
The history is good. The facts are compelling. There is lots of things worth learning here. This is a story that any U.S. citizen should know, and in a contemporary way, as opposed to the Lost Cause way that it was taught to you, even in the north, if you are not rather young. There are confusing parts, but it comes out of how the factions would shift, often through transparently corrupt means or brazen power interests. But the authors are clear on how it gets confusing, write as much. This felt cheeky at first ("isn't explaining it, like, your job?") but in consideration is a refreshing admission.
The problems are structural. It is fitting that one of the author's is a CNN anchor, as the book itself has a tendency to written with frequent self-reflective advertisements that I associate with network newscasts ('when we come back'). The authors also overuse the single-sentence paragraph mic drop.
A sentence fragment.
There are no footnotes, end notes, or citations of any kind, only a biography. I understand that it is popular history, and the perception is that scares people, but it makes my usual citation assessment impossible. There are a few points for which I want to see the citations, as I find them difficult.
The book's release date before the alleged 2024 U.S presidential election, and the title is there to connect history to current events, maybe with an implied 'so far.' This is savvy marketing. But I think that there are problems.
The first is that, prescriptively worried about allegations of bias, the authors avoid interpretation to the point of malpractice. Events get written about to create overt parallels to contemporary politics. I assume it is that way to avoid in allegations of bias, but 1) that's not history, that's research, b) we all know what you are doing, so it only makes it look like you are more biased and trying to hide it, and iii) I wager that without guardrails people will willfully misinterpret this to support their preferred positions, which frustrates the authors' purpose.
The second is…look, I know that complaining about the title makes it look like I am a 2nd year stalling for time when he didn't do the assigned reading for class. I am also not trying to engage in hair-splitting about what is or is not an election, particularly because one read is that the deadliness of the election is not the violence then, but the persisting affects of racism now. And in terms of marketing, it is a good choice.
But Louisiana was not a tipping point. Yes, it is worthy focus, because the political actions are at the level of slapstick. But the same problem is going on in Florida, with other problems in South Carolina and Oregon. Similarly, the Colfax massacre arises out of the '72 election in the sense of its material cause, but even the book points out the similar events before and after. And considering how much historical erasure surrounds the acts of terror against Black people, considering how important undoing that is rebutting contemporary racist tropes, I would rather it was differently framed.
Put a different way, my concern is someone focuses on the local political misbehavior as opposed to the regional domestic terrorism. The book is clear that this is not the authors' intent. But I worry that the tyranny of narrative is going to blow a great opportunity to correct a wrong in the telling of U.S. History.
But to reiterate, it is a good book, and I think that some of my complaints might be why others like it. There are flaws, but it is a useful history and relevant today in obvious and subtle ways.
My thanks to the authors, Dana Bash and David Fisher, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Harlequin Trade Publishing, for making the ARC available to me.
The story starts with the career of Henry C. Warmouth (honestly the names in this book are like a Dickens novel), who is what happens when you wish for civil rights on a monkey's paw, and his election in 1868 and subsequent benevolent kleptocracy, which leads (but maybe put a pin in that?) into the disputed election of 1872, the result being that Louisiana had two governments. The situation lead to violence, lots of violence, most particularly the Colfax massacre of 1873. Then the presidential election of 1867 happens, which leads to more violence, notably the Battle of Canal Street1. All then ending up in the Bargain of 1877, the end of Reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, and the failure of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution to amend much. Thus, we briefly end on the Civil Rights Movement of the late 20th Century.
In short, due to corruption, racism, and political opportunism, Louisiana's election in 1872 turned it into a failed state. This persisted in one form or another until the presidential election of 1876, where its electoral votes would determine the election. The end result was the federal government empowering racism for decades.
The history is good. The facts are compelling. There is lots of things worth learning here. This is a story that any U.S. citizen should know, and in a contemporary way, as opposed to the Lost Cause way that it was taught to you, even in the north, if you are not rather young. There are confusing parts, but it comes out of how the factions would shift, often through transparently corrupt means or brazen power interests. But the authors are clear on how it gets confusing, write as much. This felt cheeky at first ("isn't explaining it, like, your job?") but in consideration is a refreshing admission.
The problems are structural. It is fitting that one of the author's is a CNN anchor, as the book itself has a tendency to written with frequent self-reflective advertisements that I associate with network newscasts ('when we come back'). The authors also overuse the single-sentence paragraph mic drop.
A sentence fragment.
There are no footnotes, end notes, or citations of any kind, only a biography. I understand that it is popular history, and the perception is that scares people, but it makes my usual citation assessment impossible. There are a few points for which I want to see the citations, as I find them difficult.
The book's release date before the alleged 2024 U.S presidential election, and the title is there to connect history to current events, maybe with an implied 'so far.' This is savvy marketing. But I think that there are problems.
The first is that, prescriptively worried about allegations of bias, the authors avoid interpretation to the point of malpractice. Events get written about to create overt parallels to contemporary politics. I assume it is that way to avoid in allegations of bias, but 1) that's not history, that's research, b) we all know what you are doing, so it only makes it look like you are more biased and trying to hide it, and iii) I wager that without guardrails people will willfully misinterpret this to support their preferred positions, which frustrates the authors' purpose.
The second is…look, I know that complaining about the title makes it look like I am a 2nd year stalling for time when he didn't do the assigned reading for class. I am also not trying to engage in hair-splitting about what is or is not an election, particularly because one read is that the deadliness of the election is not the violence then, but the persisting affects of racism now. And in terms of marketing, it is a good choice.
But Louisiana was not a tipping point. Yes, it is worthy focus, because the political actions are at the level of slapstick. But the same problem is going on in Florida, with other problems in South Carolina and Oregon. Similarly, the Colfax massacre arises out of the '72 election in the sense of its material cause, but even the book points out the similar events before and after. And considering how much historical erasure surrounds the acts of terror against Black people, considering how important undoing that is rebutting contemporary racist tropes, I would rather it was differently framed.
Put a different way, my concern is someone focuses on the local political misbehavior as opposed to the regional domestic terrorism. The book is clear that this is not the authors' intent. But I worry that the tyranny of narrative is going to blow a great opportunity to correct a wrong in the telling of U.S. History.
But to reiterate, it is a good book, and I think that some of my complaints might be why others like it. There are flaws, but it is a useful history and relevant today in obvious and subtle ways.
My thanks to the authors, Dana Bash and David Fisher, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Harlequin Trade Publishing, for making the ARC available to me.
September 5, 2024
Thank you Harlequin Trade Publishing for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own. No review was required as a condition for receiving the advance reading copy and no review was promised.
Mr. Book just finished America’s Deadliest Election, by Dana Bash. The book is about the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872 and the events of the following four years. Over those following years, we had the dispute over the infamous 1876 presidential election and the Supreme Court’s awful ruling that essentially ended Reconstitution and legalized segregation.
The first main character that we meet, and the most interesting one in the book, is Henry Clay Wadmoth, the Republican incumbent governor. According to the New York Times, “It is difficult to exaggerate the evils…he has brought on the state” while other newspapers described him as “a despot”, “a demagogue” and “a tyrant.”
Wadmoth was just 25 years old when he was elected. He was elected to his position despite already being indicted in Texas a few years earlier for embezzling $21,000, but the voters didn’t seem to care. His tenure as governor was as disastrous as it sounds like it would be. This is another good example of one of the most common themes in history: things that wouldn’t be believable in a TV series happen very frequently over the course of U.S. history.
The governor was a big believer that the law didn’t apply to him and more than a hundred years before Nixon occupied the White House and almost 150 years before Trump, was a believer that if the governor does it, it is not illegal. His administration even set up a specific office where anyone who wanted to give bribes could do it there.
The book provides a very good look at how the counting of the vote in the 1872 election showed the results were nothing more than a farce. Violence was rampant in Louisiana throughout Wadmoth’s tenure. In fairness to him, it started shortly before he took office, but there is no indication that he showed any interest in doing anything about it.
The author points out that the election of 1872 raised the issue of what happens when a significant chunk of the electorate doesn’t accept the result of an election. Unfortunately, that sounds very familiar to us. The Republican, William Pitt Kellogg, and the Fusionist-Democratic candidate, John McEnery both claimed victory. Eventually, after the federal government intervened, Kellogg was certified as the winner.
Meanwhile, during his time as lame duck governor, the legislature impeached Wadmoth, who was term limited to a single team. Under state law, the act of being impeached immediately resulted in his suspension from holding the office. I won’t spoil the outcome of how the case against him was resolved. There are some analogies I’d like to make, but that would end up giving things away.
Initially after the election, there were not only two governors purporting to be the correct one, but also two separate legislatures operating in Louisiana. And, I also need to mention that the elected judges and similar chaos existed there. As the author points out, McEnery and his legislature exerted no actual power, but as long as they had enough people who will follow them, they were a legitimate threat to the legitimate government.
Initially, after the competing gubernatorial inaugurations, it was a non violent situation. But, it was only a matter of time before that changed.
The tension eventually erupted in the Colfax massacre. That then led to the Supreme Court’s infamous ruling in the Cruikshank case, which effectively ended Reconstruction as well as having a devastating impact on the 14th Amendment—which lasts to this day—as well as bringing about the Jim Crow era. I just checked my records and, prior to this, Mr. Book had read three books on the Colfax massacre and that case. But, none of them came close to this one in going into such great detail about all of the events leading up to it. That is why none of them ended up even getting close to the grade that this one is getting.
Estimates on how many blacks were killed in the massacre range from 150 to several hundred. But, whatever the total was, it is regarded as the worst mass racial killing in United States history.
In 1876, in the Battle of Little Creek, that was a briefly successful insurrection in which Governor Kellogg’s government was overthrown. But, thanks to the Grant administration, Kellogg’s administration was reinstated.
Mr. Book gave this book an A+, which means it is immediately inducted into my Hall of Fame . Amazon, Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
One of the first things Mr. Book did after finishing this book was to go place a preorder for the Audible edition. So he will be able to once again enjoy this excellent book when that is released.
This review has been posted at NetGalley and Goodreads. It will also be posted at Amazon, as soon as the book is released to the public and I will also be posting it at my new book review blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, which I expect to have up and running later in the week
Mr. Book just finished America’s Deadliest Election, by Dana Bash. The book is about the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872 and the events of the following four years. Over those following years, we had the dispute over the infamous 1876 presidential election and the Supreme Court’s awful ruling that essentially ended Reconstitution and legalized segregation.
The first main character that we meet, and the most interesting one in the book, is Henry Clay Wadmoth, the Republican incumbent governor. According to the New York Times, “It is difficult to exaggerate the evils…he has brought on the state” while other newspapers described him as “a despot”, “a demagogue” and “a tyrant.”
Wadmoth was just 25 years old when he was elected. He was elected to his position despite already being indicted in Texas a few years earlier for embezzling $21,000, but the voters didn’t seem to care. His tenure as governor was as disastrous as it sounds like it would be. This is another good example of one of the most common themes in history: things that wouldn’t be believable in a TV series happen very frequently over the course of U.S. history.
The governor was a big believer that the law didn’t apply to him and more than a hundred years before Nixon occupied the White House and almost 150 years before Trump, was a believer that if the governor does it, it is not illegal. His administration even set up a specific office where anyone who wanted to give bribes could do it there.
The book provides a very good look at how the counting of the vote in the 1872 election showed the results were nothing more than a farce. Violence was rampant in Louisiana throughout Wadmoth’s tenure. In fairness to him, it started shortly before he took office, but there is no indication that he showed any interest in doing anything about it.
The author points out that the election of 1872 raised the issue of what happens when a significant chunk of the electorate doesn’t accept the result of an election. Unfortunately, that sounds very familiar to us. The Republican, William Pitt Kellogg, and the Fusionist-Democratic candidate, John McEnery both claimed victory. Eventually, after the federal government intervened, Kellogg was certified as the winner.
Meanwhile, during his time as lame duck governor, the legislature impeached Wadmoth, who was term limited to a single team. Under state law, the act of being impeached immediately resulted in his suspension from holding the office. I won’t spoil the outcome of how the case against him was resolved. There are some analogies I’d like to make, but that would end up giving things away.
Initially after the election, there were not only two governors purporting to be the correct one, but also two separate legislatures operating in Louisiana. And, I also need to mention that the elected judges and similar chaos existed there. As the author points out, McEnery and his legislature exerted no actual power, but as long as they had enough people who will follow them, they were a legitimate threat to the legitimate government.
Initially, after the competing gubernatorial inaugurations, it was a non violent situation. But, it was only a matter of time before that changed.
The tension eventually erupted in the Colfax massacre. That then led to the Supreme Court’s infamous ruling in the Cruikshank case, which effectively ended Reconstruction as well as having a devastating impact on the 14th Amendment—which lasts to this day—as well as bringing about the Jim Crow era. I just checked my records and, prior to this, Mr. Book had read three books on the Colfax massacre and that case. But, none of them came close to this one in going into such great detail about all of the events leading up to it. That is why none of them ended up even getting close to the grade that this one is getting.
Estimates on how many blacks were killed in the massacre range from 150 to several hundred. But, whatever the total was, it is regarded as the worst mass racial killing in United States history.
In 1876, in the Battle of Little Creek, that was a briefly successful insurrection in which Governor Kellogg’s government was overthrown. But, thanks to the Grant administration, Kellogg’s administration was reinstated.
Mr. Book gave this book an A+, which means it is immediately inducted into my Hall of Fame . Amazon, Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
One of the first things Mr. Book did after finishing this book was to go place a preorder for the Audible edition. So he will be able to once again enjoy this excellent book when that is released.
This review has been posted at NetGalley and Goodreads. It will also be posted at Amazon, as soon as the book is released to the public and I will also be posting it at my new book review blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, which I expect to have up and running later in the week
November 2, 2024
The pages of this book walked me through a time where the future of the United States, as it was known then, seemed as frazzled as the era of Trump and Harris. So there is hope! The deviousness of men in power and/or close to power were even more astnishing than what we see now.
February 18, 2025
"The Founding Fathers had given the new nation a constitution that had worked extraordinarily well for the first hundred years...until it didn’t. It had created a foundation on which to grow and build but in too many places lacked necessary details. It had been left to politicians and judges to do the patchwork."
A really interesting book for those of us who enjoy reading history, but I will readily admit that I had never heard about this topic, and it was definitely not taught in any of my American history classes, no surprise there given our history curriculums.
I will say that prior to 2016 and even more importantly the 2020 election, this book would have shocked me, but nothing much shocks me now. As Henry Warmoth explained, “Corruption is the fashion.” Personally I believe that many want to drag our country back to 1872 and worse, and if the current political climate is any indication, we do not listen to "cautionary tales" or learn anything from conflicts of the past. Lord help us all!
A really interesting book for those of us who enjoy reading history, but I will readily admit that I had never heard about this topic, and it was definitely not taught in any of my American history classes, no surprise there given our history curriculums.
I will say that prior to 2016 and even more importantly the 2020 election, this book would have shocked me, but nothing much shocks me now. As Henry Warmoth explained, “Corruption is the fashion.” Personally I believe that many want to drag our country back to 1872 and worse, and if the current political climate is any indication, we do not listen to "cautionary tales" or learn anything from conflicts of the past. Lord help us all!
October 22, 2024
Really puts the slamming of our recent politics into perspective - what we are dealing with is minimal to that of the 1870s political time in our country. I certainly didn't learn about this in US history class.
December 14, 2024
great schism: new orleans edition
a really interesting look at how the US v Cruikshanks ruling came to be and how it influenced the reconstruction/post-reconstruction era south but i felt like the way the authors presented the story felt disjointed from the actual point they were attempting to make, while not emphasizing enough on moments and people that i think the story could’ve benefitted to stop on
a really interesting look at how the US v Cruikshanks ruling came to be and how it influenced the reconstruction/post-reconstruction era south but i felt like the way the authors presented the story felt disjointed from the actual point they were attempting to make, while not emphasizing enough on moments and people that i think the story could’ve benefitted to stop on
November 9, 2024
This is a very interesting book on democracy in the Reconstruction Era Louisiana. So much little-known information and not often taught historic characters. I learned a lot. And this reads like a fiction book, so that’s a plus. I give it 4-4.5 stars.
June 30, 2025
What a crazy time in history, makes me feel like the US allowed the southern states to join back with way too many accommodations and it led to such a massive halt on progress that we’re still trying to fix to this day. Very detailed account of those two turbulent years leading up to the crazy 1876 election that put a resounding end to reconstruction.
October 23, 2024
A fascinating look at a little known series of events in Reconstruction era Louisiana and the impact it still has today.
The style of the writing was problematic for me. I think this happens when you divide the narrative by a pair of writers.
The style of the writing was problematic for me. I think this happens when you divide the narrative by a pair of writers.
May 28, 2025
A lot of this is really confusing, but I guess it’s part of the point of the book. I think some of it was a stretch on how much it really affected national politics, but some of the strategies used definitely laid the groundwork for 1877. Wild that this isn’t more of a popular history lesson
November 12, 2025
I read this for a book club. It was very very in depth! I thought it was interesting and the reverberations of this story are still felt today. It definitely makes you wonder what could have been if Reconstruction was better executed.
November 25, 2024
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
January 5, 2025
Among my initial reactions to America's Deadliest Election is the question of how Louisiana's state history textbooks address the turbulent (one might even say anarchic) period in state politics in the mid 1870s. In the same vein, I wonder how state history teachers present the Colfax Massacre. Beyond the borders of Louisiana, the presidential election of 1876 witnessed the spread of the state's political imbroglio across the entire nation, and I am quite certain that neither my high school nor my college American history textbooks covered this near-failure of U.S. democracy in nearly the detail that this book does.
In these pages, readers see the failure of post-Civil War Reconstruction and learn how a bargain to settle the deeply contested election of 1876 brought that mission to its premature end. We witness the rise of white supremacy groups, the birth of racist Jim Crow laws (and the origin of that name, by the way), and the relegation of Black Americans to, at best, second class citizen status. We learn of a Supreme Court decision that rendered the Federal government powerless to counter discriminatory state legislation for over a century.
Most obviously, readers are reminded of the January 6, 2021 riots in Washington, D.C. Although the injury and death rates were far, far less than those of the Louisiana insurrections of the 1870s, the mere fact that such violence occurred at all showed the fragility of the U.S. political system. As this book observes, “[I]n addition to an established structure, described by written rules and regulations, the American electoral system required an element of trust. It had worked, at least until 1860, because people trusted that the outcome was fair, that the will of the majority was respected, and that if their candidate or party lost this time, within a few years there would be another election, and the opposition, should the outcome be reversed, would grant the winner the same respect. In Louisiana, the loss of that trust had resulted in the establishment of two governments, massacres at Colfax and Coushatta, numerous other acts of violence and Gatling guns in the streets of New Orleans.” (Pages 289-290)
Had the anarchy remained limited to one state, it might have remained a curious local failure of the democratic system, but when it spread nationwide in 1876, “[t]he government that Lincoln had only a decade earlier lauded as 'of the people, by the people and for the people' had lost its legitimacy. The electoral system had collapsed, leaving the United States on the edge of anarchy.” (Page 298) The historical narrative in this book is one that affects every resident, citizen, and voter in the 21st century USA. It is a history that I have not seen expounded upon in any other history book that I've yet read. It is a history that I commend to every reader who innocently assumes that representative democracy is some sort of indestructible “given” that will survive whatever challenges come its way.
Having, I hope, demonstrated the value of America's Deadliest Election and having perhaps even convinced someone else to read it, an honest and objective review demands that I balance the quality scale of the book somewhat, and I must levy a few criticisms of the writing skills of the author, but let us first ask who the author actually is. The name of Dana Bash, a widely respected political correspondent appears prominently on the cover, but it is accompanied with the annotation “with David Fisher.” This sort of dual attribution suggests, at least to me, that Fisher is the primary (or sole) author and that Dana Bash's name is more of a marketing ploy which relies on her name recognition to generate more sales of the book. If that is indeed the case, I have a few grammatical bones to pick with David Fisher.
The word “although” is misused more than once in the text; for instance, on page 38, we read, “Although, changes were on the horizon.” The word is a subordinating conjunction and can be used to introduce a dependent clause. It is by no means synonymous with words such as “however,” which are conjunctive adverbs. This error is repeated on pages 93 and 246. I cannot deem any writer competent who makes errors of this magnitude.
Page 63 shocks readers with an elementary pronoun-antecedent agreement error. Pronouns must agree in number with their antecedent noun. If one is singular, both must be singular; if one is plural, the other must be plural also, yet we are confronted with this: “Once that official [singular] is impeached they [plural] are suspended from office. . . .” Page 281 repeats this error by claiming that “[I]n jazz, every player [singular] has their [plural] moment.”
Two errors confront the reader in one awkward sentence on page 212: “After being captured, the mob took several prisoners 'in a field and commenced shooting at us.'” First of all, this wording has the mob being captured instead of being the ones doing the capturing. Then we have “us,” a first-person pronoun, used to refer to the noun “prisoners.” Acceptable grammar requires the use of a third-person pronoun to refer to such a noun. The writer's attempt to incorporate a quotation in the sentence has resulted in the error, and I see no way short of a complete rewriting of the sentence to correct it.
One of the most egregious and utterly ridiculous errors in the entire book slaps readers in the face on page 252 where the author writes, “Victor Hugo's stirring story of the French Revolution, Les Misérables, had been published in the United States in 1862." Hugo's novel is set in the Paris Uprising of June 1832. The French Revolution occurred in 1789, a totally different century. There is no connection whatsoever, at least outside of the writer's confused and erroneous comprehension of Hugo's novel, between Les Misérables and the French Revolution!
I would be most grateful were someone to explain to me how a telegram could leak anything to anyone. A human might leak the contents of a telegram, but I am thoroughly dubious that a paper document has the physical ability to leak its contents all by itself, although the author assures us on page 278 that such an impossibility occurred.
There are some additional nits, but I believe that I've picked enough. The history recounted in America's Deadliest Election is, I believe, important and worthy of being read. The writing is inferior. Were I Dana Bash, I would be quite embarrassed to have my name associated with the grammatical, factual (in reference to Les Misérables), and stylistic faux pas on these pages. Perchance the publisher, Hanover Square Press, should also share some of the embarrassment by accepting a poorly proofread manuscript for publication. It pains me to rate the book at only three stars, but the textual errors simply weaken the enjoyment of learning the history. Without such errors, I believe this would have been a five-star read.
In these pages, readers see the failure of post-Civil War Reconstruction and learn how a bargain to settle the deeply contested election of 1876 brought that mission to its premature end. We witness the rise of white supremacy groups, the birth of racist Jim Crow laws (and the origin of that name, by the way), and the relegation of Black Americans to, at best, second class citizen status. We learn of a Supreme Court decision that rendered the Federal government powerless to counter discriminatory state legislation for over a century.
Most obviously, readers are reminded of the January 6, 2021 riots in Washington, D.C. Although the injury and death rates were far, far less than those of the Louisiana insurrections of the 1870s, the mere fact that such violence occurred at all showed the fragility of the U.S. political system. As this book observes, “[I]n addition to an established structure, described by written rules and regulations, the American electoral system required an element of trust. It had worked, at least until 1860, because people trusted that the outcome was fair, that the will of the majority was respected, and that if their candidate or party lost this time, within a few years there would be another election, and the opposition, should the outcome be reversed, would grant the winner the same respect. In Louisiana, the loss of that trust had resulted in the establishment of two governments, massacres at Colfax and Coushatta, numerous other acts of violence and Gatling guns in the streets of New Orleans.” (Pages 289-290)
Had the anarchy remained limited to one state, it might have remained a curious local failure of the democratic system, but when it spread nationwide in 1876, “[t]he government that Lincoln had only a decade earlier lauded as 'of the people, by the people and for the people' had lost its legitimacy. The electoral system had collapsed, leaving the United States on the edge of anarchy.” (Page 298) The historical narrative in this book is one that affects every resident, citizen, and voter in the 21st century USA. It is a history that I have not seen expounded upon in any other history book that I've yet read. It is a history that I commend to every reader who innocently assumes that representative democracy is some sort of indestructible “given” that will survive whatever challenges come its way.
Having, I hope, demonstrated the value of America's Deadliest Election and having perhaps even convinced someone else to read it, an honest and objective review demands that I balance the quality scale of the book somewhat, and I must levy a few criticisms of the writing skills of the author, but let us first ask who the author actually is. The name of Dana Bash, a widely respected political correspondent appears prominently on the cover, but it is accompanied with the annotation “with David Fisher.” This sort of dual attribution suggests, at least to me, that Fisher is the primary (or sole) author and that Dana Bash's name is more of a marketing ploy which relies on her name recognition to generate more sales of the book. If that is indeed the case, I have a few grammatical bones to pick with David Fisher.
The word “although” is misused more than once in the text; for instance, on page 38, we read, “Although, changes were on the horizon.” The word is a subordinating conjunction and can be used to introduce a dependent clause. It is by no means synonymous with words such as “however,” which are conjunctive adverbs. This error is repeated on pages 93 and 246. I cannot deem any writer competent who makes errors of this magnitude.
Page 63 shocks readers with an elementary pronoun-antecedent agreement error. Pronouns must agree in number with their antecedent noun. If one is singular, both must be singular; if one is plural, the other must be plural also, yet we are confronted with this: “Once that official [singular] is impeached they [plural] are suspended from office. . . .” Page 281 repeats this error by claiming that “[I]n jazz, every player [singular] has their [plural] moment.”
Two errors confront the reader in one awkward sentence on page 212: “After being captured, the mob took several prisoners 'in a field and commenced shooting at us.'” First of all, this wording has the mob being captured instead of being the ones doing the capturing. Then we have “us,” a first-person pronoun, used to refer to the noun “prisoners.” Acceptable grammar requires the use of a third-person pronoun to refer to such a noun. The writer's attempt to incorporate a quotation in the sentence has resulted in the error, and I see no way short of a complete rewriting of the sentence to correct it.
One of the most egregious and utterly ridiculous errors in the entire book slaps readers in the face on page 252 where the author writes, “Victor Hugo's stirring story of the French Revolution, Les Misérables, had been published in the United States in 1862." Hugo's novel is set in the Paris Uprising of June 1832. The French Revolution occurred in 1789, a totally different century. There is no connection whatsoever, at least outside of the writer's confused and erroneous comprehension of Hugo's novel, between Les Misérables and the French Revolution!
I would be most grateful were someone to explain to me how a telegram could leak anything to anyone. A human might leak the contents of a telegram, but I am thoroughly dubious that a paper document has the physical ability to leak its contents all by itself, although the author assures us on page 278 that such an impossibility occurred.
There are some additional nits, but I believe that I've picked enough. The history recounted in America's Deadliest Election is, I believe, important and worthy of being read. The writing is inferior. Were I Dana Bash, I would be quite embarrassed to have my name associated with the grammatical, factual (in reference to Les Misérables), and stylistic faux pas on these pages. Perchance the publisher, Hanover Square Press, should also share some of the embarrassment by accepting a poorly proofread manuscript for publication. It pains me to rate the book at only three stars, but the textual errors simply weaken the enjoyment of learning the history. Without such errors, I believe this would have been a five-star read.
November 6, 2024
Libby is a wonderful way to read books, especially if you are financially challenged. I rarely find myself in this position. I didn't finish before it was due. And there was a waiting list. So, I had to let the book go back. Today, I listened to it on Audible at the speed of 2.5. Dana Bash narrates quite well at normal speed and surprisingly well at chipmunk speed. Still, I only got to 75% before the book was pulled.
All that to say, this still was an interesting history lesson. Remember, I am not a history person. That and chemistry, or geometry, just bored me in school. But Ms. Bash did a fantastic job keeping my interest. I had no idea all that had happened. I probably would have done better at a different time reading this and still have come away with anxiety.
Anyway, I'm on the waiting list to finish the read later. I will update this review when I finally get the chance. Meanwhile, if you get the chance to read or listen to this book, I think you will find it quite educational yet engaging to the reader.
All that to say, this still was an interesting history lesson. Remember, I am not a history person. That and chemistry, or geometry, just bored me in school. But Ms. Bash did a fantastic job keeping my interest. I had no idea all that had happened. I probably would have done better at a different time reading this and still have come away with anxiety.
Anyway, I'm on the waiting list to finish the read later. I will update this review when I finally get the chance. Meanwhile, if you get the chance to read or listen to this book, I think you will find it quite educational yet engaging to the reader.
December 7, 2024
Well researched, but far too many names, dates, and details to hold my interest. I understand why this story is an important piece of history; however, the inclusion of every quote, witness statement, and movement of every person in this story over 4 years felt like an abuse of my time. This book went beyond exhausting the research, and I can’t say I’d recommend it. I ended up speeding through the last 30% or so because I just wanted to be DONE.
September 15, 2024
Shocking story that wasn’t taught when I learned mainstream American history. Detailed and written in a way that is difficult to follow the characters at the beginning through part of the middle. All facts instead of analysis kind of to a bewildering degree. Other than the actual textual references, mostly newspapers without citation, weirdly without sourcing.
December 4, 2024
For me, this book was difficult to follow. It was enlightening as I did not know about this in the history of USA.
September 16, 2024
This book focuses on the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872, which devolved into chaos, violence, and (for a time) 2 governors. Most of us, myself included, have not heard much about this period in history; neither, says the author, had she until she began researching for this book. I think it's important for us to know, since we are living through times of violence and chaos, that there were other times in American history where elections were contested violently, accused of being "rigged," and outcomes were uncertain.
Unfortunately, for me, this book failed to make that connection. Neither did it make a strong connection to the recently ended American Civil War, even though much of the passion of Louisiana's residents apparently came from the fact that it was a divided state during and after the war (2 pages are devoted to this). Bash's treatment of the story and organization of the material is the prime reason. She takes an approach that is primarily sequential - events are described in the order in which they occurred, with bits of context included for each event and few attempts to help the reader see overarching patterns.. Bash also looks at the material with a reporter's eye - stating the details without differentiating between major and minor events and people. For a reporter this can be a valuable tool to avoid the appearance of bias. For the reader, it makes it difficult to prioritize the material, and easy to forget things that may be useful to remember later on.
As a teacher, I am also concerned about the fact that Bash does not cite any sources throughout the book, even though she uses quotations extensively. There is a bibliography at the end of the book, but it contains only 25 sources, including articles and books dating back to 1919, 2 graduate theses, several newspaper articles and the Visitor's Guide to New Orleans. It's therefore impossible to know the relative importance or even the veracity of any of the quotes.
While we are living through these interesting times, we tend to believe that we are the only ones who have experienced things like this. But even though some might say that learning history is "woke," it's a necessary part of helping us understand and work through the problems we currently face. For this reason alone, it's worth learning about events like these in history. But I'm not convinced this is the book to do it.
Many thanks to Harlequin Trade Publications and NetGalley for allowing me the opportunity to read this ARC in exchange for my honest review.
Unfortunately, for me, this book failed to make that connection. Neither did it make a strong connection to the recently ended American Civil War, even though much of the passion of Louisiana's residents apparently came from the fact that it was a divided state during and after the war (2 pages are devoted to this). Bash's treatment of the story and organization of the material is the prime reason. She takes an approach that is primarily sequential - events are described in the order in which they occurred, with bits of context included for each event and few attempts to help the reader see overarching patterns.. Bash also looks at the material with a reporter's eye - stating the details without differentiating between major and minor events and people. For a reporter this can be a valuable tool to avoid the appearance of bias. For the reader, it makes it difficult to prioritize the material, and easy to forget things that may be useful to remember later on.
As a teacher, I am also concerned about the fact that Bash does not cite any sources throughout the book, even though she uses quotations extensively. There is a bibliography at the end of the book, but it contains only 25 sources, including articles and books dating back to 1919, 2 graduate theses, several newspaper articles and the Visitor's Guide to New Orleans. It's therefore impossible to know the relative importance or even the veracity of any of the quotes.
While we are living through these interesting times, we tend to believe that we are the only ones who have experienced things like this. But even though some might say that learning history is "woke," it's a necessary part of helping us understand and work through the problems we currently face. For this reason alone, it's worth learning about events like these in history. But I'm not convinced this is the book to do it.
Many thanks to Harlequin Trade Publications and NetGalley for allowing me the opportunity to read this ARC in exchange for my honest review.
December 13, 2024
(3.5 stars) (Audiobook) The worst-case scenario for US elections, from the questioning of election integrity, to violence at the polls and legislative centers for certification of the ballots, to outright chicanery in the final election of an executive official...all being reported by a CNN-employed commentator. Am I talking about 2020, or what might have happened in 2024? Nope, we are going back to the 1870s in this work by Bash. Primarily, this work analyzes the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election and the ramification that would have for the nation. As Reconstruction soldiered on and places in the old Confederacy saw the emergence of African-American leaders come to power, the resistant white conservative forces fought back, both with weapons and at the ballot box. Take into account the ever present opportunistic type folks that sought to leverage the situation to their own ends, and you get this tale.
The analysis of how it came to pass in LA was the strongest part of the book. Certainly, you can draw direct lines from Louisiana 1872 to the Presidential Election of 1876 and the controversy that was for the 1st time a President won the office with only a minority of the popular vote. Things could and should have gone better, but they didn't. Still, sometimes it felt as if the later part of the book was a bit too conveniently connecting the 1872 and 1876 elections.
A solid read, especially when you consider the author and the body of her previous work/analysis. Not sure I would spend actual money to buy, but would be worth the time/effort to check out from the local library.
The analysis of how it came to pass in LA was the strongest part of the book. Certainly, you can draw direct lines from Louisiana 1872 to the Presidential Election of 1876 and the controversy that was for the 1st time a President won the office with only a minority of the popular vote. Things could and should have gone better, but they didn't. Still, sometimes it felt as if the later part of the book was a bit too conveniently connecting the 1872 and 1876 elections.
A solid read, especially when you consider the author and the body of her previous work/analysis. Not sure I would spend actual money to buy, but would be worth the time/effort to check out from the local library.
December 18, 2024
Author Dana Bash works for CNN as chief political corresponded and the anchor on the CNN program. The book is America’s Deadliest Election: The Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent Election in America History.
Her first words are: “All the grand pronouncements about elections that you hear every campaign season about how fundamental they are to a free society is all true: elections are lifeblood of democracy the heart best of freedom.” (p. 9)
And the book starts with the US 1868 election and New Orleans. It’s a good story about what happened then and it seems there is something to know coming to us, especially about who can be the US president.
But the book goes well in that theme. And it’s a book about what will happen with women in politics. Author Dana Bash works for CNN as chief political corresponded and the anchor on the CNN program. The book is America’s Deadliest Election: The Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent Election in America History.
Her first words are: “All the grand pronouncements about elections that you hear every campaign season about how fundamental they are to a free society is all true: elections are lifeblood of democracy the heart best of freedom.” (p. 9)
And the book starts with the US 1868 election and New Orleans. It’s a good story about what happened then and it seems there is something to know coming to us, especially about who can be the US president.
But the book goes well in that theme. And it’s a book about what will happen with women in politics.
Her first words are: “All the grand pronouncements about elections that you hear every campaign season about how fundamental they are to a free society is all true: elections are lifeblood of democracy the heart best of freedom.” (p. 9)
And the book starts with the US 1868 election and New Orleans. It’s a good story about what happened then and it seems there is something to know coming to us, especially about who can be the US president.
But the book goes well in that theme. And it’s a book about what will happen with women in politics. Author Dana Bash works for CNN as chief political corresponded and the anchor on the CNN program. The book is America’s Deadliest Election: The Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent Election in America History.
Her first words are: “All the grand pronouncements about elections that you hear every campaign season about how fundamental they are to a free society is all true: elections are lifeblood of democracy the heart best of freedom.” (p. 9)
And the book starts with the US 1868 election and New Orleans. It’s a good story about what happened then and it seems there is something to know coming to us, especially about who can be the US president.
But the book goes well in that theme. And it’s a book about what will happen with women in politics.
January 11, 2025
A very well done, ghost written history.
This book is a classic modern infotainment history book, designed to be marketed and sold as a mass market beach read.
1. Famous “ author” as a front person to be interviewed on NPR: check (How many hours did the CNN “ author” actually spend on this- my guess is not many).
2. Excellent ghost writer obtained -complete with research staff:check
3. Interesting but obscure topic- notably with “relevant” and “contemporary” analogy to modern events: check.
4. Good story line-vivid characters, violence, power, racism, injustice, corruption , analogy to the MAGA phenomenon etc.: check
Having cynically stated the above, this book is a very good overview of political Louisiana and Reconstruction between 1866 and 1876. Nothing in it is untrue, although historians can (and do; its’ what we do) argue about nuances and degrees and additional factors in events.
Was the state Governorship really important?
Were the Carpetbaggers really that incompetent (This reviewer would argue they were not).
Was Grant as feckless as presented?
How militarily strong was the revanchist KKK and its political arm, the southern Democratic Party?
Etc.etc. Etc..
As a fun beach read style, popular introduction to Reconstruction -it is HIGHLY recommended.
I deducted 2 stars because many of the events detailed within are Waaaaay more interesting and complicated than their superficial treatment herein, but the ghost writer had space limitations and one has to respect his narrative pacing and historical integrity. One loses the interest of the reader with too much detail.
This book is a classic modern infotainment history book, designed to be marketed and sold as a mass market beach read.
1. Famous “ author” as a front person to be interviewed on NPR: check (How many hours did the CNN “ author” actually spend on this- my guess is not many).
2. Excellent ghost writer obtained -complete with research staff:check
3. Interesting but obscure topic- notably with “relevant” and “contemporary” analogy to modern events: check.
4. Good story line-vivid characters, violence, power, racism, injustice, corruption , analogy to the MAGA phenomenon etc.: check
Having cynically stated the above, this book is a very good overview of political Louisiana and Reconstruction between 1866 and 1876. Nothing in it is untrue, although historians can (and do; its’ what we do) argue about nuances and degrees and additional factors in events.
Was the state Governorship really important?
Were the Carpetbaggers really that incompetent (This reviewer would argue they were not).
Was Grant as feckless as presented?
How militarily strong was the revanchist KKK and its political arm, the southern Democratic Party?
Etc.etc. Etc..
As a fun beach read style, popular introduction to Reconstruction -it is HIGHLY recommended.
I deducted 2 stars because many of the events detailed within are Waaaaay more interesting and complicated than their superficial treatment herein, but the ghost writer had space limitations and one has to respect his narrative pacing and historical integrity. One loses the interest of the reader with too much detail.
September 27, 2024
Read the Review by Mr. Book. He read this book before publication and says all one needs to know. I give the book 5 stars because it teaches so much history about how Reconstruction ended, that I think it should be required for every high school student by the time they graduate. It just makes sense out of why history happened as it did. It is quite instructive about how fragile democracy is today, still. We can't ever ever ever take it for granted. We must be educated citizens. I say that again: you can't save democracy without education; you can't call our citizens educated unless they know American history, especially the nuts and bolts of how it is always subject to being undermined. This book teaches only one such lesson. There are many more, some continuing from LA, like Huey Long, but I digress. Read this book and other reviews. This is important stuff, and it's well told. Thanks to the authors. They deserve our applause for bringing this chapter of our history to our attention.
July 31, 2024
I really enjoy history and learning what has happened in the past and steps we can take to keep from letting it happen again.
I wasn't really sure what to think of this book - I enjoyed learning about something I had never heard to before, but felt like maybe it was a little too detailed and in the weeds (and long). I also had a little trouble keeping the main "characters" or perpetrators straight. I think they were all at fault. The elections were definitely corrupt (both sides even agreed that it was).
I am glad we have more secure ways to hold elections - and that, hopefully, we don't resort to violence to obtain our desired result. That being said, we need to protect our elections fiercely. Voting is our most precious and fundamental right.
This book was eye opening for sure and explains a little bit - civil rights must be protected.
I was given this from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review. All opinions are my own.
I wasn't really sure what to think of this book - I enjoyed learning about something I had never heard to before, but felt like maybe it was a little too detailed and in the weeds (and long). I also had a little trouble keeping the main "characters" or perpetrators straight. I think they were all at fault. The elections were definitely corrupt (both sides even agreed that it was).
I am glad we have more secure ways to hold elections - and that, hopefully, we don't resort to violence to obtain our desired result. That being said, we need to protect our elections fiercely. Voting is our most precious and fundamental right.
This book was eye opening for sure and explains a little bit - civil rights must be protected.
I was given this from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review. All opinions are my own.
August 29, 2024
“America’s Deadliest Election” by Dana Bash is about a part of history that I was not familiar with, and I was surprised on how many similarities there were to today’s political climate. “Not only are the events similar, but many of exactly the same words were used.” Bash does a great job by providing lots of details and facts about how events would unfold over a number of years that would ultimately change the course of Reconstruction and segregation throughout the South. And, to think that everything may have been different if Governor Warmoth signed the civil rights bill instead of vetoing the bill. “America’s Deadliest Election” is heavy on details, and, at times, a little in the weeds, but it is an important read for anyone who is interested in American history and the current political climate. “Democracy has often been referred to as an experiment. This is the story of what happened, and what can happen again, when that experiment fails.”
March 30, 2025
This is a great book for people who want to understand the United States history (about our brutal past elections) should read. This story was something that was not taught in many history classes for the high schools where I worked. I also believe that we are currently repeated this history today, with election of trump and the many destructive things that are currently happening, that may include loss of lives due to disinformation (example: spread of measles) and due to loss of protective agencies that are losing all or part of their funding and staff. Although in this book the loss of lives due to the shooting (many guns were shipped to New Orleans, Louisiana, in this story) that were used to gun down many people who disagreed with them politically. Unfortunately, history repeats itself, not with people that harm/kill others, like in this book, but with disinformation and closing or reducing staff working in agencies that protect the general public.
December 5, 2024
A forgotten bit of U.S.history. The deadliest election turns out to be the 1872 election for governor in Louisiana. Hundreds died, mostly newly freed blacks trying to exercise the right to vote. It was, on a local level, a continuation of the Civil War; in the end it led to the end of Reconstruction. Fascinating and illuminating story.
Unluckily, the telling of this story occasionally gets sloppy. Too much foreshadowing (“What happened next would reverberate throughout American history for the next century.”), attempting to build drama. The story is dramatic in itself, it doesn’t need the cliffhangers on the end of nearly every chapter. Also, with a large cast of characters with shifting loyalties (Republicans became Democrats and vice versa) I often lost track of who was on which side. A little editorial tightening would have helped.
Unluckily, the telling of this story occasionally gets sloppy. Too much foreshadowing (“What happened next would reverberate throughout American history for the next century.”), attempting to build drama. The story is dramatic in itself, it doesn’t need the cliffhangers on the end of nearly every chapter. Also, with a large cast of characters with shifting loyalties (Republicans became Democrats and vice versa) I often lost track of who was on which side. A little editorial tightening would have helped.
December 24, 2024
The history of the elections of Louisiana in 1872 and 1876 when it was the Republicans who were fighting for the rights of the Blacks. Henry Warmoth & William Kellog, both governors fought for the Reconstruction of blacks after the Civil War. Grant was president. It is scary how the politics of then are so much like the politics of today with all the division. The only thing we don’t do now is use guns to fight for office. The graft, payoffs and tricks done to keep blacks from voting and out of public areas was astounding. I’m impressed by the “Deep Dive” that Dana Bash did to relate such details, but the book was almost too long. From day to day, there were so many characters, that I couldn’t keep them all straight and if they were a Republican or a Democrat. It was confusing a lot of the time. I wanted to love this book because I really like Bash, but it was a bit too much.
September 15, 2024
This is a cautionary tale of what can happen when people put hatred above reason, party above country, and self importance over common sense. That it actually happened and took place in this country is frightening! This is a nonfiction account of a gubernatorial election in Louisiana, which led to the deaths of many people. They all died trying to vote. It took place after the Civil War when Reconstruction was underway, and the south was having none of it.
Well written and highly researched, this account makes our country's divisions today seem quite tame. It is hard to believe that our experiment in democracy nearly ended in 1868 with the strife continuing until the next presidential election in 1872. This book really blew my mind! And I highly recommend it.
Well written and highly researched, this account makes our country's divisions today seem quite tame. It is hard to believe that our experiment in democracy nearly ended in 1868 with the strife continuing until the next presidential election in 1872. This book really blew my mind! And I highly recommend it.
October 25, 2024
Think the current political vitriol, anger, violence and more couldn't get much worse? Think again. It could get far, far worse, and has, right here, in the USA. They didn't teach us this in history class.
The book walks in detail through the events surrounding the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election, the downstream impacts of it in the following years, culminating Louisiana as a proxy for the entire South in the election of 1876 and the infamous Compromise of 1877, which kicked off the Jim Crow era. Chaos, mayhem, gun violence, competing claims of victory leading to competing governors and legislators, Federal troops getting involved, and much more.
A sobering but interesting read in election season.
The book walks in detail through the events surrounding the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election, the downstream impacts of it in the following years, culminating Louisiana as a proxy for the entire South in the election of 1876 and the infamous Compromise of 1877, which kicked off the Jim Crow era. Chaos, mayhem, gun violence, competing claims of victory leading to competing governors and legislators, Federal troops getting involved, and much more.
A sobering but interesting read in election season.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews