Bind Us Apart: How Enlightened Americans Invented Racial Segregation

by Nicholas Guyatt

The surprising and counterintuitive origins of America's racial crisisWhy did the Founding Fathers fail to include blacks and Indians in their cherished proposition that "all men are created equal"? The usual answer is racism, but the reality is more complex and unsettling. In Bind Us Apart, historian Nicholas Guyatt argues that, from the Revolution through the Civil War, most white liberals believed in the unity of all human beings. But their philosophy faltered when it came to the practical work of forging a colour-blind society. Unable to convinceothers - and themselves - that racial mixing was viable, white reformers began instead to claim that people of colour could only thrive in separate in Native states in the American West or in the West African colony of Liberia.Herein lie the origins of "separate but equal." Decades before Reconstruction, America's liberal elite was unable to imagine how people of colour could become citizens of the United States. Throughout the nineteenth century, Native Americans were pushed farther and farther westward, while four million slaves freed after the Civil War found themselves among a white population that had spent decades imagining that they would live somewhere else.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Social Justice, Race, Politics, American

416 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 12, 2016

Reviews

[QOH · Rating 4 out of 5]

For subject: 4.
For execution and the rest: 3.
Total: 3.5, rounding up.

Fascinating look at how founders and [a select few of] the generation after tried to reconcile "all men are created equal" with the issues of slavery and their fears of racial mixing. The thesis is that as a result, these otherwise well-intentioned men ended up created a "separate but equal" doctrine long before Plessy--and with a hope that "separate" meant really separate. Like Liberia separate.

The clunky part of the book--and it is a travesty, because the subject deserved a book of its own--is the parallel story of Native American "colonization" and/or removal. (Although that has been written about before.) I get that these are stories that could be told together--and in journal article, it would have been great. But not so much in a full-length book.

Because of this, every chapter alternates between the issues of dealing with "what to do" with African Americans (free and slave--the upshot being no one, neither in the north nor the south, wanted to live among blacks, even liberals) and Native Americans (mostly the same). The similarities are there, but the way early white Americans treated the two groups (and thought of them) was rather different. This false equivalency makes the back-and-forth chapters dissonant and ultimately slows the pace as we jump back and forth. (By the end, I was sighing enough as I read my daughter asked me why I was reading it in the first place.)

There's a historian I was surprised to see whose works were not utilized. Is there historian drama? I've no idea. Maybe I missed a footnote. Why reinvent the wheel, particularly when it comes to Native American issues, where the book was at its slowest?

So while it was an important work on the whole, as an average quasi-academic reader (I've never been sure I counted as one, since I have a BA in history but opted for the JD instead of going on with history), I suppose the part that bothered me was while there was mention of James Forten and other free blacks and their attitudes toward "colonization" (=um, bad idea) this is, at its heart, a book about rich white men and what they thought and did. It's interesting to be reminded that Thomas Jefferson was not anticipating 1960s integration or even Amendment XIII back in 1800 (by a long shot) but by focusing on such a narrow group of thinkers, there's no sense that this is a history that belongs to the average American experience.

Two minor examples: as I wrote this, I was reminded about how I'm descended from poor whites who established churches on behalf of blacks in Georgia (separate from whites; it was 19th century Georgia, after all). Their stories are in books in university libraries, so there's no excuse for not knowing about it. Or what about blacks in Kentucky mines, which opened in 1820 (I can think of my husband's family history and their anecdotes here--there were a number of western coal counties that remained loyal to the union when the war came)? Or the situation with Florida settlers, escaped slaves, and Seminoles? I've never researched it, but how many other stories are also on the record and could have given a much better perspective on the nation's views at the time? The absence of these experiences makes the book a poorer one. It also makes me think by forcing the alternating chapters the author could have had two great, engaging books instead of one that made me sigh a lot.

Those caveats aside, I recommend it to anyone who wants to think more deeply about race and the early Republic. After all, my daughter--who tends to call everyone "human" and doesn't think I should identify as white because "you're too pink"--was pretty shocked after "Hamilton" to discover ALL the founders were white guys. Explaining why, and why Hamilton-the-musical is important--that's a hard conversation that we all should be having.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this a fascinating and disheartening book. Fascinating because I learned so many interesting things I had no idea of. Disheartening because there was so much hypocrisy, misjudgments, apathy, misplaced zeal. Racism takes many different forms and even those who were most opposed to slavery were usually still marked by it. Even Lincoln is quoted as saying approvingly, "I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child, that was in favor of producing a perfect equality, socially and politically, between the negro and white people."

Guyatt also traces the roles Christians individually and corporately played or at least sought to play. They were a formidable force, both for good and for ill, though I think comparatively good.

The encouraging thing is that the vast majority of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries found it impossible to imagine a society like the one we now live in, where differing races mingle freely and are treated in most ways equally. There is still much work to be done, but we are far beyond what they could envision possible. May our grandchildren live in a world even more harmonious and equal than we can now conceive possible.

[Bookworm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting history but not really my cup of tea. How could someone like Thomas Jefferson write words like "...that all men are created equal" yet still own slaves? How or why would he write these words and yet father children with his slave, Sally Hemings? How to reconcile this?
 
This specific question is not the focus of Guyatt's book but it is certainly one that comes up and is something to consider while reading. The purpose of Guyatt's writing is to look at the relationship of black people and Native Americans to the Europeans and colonists who came to what would be the United States and would eventually lead to racial segregation that still has repercussions through today.
 
The history is disturbing. Informative, but disturbing. The premise was that black and Native peoples were "degraded" and while in theory they could be "integrated" or "civilized" by getting rid of slavery (for example), or by mixed marriages (which was disturbing for other reasons), in the end what it came down to was that the colonists and settlers needed the Native American land and the labor of black slaves, as 'The New York Times' notes. So instead of integrating, it became easier to take the Native American land and eventually segregating black people physically, legally, etc.
 
Overall I found the book to be a bit dry and academic but it is worth the read. For people who want to claim racism is over this might be a good resource to see the influence of racism and how its affects have carried down through the centuries in the US and to today.

[Jim Gulley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This work is the story of how liberal whites in the North struggled to formulate practical plans to abolish slavery, emancipate slaves, and incorporate Native Americans into mainstream American society in the early 19th century. Guyatt’s argument undermined the conventional historiography that segregation and the doctrine of “separate but equal” was a product of post-Reconstruction white supremacy in the South. He constructs the book as a parallel history, with each chapter alternating between African American and Native-American narratives. Guyatt uses anecdotal “voices” to tell the story and support his arguments. The problem with this approach is that anecdotes are selective and not necessarily representative of the predominant public opinion. He could have bolstered his argument by adding broader sources like op-ed pieces in newspapers of record, passed legislation, or public demonstrations.

[Cynda · Rating 1 out of 5]

Worthwhile knowing how the Founding Fathers, the educated and intellectuals of the Enlightenment during the Early America Period thought of the the black slaves and the natives. But far far too boring. Hours that I could be read, I avoided reading. While the language is accessible, the thoughts are not clearly delineated. I think a re-structuring would change the whole thing. Maybe start with the ideals of the Enlightenment and how they were acted on and then altered as time and circumstances changed. I am just not made to be interested in the people of the history or the ideals the leaders started out with and then diviated from.

I tried. Can't do it,

[Jeremy Canipe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm surprised that I didn't find this book more original. That there was intellectual and practical continuity between attempts to colonize African Americans and to have Native Americans move further west has seemed intuitively accurate to me well before picking up this book.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tour de force, with a strong and compelling narrative voice that masters an impressive breadth of material.

[ANN DIPIETRO · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative look into early racial segregation by those opposed to slavery with an emphasis on concept of “degradation”.

[Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

read for honors thesis

[Leigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read and addressing issues I hadn't thought about in these ways. Over all it talks about how white men decide what's best for people of color. Then it talks about equality, abolition, gradual emancipation, colonization, amalgamation....a textbook of great value but ultimately a sad testament to our ignorance and prejudice.

[Douglas Pierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent portrayal of how well meaning Americans invented racial segregation that help perpetuate a lot of the socieital problems facing The United States today.

Slavery and exploitation of Native American were well entrenched in America before creation of the United States in 1776. But the United States Constitution contained a phase that was a novelty for the world's government, "All Men are Created Equal". That phrase presented an anathema for people such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Marquis de Lafayette, Edward Coles and many others. There were basically two ways to resolve the dilemma: amalgamation and colonization. Although amalgamation was probably the best way insure the phrase, "All Men are Created" would come to fruition, Americans including most of the previously mention people were so prejudiced against African Americans and Native Americans that it could not be seriously considered. Therefore, colonization came to be the most favorite resolution for resolving the slavery and Indian problem. Colonization involved separation in place or separation by removal to the West or another country. Colonization resulted in another famous phrase, "Separate but Equal" and became America's answer to, "All Men are Created Equal".

This is well researched book and after reading, I think you will have a different outlook on the people that populate the United States of America.

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another look, at our founding fathers struggles with what it meant to be free.
This moves beyond the star wars, approach, to look at attempts, quite in error, to promote separatism.
History is far more complex, than sound bites, As a member of a disability community, not often understood even today, I can understand the intention, how ever violently i disagree with it.

[reneeNaDaCherry · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book borrowed from the library. Not enlightening, but more HIStory about America's greed. We are a country of immigrants sans the Native Americans and African Americans.

[Ruby · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The saga only confirmed something free blacks and abolitionists already knew: the federal government was a poor guarantor of citizenship in the United States."

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yep, so true--

[Patrick McGarry]

Great, but long.