What do you think?
Rate this book
Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement from the Revolution to Reconstruction
The half century before the Civil War was beset with conflict over freedom as well as slavery: what were the arrangements of free society, especially for African Americans? Beginning in 1803, many free states enacted black codes that discouraged the settlement and restricted the basic rights of free black people. But claiming the equal-rights promises of the Declaration and the Constitution, a biracial movement arose to fight these racist state laws.
Kate Masur’s magisterial history delivers this pathbreaking movement in vivid detail. Its advocates battled in state legislatures, Congress, and the courts, and through petitioning, party politics and elections. They visited slave states to challenge local laws that imprisoned free blacks and sold them into slavery. Despite immovable white majorities and unfavorable court decisions, their vision became increasingly mainstream. After the Civil War, their arguments shaped the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, the pillars of our second founding.
Kate Masur’s magisterial history delivers this pathbreaking movement in vivid detail. Its advocates battled in state legislatures, Congress, and the courts, and through petitioning, party politics and elections. They visited slave states to challenge local laws that imprisoned free blacks and sold them into slavery. Despite immovable white majorities and unfavorable court decisions, their vision became increasingly mainstream. After the Civil War, their arguments shaped the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, the pillars of our second founding.
Audio CD
First published March 23, 2021
87 people are currently reading
2194 people want to read
About the author
Kate Masur
12 books18 followersKate Masur is professor of history at Northwestern University. A finalist for the Lincoln Prize, she is the author of Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction and An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle over Equality in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
May 10, 2021
I did not understand the fundamental difference between the anti-slavery movement and the Civil Rights movement until I read this book. What Masur shows us is that Black people who were not enslaved were involved in a political and legal movement that continues to this day fighting for equality with white people in every aspect of life. A lot is revealed here, including the huge impact of regional specificity on the lives of Black people. Even though slavery existed in everyone of the 13 original colonies, the constant tensions over "free" vs "slave" territory and the consistent imposition of Fugitive Slave acts since 1793 mean that any Black person who was free, could be accused of being an escaped slave and captured, imprisoned, sold -- it reads as an emotional parallel to today's experience of Black people knowing they can be shot by a police officer under any circumstance. Powerful information and great photographs of early Black civil rights leaders whose names were new to this reader. The function of interracial solidarity between the American revolution and Reconstruction is also addressed in more specificity and with more sophistication than I have seen in the past. A fascinating book with lots of teeth and much new information.
March 21, 2021
Until Justice Be Done extends the chronology of the First Reconstruction backwards in time through the early American republic. Historian Kate Masur takes traditional Reconstruction characteristics such as Black Codes and demonstrates that they began as early as 1803 in “free” states. Her analysis ranges across Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere, while at the same time, a biracial movement engaged in grassroots activism to combat enslavement. Until Justice Be Done portrays the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation as less of a turning point in African American history because severe injustice and anti-Black racism continued through the entire nineteenth century through today.
November 19, 2021
Loved this. Masur tells a great story of civil rights activism by Black men and women and their white allies in the early 19th c. Much of the story is focused on free states, especially in the Midwest, and efforts to fight anti-Black laws. The book shines a new light on the decades long making of the 14th amendment.
November 23, 2021
Until Justice is an outstanding study of Civil Rights and citizenship agitation by Blacks and abolitionists in the United States through the end of Reconstruction. It is thoroughly grounded in her understanding of the Constitution, manuscript, and periodical sources of the period, as well as the most recent scholarship. In addition, she does not neglect Black sources. African Americans do have an important voice in her narration and analysis. In addition, this book is eminently readable and should be on the shelf of all persons interested in civil rights, Black history, be they a professional historian or a civic-minded reader.
March 9, 2022
A thorough and interesting account of civil rights activism mostly in the northern states from the Revolution to the Reconstruction era. Masur focuses on what was then the Northwest, states that did not have slavery because of the NOrthwest Ordinance but were often vehemently racist.
This first CR movement focused on combatting a few big things. In northern states, the ending or lack of slavery did not mean equality or a lack of social control from white authorities. Instead, there was tremendous fear, especially in the northwestern states, of the migration of the black and poor. It was assumed that these groups, especially the black poor, would be lazy, criminal, and ultimately a drain on public resources. States often barred the movement of black people altogether onto their territory, usually restricted the expenditure of public resources to white (no resources in most states for black schools, for instance), often required white persons to vouch for their character or employment status, and otherwise restricted free black rights. This movement was fairly successful in the antebellum period, helping to push forward the notion of citizenship regardless of color and strike down many racially prejudicial laws. White and black advocates against racist laws at the state level also found their training ground in this realm before moving on to become leaders in the Liberty Party, the Republicans, and eventually during Reconstruction.
One important thing about this book is its emphasis on the police powers of the states and the poor law traditions as rivals to the tradition of individual rights. We obviously want to emphasize the rights tradition in US history, but states in the antebellum period asserted their right to determine who could enter, settle, and have rights in their domains. Under their proclaimed police powers, they often kept out, threw out, or imprisoned social and racial undesirables. This is an underside of American history that reflects both class and racial systems that limited people's opportunities and rights, but we should still know about it and pay attention to it.
Another major issue that the first CRM fought for involved the privileges and immunities clause and the movement of free blacks from state to state. Southern states had particularly stringent laws regarding free black emigration and even temporary visits by black sailors to ports, for example. They feared that free blacks would encourage slave revolts and generally undermine the "happiness" of slaves. As a result, free black movements were extremely restricted and they could often be arrested, detained, and even sold into slavery on the slightest pretext. Northern states and activists took umbrage at this as a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. Why, they asked, was it acceptable for southern slave catchers to pursue and capture escapees (and occasionally free black people) on free soil when free blacks were not permitted any rights in the slave states? This kind of hypocrisy helped motivate sectional tension, and activists attacked it through the courts and the legal system, albeit with limited success.
The first CRM's significance really came to fruition during the Civil War, when Republicans controlled Congress and when the slave states were absent from national governance. The first CRM had built up goals, ideas, and networks over the preceding decades, and they cashed in on them at the state and national levels. Many discrimination laws were lifted in places like DC, public education was provided for for black people in states like Massachusetts, and the Republican Party instituted a host of reforms that benefitted black civil rights and opportunities.
Masur's book helps its readers see the continuity of struggles for racial equality and rights across the sweep of US history, and she highlights some location like the old Northwest that are not as well known as the usual north-south divide. Still, the book has a few weaknesses. There is a lot of legal 'inside baseball' that can get a little hard to follow. The book is heavy on legal and political history but doesn't develop characters as well as other histories, so while it is excellent scholarship it lacks a narrative element that would make it accessible to a larger audience. I learned a ton but wasn't enthralled throughout the whole thing. Still, I'd recommend this book for scholars and teachers of any period of US history, especially those doing race, citizenship, and antebellum history.
This first CR movement focused on combatting a few big things. In northern states, the ending or lack of slavery did not mean equality or a lack of social control from white authorities. Instead, there was tremendous fear, especially in the northwestern states, of the migration of the black and poor. It was assumed that these groups, especially the black poor, would be lazy, criminal, and ultimately a drain on public resources. States often barred the movement of black people altogether onto their territory, usually restricted the expenditure of public resources to white (no resources in most states for black schools, for instance), often required white persons to vouch for their character or employment status, and otherwise restricted free black rights. This movement was fairly successful in the antebellum period, helping to push forward the notion of citizenship regardless of color and strike down many racially prejudicial laws. White and black advocates against racist laws at the state level also found their training ground in this realm before moving on to become leaders in the Liberty Party, the Republicans, and eventually during Reconstruction.
One important thing about this book is its emphasis on the police powers of the states and the poor law traditions as rivals to the tradition of individual rights. We obviously want to emphasize the rights tradition in US history, but states in the antebellum period asserted their right to determine who could enter, settle, and have rights in their domains. Under their proclaimed police powers, they often kept out, threw out, or imprisoned social and racial undesirables. This is an underside of American history that reflects both class and racial systems that limited people's opportunities and rights, but we should still know about it and pay attention to it.
Another major issue that the first CRM fought for involved the privileges and immunities clause and the movement of free blacks from state to state. Southern states had particularly stringent laws regarding free black emigration and even temporary visits by black sailors to ports, for example. They feared that free blacks would encourage slave revolts and generally undermine the "happiness" of slaves. As a result, free black movements were extremely restricted and they could often be arrested, detained, and even sold into slavery on the slightest pretext. Northern states and activists took umbrage at this as a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. Why, they asked, was it acceptable for southern slave catchers to pursue and capture escapees (and occasionally free black people) on free soil when free blacks were not permitted any rights in the slave states? This kind of hypocrisy helped motivate sectional tension, and activists attacked it through the courts and the legal system, albeit with limited success.
The first CRM's significance really came to fruition during the Civil War, when Republicans controlled Congress and when the slave states were absent from national governance. The first CRM had built up goals, ideas, and networks over the preceding decades, and they cashed in on them at the state and national levels. Many discrimination laws were lifted in places like DC, public education was provided for for black people in states like Massachusetts, and the Republican Party instituted a host of reforms that benefitted black civil rights and opportunities.
Masur's book helps its readers see the continuity of struggles for racial equality and rights across the sweep of US history, and she highlights some location like the old Northwest that are not as well known as the usual north-south divide. Still, the book has a few weaknesses. There is a lot of legal 'inside baseball' that can get a little hard to follow. The book is heavy on legal and political history but doesn't develop characters as well as other histories, so while it is excellent scholarship it lacks a narrative element that would make it accessible to a larger audience. I learned a ton but wasn't enthralled throughout the whole thing. Still, I'd recommend this book for scholars and teachers of any period of US history, especially those doing race, citizenship, and antebellum history.
April 26, 2021
What if the history books have all been WRONG? This ESSENTIAL new book uncovers a forgotten chapter of American history-the continuous and strong efforts by free African-Americans to secure equal rights and the right to vote from the beginning of our Republic. By petitioning the state and federal legislatures, filing legal actions, organizing, publishing and protesting from the War of 1812 forward, African-Americans made forceful arguments that state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence and the federal constitution prohibited discrimination against free African Americans. Astoundingly, an argument that supposedly was first made in the 1930’s-that the federal
Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to restrict discriminatory conduct by state and private actors-was actually first made more than hundred years previously, by free African-American sailors who feared being seized and sold into slavery when they landed in slave state ports. This is an important, fascinating, well-written history that fundamentally changes and expands the history of civil rights and liberty in the United States.
Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to restrict discriminatory conduct by state and private actors-was actually first made more than hundred years previously, by free African-American sailors who feared being seized and sold into slavery when they landed in slave state ports. This is an important, fascinating, well-written history that fundamentally changes and expands the history of civil rights and liberty in the United States.
July 6, 2021
Kate Masur's book details what she calls the "first civil rights movement", an antebellum movement that aimed at legalized equality between the races. At its core, this book is an intellectual history of the 14th amendment, tracing the history of abolitionist ideas that did (and did not) make it into the amendment. There are two strengths, in particular, of this book. The first is the analytic framework Masur uses - she balances ideology, region and chronology really well, focusing each of the early chapters on representative regions in a particular era (e.g. efforts to protect free black sailors from Massachusetts in the 1830s, the Liberty Party's efforts at repealing Ohio's antiblack laws in the 1840s, etc...). Relatedly, while the history of ideas is never far from the focus, Masur incorporates political, legal and social history, attending to both court arguments and abolitionist newspapers with equal attentiveness. Her first chapter, on the ubiquity of poor laws in the United States, particularly in the North, is foundational to her argument, I found it a bit of a challenge to work through, but I was really impressed with the rest of the book.
January 4, 2023
Summary: The movement for Civil Rights prior to the Civil War is an under-told story and one which is important to the context of both the Reconstruction Era and the later Civil Rights movement of the 20th century.
Until Justice Be Done provided historical context for an era in which I did not have a lot of background. I have studied the Revolutionary War period and the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era. Still, my understanding of the history between the Revolution and the Civil War has primarily been through individual biographies, and Until Justice Be Done was helpful. (It was also on the shortlist for finalists for the Pulitizer as well as several other book awards which both confirms what I thought about the writing and verified the quality of the historical work.)
There were five big takeaways for me from the book.
First, the English poor laws were intended to require the care of the poor but were used both in England and the US as a way to keep the poor out of local communities, which turned the original purpose of those laws on its head. I could not help but think of Jesus' comments about technically following the law but missing the point of the law (Matt 15:4-10, Mark 7: 1-23) when the religious leaders were claiming that they did not have resources help the poor because they had pledged money to God.
Second, as hinted at in the quote above, skin color (race) was used to permanently mark people as "other." Even when used appropriately, the poor laws were temporary categories. Ideally, someone who was poor and who was supported by the community could reach an economic status where they were no longer poor. The temporary status as "poor" became a permanent marker even for non-poor racial minorities. (This was primarily applied to Black residents of the US in the late 18th and early 19th century, where the book is concerned. But it was also applied to Native Americans and, to a lesser extent, Chinese on the west coast. Primarily this was about anti-Black racism, but it included others as well when there were other racial categories present.)
Third, I was aware of how supporters of slavery attempted to use the federal government's powers to uphold slavery. However, I was not aware of how abolitionists directly used the example of the fugitive slave clause to attempt to force the federal government to defend free Black rights. This comes to a head in the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court essentially says that no Black residents of the United States could have full citizenship rights that the federal or state governments were compelled to recognize.
Those lack of citizenship rights were not just opposition to voting or a lack of defense of the rights to move freely for commerce, but also a lack of rights within the courts. Ohio and other states explicitly passed laws in the early 19th century forbidding Black residents (they were being excluded from citizenship rights) from testifying in court or bringing suit against White plaintiffs. This tacitly allowed the violation of other rights (such as property laws or violence and lynching) to proceed because Black residents were legally prevented from using the courts to enforce justice. Later Jim Crow systems also involved restrictions on access to courts, but from the early days of the US, that lack of access to the courts was understood as a violation of the country's ideals.
A fourth takeaway is that I did find the early example of differences in state laws impacting people is relevant to the current discussions about gay marriage. The Missouri constitution (and later Texas, Oregon, and other states) banned Black Americans' migration to those states. This was viewed as a violation of the federal constitution's "privileges and immunities clause." The tension between the role of federal and state has always been present, but as Eric Foner's Second Founding (on the 13-15th Amendments) makes clear, there was a real shift in legal thinking and approach toward the balance of state and federal governments after the Civil War, because of
Fifth, international pressure can, in many ways, bring about change differently. One of the big problems of the early 19th century was southern ports arresting Black sailors off of ships. There was little interest in the problem when those Black sailors were from northern ports, although northern governors and abolitionists attempted to press the federal government to address the problem. But the US had treaties with the British and other foreign countries, and arresting Black sailors who were British or French citizens became a much more difficult problem for the US federal government to ignore. This is reminiscent of the pressure the US Department of State put on the US Justice Department because of how the Soviet Union used civil rights as a wedge in the cold war.
Until Justice Be Done is a fairly long book (nearly 500 pages), but it did not drag. I have 57 highlights from Let Justice Be Done that you can read on my Goodreads page.
Until Justice Be Done provided historical context for an era in which I did not have a lot of background. I have studied the Revolutionary War period and the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era. Still, my understanding of the history between the Revolution and the Civil War has primarily been through individual biographies, and Until Justice Be Done was helpful. (It was also on the shortlist for finalists for the Pulitizer as well as several other book awards which both confirms what I thought about the writing and verified the quality of the historical work.)
There were five big takeaways for me from the book.
First, the English poor laws were intended to require the care of the poor but were used both in England and the US as a way to keep the poor out of local communities, which turned the original purpose of those laws on its head. I could not help but think of Jesus' comments about technically following the law but missing the point of the law (Matt 15:4-10, Mark 7: 1-23) when the religious leaders were claiming that they did not have resources help the poor because they had pledged money to God.
"But race was not the only kind of difference that was significant in this society, and many of the racist laws in Ohio and elsewhere were built atop laws designed to address challenges of poverty and dependency. These legal structures dated back to the sixteenth century and the English tradition of managing the poor. Local governments in England had responded to a rising population of mobile poor people and their demands for aid by establishing regulations designed to distinguish between those who belonged in the community and those who did not. The core idea in the English poor-law tradition was that families and communities were obliged to provide for their own dependent poor, but not for transients and strangers." (p4)
Second, as hinted at in the quote above, skin color (race) was used to permanently mark people as "other." Even when used appropriately, the poor laws were temporary categories. Ideally, someone who was poor and who was supported by the community could reach an economic status where they were no longer poor. The temporary status as "poor" became a permanent marker even for non-poor racial minorities. (This was primarily applied to Black residents of the US in the late 18th and early 19th century, where the book is concerned. But it was also applied to Native Americans and, to a lesser extent, Chinese on the west coast. Primarily this was about anti-Black racism, but it included others as well when there were other racial categories present.)
Third, I was aware of how supporters of slavery attempted to use the federal government's powers to uphold slavery. However, I was not aware of how abolitionists directly used the example of the fugitive slave clause to attempt to force the federal government to defend free Black rights. This comes to a head in the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court essentially says that no Black residents of the United States could have full citizenship rights that the federal or state governments were compelled to recognize.
Those lack of citizenship rights were not just opposition to voting or a lack of defense of the rights to move freely for commerce, but also a lack of rights within the courts. Ohio and other states explicitly passed laws in the early 19th century forbidding Black residents (they were being excluded from citizenship rights) from testifying in court or bringing suit against White plaintiffs. This tacitly allowed the violation of other rights (such as property laws or violence and lynching) to proceed because Black residents were legally prevented from using the courts to enforce justice. Later Jim Crow systems also involved restrictions on access to courts, but from the early days of the US, that lack of access to the courts was understood as a violation of the country's ideals.
A fourth takeaway is that I did find the early example of differences in state laws impacting people is relevant to the current discussions about gay marriage. The Missouri constitution (and later Texas, Oregon, and other states) banned Black Americans' migration to those states. This was viewed as a violation of the federal constitution's "privileges and immunities clause." The tension between the role of federal and state has always been present, but as Eric Foner's Second Founding (on the 13-15th Amendments) makes clear, there was a real shift in legal thinking and approach toward the balance of state and federal governments after the Civil War, because of
Fifth, international pressure can, in many ways, bring about change differently. One of the big problems of the early 19th century was southern ports arresting Black sailors off of ships. There was little interest in the problem when those Black sailors were from northern ports, although northern governors and abolitionists attempted to press the federal government to address the problem. But the US had treaties with the British and other foreign countries, and arresting Black sailors who were British or French citizens became a much more difficult problem for the US federal government to ignore. This is reminiscent of the pressure the US Department of State put on the US Justice Department because of how the Soviet Union used civil rights as a wedge in the cold war.
Until Justice Be Done is a fairly long book (nearly 500 pages), but it did not drag. I have 57 highlights from Let Justice Be Done that you can read on my Goodreads page.
January 3, 2025
Essential reading for all Americans who wish to understand both the origins of civil rights in the US but also how past organizing can inform our current moment. When the federal government fails you, how can you pressure states to protect you? Who are the essential actors that work publicly and behind the scenes to make change happen? This book shows the short term struggles as well as the long term results and the work that continues to this day, 250 years after the founding and 150 years after the abolitionist movement culminated with the passage of the 13-15th Amendments. The Epilogue especially does a great job of drawing a through line from early abolitionist work, persistent questions about civil rights, states rights, individual liberties, and the rights of the poor, through essential Supreme Court cases every first year law student reads all the way to today to connect the dots for all of us and provide a deeper picture of where we come from. Turns out change is incredibly slow and rarely as satisfying as we want it to be, but the protections and liberties we DO enjoy today are thanks to the fact that those who came before didn’t give up, despite the odds. A heartening message to bring into 2025.
November 27, 2024
Highly enjoyable and informative. Masur’s detailed recounting of the push for civil rights from Revolution to Reconstruction annihilates the unfounded claim that the progenitors of anti-blackness were “men of their times.” There was and has always been a robust and aggressive push by black and white Americans to see true equality. What was striking is the language directed at free blacks over 200 years ago has not changed much. Indeed, three groups of people existed then - those vying for the full suite of rights for blacks, those who wanted blacks removed from American soil, and those who would continue to see blacks relegated to subhuman status - that are not far removed from the sentiments of 2024. If anything, what this book demonstrates that no matter the times we find ourselves in, the fight for justice must continue until all Americans can fully enjoy the benefits and freedom laid down at the First and Second Founding.
July 20, 2025
This book is an amazing deep dive into the atrocities, protests, activism, and legislation that ushered in the first civil rights amendments to the constitution. One of the most surprising aspects to me was learning of the role freed Blacks working as sailors played in the antislavery movement. The author did an excellent job of taking massive amounts of research data from a wide span of time and working it into a timeline that was easy to follow and interesting from start to finish. This is not a fast or pleasant read, but it was well worth the effort and a great resource for those seeking a better understanding regarding the deeply entrenched culture of white supremacy and elitism that has plagued this country.
February 11, 2024
A unique book documenting the people and groups pursuing equal rights from the revolutionary war to post-civil war. For me, the most interesting chapters were those in the 1800s, closer to the civil war. The epilogue was also excellent documenting the tragic reversal of laws, rights, and equality by the Supreme Court toward the end of reconstruction.
The stories following the fight for equal protection and citizenship of black sailors as well as documentation of the fight for rights in Washington DC, which allowed slavery until 1962, were particularly interesting.
The stories following the fight for equal protection and citizenship of black sailors as well as documentation of the fight for rights in Washington DC, which allowed slavery until 1962, were particularly interesting.
May 22, 2024
say it with me — fuck! andrew! johnson!
a bit dry and overly legalistic for my taste, but certainly encyclopedic. lots of analogies with present day issues that are thrown to the states: abortion, immigration, etc.
also lots of deep connections between the history of poor laws/vagrancy laws and racial exclusion
a bit dry and overly legalistic for my taste, but certainly encyclopedic. lots of analogies with present day issues that are thrown to the states: abortion, immigration, etc.
also lots of deep connections between the history of poor laws/vagrancy laws and racial exclusion
February 7, 2022
This book tells the story of America’s first Civil Rights Movement with a lot of detail. This is a part of history that doesn’t get covered in traditional US History classes and I look forward to adding some of it to mine.
December 17, 2021
I couldn’t finish this book. The way she structured her chapters just lost me. A few interesting bits of knowledge which is why I don’t give it a 1 star.
May 2, 2023
Read for graduate school. Really detailed and full of information I just had no idea existed.
August 26, 2022
AUGUST
by Kate Masur (no photo)
Finished: 01.08.2022
Genre: non-fiction
Rating: A
Good news: One very long but interesting history lesson!
#MustRead for the "real history buffs"
...but if you are looking for a casual read
you will be disappointed. Book demands your
reading committment!
by Kate Masur (no photo)Finished: 01.08.2022
Genre: non-fiction
Rating: A
Good news: One very long but interesting history lesson!
#MustRead for the "real history buffs"
...but if you are looking for a casual read
you will be disappointed. Book demands your
reading committment!
March 27, 2021
"Until Justice Be Done" by Kate Masur is the extensive history of the Civil Rights Movement leading up to and through the Emancipation Proclamation. I read a lot about Civil Rights, slavery, and racism in America, but Masur presents a history that is entirely new to me. This really well-researched book highlights how people, both Black and white, had been fighting for greater freedom in a way that was previously unknown to me through the early and mid 19th century. The book discusses the fight for the freedom and corresponding rights of free and formerly enslaved Black people, which was especially pronounced in states like Ohio that bordered with the slave state of Kentucky. "Until Justice Be Done" is a great complement to books about the 20th and 21st century Civil Rights Movements.
March 3, 2023
This is a hard book for me to review. On the one hand, I do not like the structure of this book; the chapters are just far too long (which is why I took off a star). On the other hand, this is one of the most important books I've read in a long time. It should be required reading for all Americans. We'd been taught that perhaps except for Frederick Douglass & Sojourner Truth, whites fought for the abolition of slavery and Black equality. This book completely turns everything we've known on its head. Everything we have learned is WRONG. This book is the first step in trying to get it right; now if we could just get more people to read it. . .
May 31, 2021
Some dry and detailed reading, especially for those of us who have not thought of the 14th Amendment since high school civics. Still, an excellent perspective to learn from, despite the intense focus on legal history and cases.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a deeper understanding of America's history. However, be prepared for some focused reading.
No one, and I mean no one, could maintain the erroneous belief that America is not a racist nation after reading this book.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a deeper understanding of America's history. However, be prepared for some focused reading.
No one, and I mean no one, could maintain the erroneous belief that America is not a racist nation after reading this book.
March 17, 2023
I firmly believe that black history is American history and American history is black history (at least in the US). You cannot study one without studying the other.
Unfortunately, this is not how much of history is taught. The traditional view of history is predominantly white, with forrays into black history.
Black history is often highlighting the achievements or actions of black individuals/groups, with little interaction with their white counterparts.
Rarely is history taught in a manner that shows the direct interaction between the two communities.
Kate Masur's book is one of those exceptions.
The book is definitely about the black experience in the United States (particularly in the Ohio and the North), but it is also definitely about the white experience.
This was a very well written and interesting book.
Here are some of the key issues discussed:
* While some movies talk about freedom papers, we really get the full appreciation for what they are/were. The book talks a fair amount about the importance of freedom papers and the efforts that slaves went to keep them safe. What is often overlooked is that when slaves arrived in many towns, they were expected to present their papers to the local officials. This was done for several reasons. In some towns, the local officials wanted to document that they reviewed and approved of the black person's freedom papers---thus accepted their veracity. In many communities, the freedom papers would be copied word per word and the seal recreated by a clerk (of course, this cost money which the black person was expected to pay). This was done in more tolerant communities to protect the freeman if something were to happen to their original papers. These communities were more likely to resist slave catchers. In other cases, the cost of copying the papers would be used to prevent black people from settling in the community. Blacks were often required to pay a bond and obtain white witnesses that would attest to their moral character. If they couldn't do so, then they couldn't settle in those areas.
* There was a lot of discussion about citizenship. These discussions were both at the state level and as United States Citizenship. Many Northern states recognized the citizenship of others states, but what did citizenship really mean at each of these levels? This was a major discussion even before Dredd Scott. After Scott, states, congress, and judicial groups pushed back on the notion that blacks cannot be citizens. Discussions on citizenship were often conducted with and without the construct of race. Sometimes, racist ideas might play a role in the rules, but were written without the race being mentioned. In these cases, the rules might impact white individuals as well.
* A fair amount of discussion about slave catchers and the legal issues surrounding them. One of the salient points that stood out for me was the presumption of the black individual. In Southern States, a black person was presumed to be a slave unless the black person could prove they were free. In Northern cities, a black person was presumed to be free, unless somebody could prove they were a slave.
* Numerous discussion about various black and abolitionists newspapers. While Douglass' Northstar is the best known black paper of the era today, there were others with equally wide appeal in the early 1800s. Both of these types of papers impacted politics and culture in Northern communities.
* Then there is the issue of politics. Here the interaction between black history and white history is undisputed. The three biggest issues of the first 80 years of the country were state vs federal powers, tarrif rates, and slavery. On a whole, the issues were largely northern v southern, but not exclusively. In the late 1700s/early 1800s, the key issue was federalism vs anti federalism. In the 1810s-1840s, federalism was still a key issue, but tarrifs started to become a key feature. Northerners generally wanted high tarrifs to protect their products and finished goods, Southerners who dealt more with raw products wanted lower tarrifs. After the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850, the importance of slavery grew in importance.
Political Parties were created and disappeared due to the issue of slavery. Politicians found the subject to be the principle reason to support or oppose a candidate. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are a prime example. Without slavery and black rights, Lincoln would never have become president.
But there is another example where the issue of slavery stands out even stronger. In 1844, Henry Clay was running for president for the 3rd time. He was known as the Great Compromiser for finding a way to get pro and anti-slavery people to work together. His opponent was the pro-slave James K Polk.
Polk would win and go on to become one of the pivotal presidents in the US history (he secured Texas, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington) into the Union.
In 1844, there was a third party candidate. The anti-slavery Liberty Party garnered about 2.3% of the national vote and about 16,000 votes in New York. Polk won the state of New York by a little over 5,000 votes. Had a third of those who voted for the anti-slavery candidate voted for Clay, the Great Compromiser would have become president---and Polk would not have made his imprint on the Country.
Unfortunately, this is not how much of history is taught. The traditional view of history is predominantly white, with forrays into black history.
Black history is often highlighting the achievements or actions of black individuals/groups, with little interaction with their white counterparts.
Rarely is history taught in a manner that shows the direct interaction between the two communities.
Kate Masur's book is one of those exceptions.
The book is definitely about the black experience in the United States (particularly in the Ohio and the North), but it is also definitely about the white experience.
This was a very well written and interesting book.
Here are some of the key issues discussed:
* While some movies talk about freedom papers, we really get the full appreciation for what they are/were. The book talks a fair amount about the importance of freedom papers and the efforts that slaves went to keep them safe. What is often overlooked is that when slaves arrived in many towns, they were expected to present their papers to the local officials. This was done for several reasons. In some towns, the local officials wanted to document that they reviewed and approved of the black person's freedom papers---thus accepted their veracity. In many communities, the freedom papers would be copied word per word and the seal recreated by a clerk (of course, this cost money which the black person was expected to pay). This was done in more tolerant communities to protect the freeman if something were to happen to their original papers. These communities were more likely to resist slave catchers. In other cases, the cost of copying the papers would be used to prevent black people from settling in the community. Blacks were often required to pay a bond and obtain white witnesses that would attest to their moral character. If they couldn't do so, then they couldn't settle in those areas.
* There was a lot of discussion about citizenship. These discussions were both at the state level and as United States Citizenship. Many Northern states recognized the citizenship of others states, but what did citizenship really mean at each of these levels? This was a major discussion even before Dredd Scott. After Scott, states, congress, and judicial groups pushed back on the notion that blacks cannot be citizens. Discussions on citizenship were often conducted with and without the construct of race. Sometimes, racist ideas might play a role in the rules, but were written without the race being mentioned. In these cases, the rules might impact white individuals as well.
* A fair amount of discussion about slave catchers and the legal issues surrounding them. One of the salient points that stood out for me was the presumption of the black individual. In Southern States, a black person was presumed to be a slave unless the black person could prove they were free. In Northern cities, a black person was presumed to be free, unless somebody could prove they were a slave.
* Numerous discussion about various black and abolitionists newspapers. While Douglass' Northstar is the best known black paper of the era today, there were others with equally wide appeal in the early 1800s. Both of these types of papers impacted politics and culture in Northern communities.
* Then there is the issue of politics. Here the interaction between black history and white history is undisputed. The three biggest issues of the first 80 years of the country were state vs federal powers, tarrif rates, and slavery. On a whole, the issues were largely northern v southern, but not exclusively. In the late 1700s/early 1800s, the key issue was federalism vs anti federalism. In the 1810s-1840s, federalism was still a key issue, but tarrifs started to become a key feature. Northerners generally wanted high tarrifs to protect their products and finished goods, Southerners who dealt more with raw products wanted lower tarrifs. After the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850, the importance of slavery grew in importance.
Political Parties were created and disappeared due to the issue of slavery. Politicians found the subject to be the principle reason to support or oppose a candidate. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are a prime example. Without slavery and black rights, Lincoln would never have become president.
But there is another example where the issue of slavery stands out even stronger. In 1844, Henry Clay was running for president for the 3rd time. He was known as the Great Compromiser for finding a way to get pro and anti-slavery people to work together. His opponent was the pro-slave James K Polk.
Polk would win and go on to become one of the pivotal presidents in the US history (he secured Texas, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington) into the Union.
In 1844, there was a third party candidate. The anti-slavery Liberty Party garnered about 2.3% of the national vote and about 16,000 votes in New York. Polk won the state of New York by a little over 5,000 votes. Had a third of those who voted for the anti-slavery candidate voted for Clay, the Great Compromiser would have become president---and Polk would not have made his imprint on the Country.
March 23, 2023
Covers pre-emancipation struggles against de jure white supremacy, with a welcome focus on state and local laws. Both are too often ignored in the popular histories I've read.
July 17, 2025
Main Argument
It was African Americans that particularly drove what Masur calls The First Civil Rights Movement (around 1780 to 1860). Civil rights in the first half of the 19th century was about basic rights as citizens rather than political rights themselves because the latter was considered as privileges for those who governed. Defining civil rights this way, Masur focuses on the Northwest, particularly Ohio, because it was where slavery was forbidden while anti-black laws also existed very firmly. In the South, it was emancipation that mattered the most for African Americans, but in the North, it was equality as a citizen that they demanded.
Masur also explores the origins of anti-black, exclusionary laws. In colonial America, the mobile poor was deemed as threat to a community, for which dealing with them was the matter of policing. Then, the anti-poor tradition was intertwined with racism, labeling black people as essentially poor and thus threatening communally. Since African Americans were considered as a community problem, claims to universal individual rights could coexist with the anti-black discrimination for whites, while the free black people appealed to the universality of the discourses on individual rights to counter against the communal justification for racism.
Finally, Masur emphasizes that the First Civil Rights Struggle was never led only by African Americans, but that white people also contributed to it very much. Abolitionists played a great role in fighting against discriminatory laws while white politicians did away with such regulations both in state and federal levels, finally leading to the Amendment 13 and 14. The movement was neither black-centric nor white-centric but collaborative even though aims, motivations, passions, and resources were different among the participants.
Thoughts
I was surprised at the lack of reference to Hall’s Long Civil Rights Movement in this book. The “first” civil rights movement implies there is the second, or the classic civil rights movement beginning from the mid-1950s. However, Masur concentrates on the antebellum civil rights movement, discussing almost nothing about its connections to the 20th century, though those to the late 19th century are briefly but not insufficiently discussed. This could mean that Masur refrains from joining the 20th century controversy over the continuity of the African American freedom struggle.
Emphasis on multi-racial aspects of the First Civil Rights Movement is also prominent. Taking into account it was the early 19th century that the book dealt with, it is very easy to claim that “all the whites were racists after all.” This often leads to a kind of pessimistic view on the essential inability of whites to be members of the fight for racial justice, which Masur seems to reject. While the opposition is not clearly declared, it cannot be ignored.
To be a legal history also matters for this study. Though a reviewer criticized Masur for not exploring personal experience of African Americans participants in the struggle, implying insufficient degree of social history in this book, Masur apparently focuses on the importance of the law for African American activists throughout the centuries. In fact, Masur’s past studies include how and why communal exclusion as a means of policing was very common in the age of revolution, which necessitate attention to legal thoughts on the American ideal. While this research may not be a legal history as social history, I wonder if a social history that delves into personal experience in detail is always necessary for studies such as Masur’s. In my opinion, social movement is also struggle of discourses, for which legal aspects can never be underestimated in studying it.
It was African Americans that particularly drove what Masur calls The First Civil Rights Movement (around 1780 to 1860). Civil rights in the first half of the 19th century was about basic rights as citizens rather than political rights themselves because the latter was considered as privileges for those who governed. Defining civil rights this way, Masur focuses on the Northwest, particularly Ohio, because it was where slavery was forbidden while anti-black laws also existed very firmly. In the South, it was emancipation that mattered the most for African Americans, but in the North, it was equality as a citizen that they demanded.
Masur also explores the origins of anti-black, exclusionary laws. In colonial America, the mobile poor was deemed as threat to a community, for which dealing with them was the matter of policing. Then, the anti-poor tradition was intertwined with racism, labeling black people as essentially poor and thus threatening communally. Since African Americans were considered as a community problem, claims to universal individual rights could coexist with the anti-black discrimination for whites, while the free black people appealed to the universality of the discourses on individual rights to counter against the communal justification for racism.
Finally, Masur emphasizes that the First Civil Rights Struggle was never led only by African Americans, but that white people also contributed to it very much. Abolitionists played a great role in fighting against discriminatory laws while white politicians did away with such regulations both in state and federal levels, finally leading to the Amendment 13 and 14. The movement was neither black-centric nor white-centric but collaborative even though aims, motivations, passions, and resources were different among the participants.
Thoughts
I was surprised at the lack of reference to Hall’s Long Civil Rights Movement in this book. The “first” civil rights movement implies there is the second, or the classic civil rights movement beginning from the mid-1950s. However, Masur concentrates on the antebellum civil rights movement, discussing almost nothing about its connections to the 20th century, though those to the late 19th century are briefly but not insufficiently discussed. This could mean that Masur refrains from joining the 20th century controversy over the continuity of the African American freedom struggle.
Emphasis on multi-racial aspects of the First Civil Rights Movement is also prominent. Taking into account it was the early 19th century that the book dealt with, it is very easy to claim that “all the whites were racists after all.” This often leads to a kind of pessimistic view on the essential inability of whites to be members of the fight for racial justice, which Masur seems to reject. While the opposition is not clearly declared, it cannot be ignored.
To be a legal history also matters for this study. Though a reviewer criticized Masur for not exploring personal experience of African Americans participants in the struggle, implying insufficient degree of social history in this book, Masur apparently focuses on the importance of the law for African American activists throughout the centuries. In fact, Masur’s past studies include how and why communal exclusion as a means of policing was very common in the age of revolution, which necessitate attention to legal thoughts on the American ideal. While this research may not be a legal history as social history, I wonder if a social history that delves into personal experience in detail is always necessary for studies such as Masur’s. In my opinion, social movement is also struggle of discourses, for which legal aspects can never be underestimated in studying it.
July 10, 2023
Covering the 1780s through the Civil War, this book looks at the ways that state governments tried to limit the rights of free Black Americans and how activists tried to stop them. This was a difficult battle due to a strong belief in states' rights, shared by people in the North and the South. There were two main legal arguments. First, activists pointed out that the Constitution did not mention race and free blacks were allowed to vote up until the 1830s, so black citizenship was not inconsistent with the views of the founders. Second, activists leaned hard on the "privileges and immunities" clause of Article IV of the Constitution, which required rights granted in one state to also be recognized in another. For example, if a state government recognizes a resident as a citizen of that state, other states are required to recognize that relationship.
I learned a few interesting things:
- State citizenship was a unique thing, separate from US citizenship. States could refuse to grant citizenship to people who they thought would be a drain on state resources, due to poverty or criminality.
- To try to keep black people from moving in, states in the Great Lakes area and the Midwest passed laws requiring registration fees or affidavits from white landowners who would vouch for them. Or they would ban black residency entirely. These laws were fought by abolitionists.
- I had heard of southern states arresting black sailors as runaways, but had not been aware of what a big deal this was. Activists pushed for northern states to protest their citizens being held without legal rights. Fighting this was difficult because southern states wouldn't even allow northern agents into the jail to see if their citizens were there, or allow the black sailors to communicate with anyone.
- Likewise, the right to petition used to be a much bigger deal than it is now. Only certain people could vote, but anyone could petition. Petitions were required to be read out in Congress, debated in committee, and reported on. Even if the report didn't require any kind of action, this still was documented in newspapers and resulted in greater publicity.
- Another key right - to testify. I had previously thought of this as only the witness stand kind of testimony. But when states refused to recognize the right of Black people to testify, it also meant that they couldn't be the plaintiff or defendant in a court of law. A white person could refuse to adhere to an employment contract with a black person, and the black person couldn't file charges against them. A white person could accuse a black person of theft or disrespecting land boundaries, and the black person couldn't defend themselves. Banning Black Americans from testifying was very common in northern states before the Civil War.
Normally I find constitutional law to be extremely boring. The author did an excellent job of demonstrating how important these legal battles were.
I learned a few interesting things:
- State citizenship was a unique thing, separate from US citizenship. States could refuse to grant citizenship to people who they thought would be a drain on state resources, due to poverty or criminality.
- To try to keep black people from moving in, states in the Great Lakes area and the Midwest passed laws requiring registration fees or affidavits from white landowners who would vouch for them. Or they would ban black residency entirely. These laws were fought by abolitionists.
- I had heard of southern states arresting black sailors as runaways, but had not been aware of what a big deal this was. Activists pushed for northern states to protest their citizens being held without legal rights. Fighting this was difficult because southern states wouldn't even allow northern agents into the jail to see if their citizens were there, or allow the black sailors to communicate with anyone.
- Likewise, the right to petition used to be a much bigger deal than it is now. Only certain people could vote, but anyone could petition. Petitions were required to be read out in Congress, debated in committee, and reported on. Even if the report didn't require any kind of action, this still was documented in newspapers and resulted in greater publicity.
- Another key right - to testify. I had previously thought of this as only the witness stand kind of testimony. But when states refused to recognize the right of Black people to testify, it also meant that they couldn't be the plaintiff or defendant in a court of law. A white person could refuse to adhere to an employment contract with a black person, and the black person couldn't file charges against them. A white person could accuse a black person of theft or disrespecting land boundaries, and the black person couldn't defend themselves. Banning Black Americans from testifying was very common in northern states before the Civil War.
Normally I find constitutional law to be extremely boring. The author did an excellent job of demonstrating how important these legal battles were.
May 8, 2022
Kate Masur has written a book for our time. That is, many of the arguments nowadays about the origins and character of the American nation would not be made if people understood the primacy of politics and the importance of political history.
The best history explains how and why things happened, not merely whether our predecessors were moral, immoral, racist, or anti-racist. In "Until Justice Be Done," Masur rejects what historian James Oakes calls "racial consensus" history and instead explains how Black activists and their white allies, from cautious conservatives to radical reformers, pushed at the state and federal levels to end all forms of legal racial discrimination.
In this story progress is slow and uneven, but progress there is. Did you know that in 1849 the Ohio state legislature, despite the fact that many, if not most, of its members were whom we today would consider white supremacists, repealed the state's Black codes? How did this happen? Who made this happen? The who: the free Black activists who resided in Ohio, who were deeply involved in partisan politics, as the third-party antislavery movement gained traction.
The how: politics. Deal making, compromising, and the power of public opinion.
The strongest part of Masur's work is to explain the varying definitions of citizenship that plagued antebellum life. As we all know, our Constitution failed to clarify what it meant to be a citizen -- or what privileges and immunities were granted by citizenship. Each state had its own definition of state citizenship, and it was unclear if or how Congress could enforce such rights. Thus, free Black people could be citizens in Massachusetts but find themselves locked up without due process the moment they stepped into, say, Louisiana.
It took the Civil War and then the Reconstruction-era amendments, after decade of successful state-level civil rights activism, to abolish slavery forever and overthrow the regime of racist laws that had rendered Black people subjects to the whims of abusive white majorities and to establish universal claims to citizenship and equal rights for Blacks.
But, we know, that progress was quickly followed by regress and renewed oppression, especially in the South. It would take another century to fulfill the promise of equality made possible by the work of America's first civil rights movement. And to this day that work to realize the universalist principles of the Declaration of Independence continues.
Our failures to fully erase the most terrible aspects of our past, however, should not diminish the achievements of our first civil rights crusaders. What they did was truly remarkable in the face of implacable racism and terrorist violence.
The best history explains how and why things happened, not merely whether our predecessors were moral, immoral, racist, or anti-racist. In "Until Justice Be Done," Masur rejects what historian James Oakes calls "racial consensus" history and instead explains how Black activists and their white allies, from cautious conservatives to radical reformers, pushed at the state and federal levels to end all forms of legal racial discrimination.
In this story progress is slow and uneven, but progress there is. Did you know that in 1849 the Ohio state legislature, despite the fact that many, if not most, of its members were whom we today would consider white supremacists, repealed the state's Black codes? How did this happen? Who made this happen? The who: the free Black activists who resided in Ohio, who were deeply involved in partisan politics, as the third-party antislavery movement gained traction.
The how: politics. Deal making, compromising, and the power of public opinion.
The strongest part of Masur's work is to explain the varying definitions of citizenship that plagued antebellum life. As we all know, our Constitution failed to clarify what it meant to be a citizen -- or what privileges and immunities were granted by citizenship. Each state had its own definition of state citizenship, and it was unclear if or how Congress could enforce such rights. Thus, free Black people could be citizens in Massachusetts but find themselves locked up without due process the moment they stepped into, say, Louisiana.
It took the Civil War and then the Reconstruction-era amendments, after decade of successful state-level civil rights activism, to abolish slavery forever and overthrow the regime of racist laws that had rendered Black people subjects to the whims of abusive white majorities and to establish universal claims to citizenship and equal rights for Blacks.
But, we know, that progress was quickly followed by regress and renewed oppression, especially in the South. It would take another century to fulfill the promise of equality made possible by the work of America's first civil rights movement. And to this day that work to realize the universalist principles of the Declaration of Independence continues.
Our failures to fully erase the most terrible aspects of our past, however, should not diminish the achievements of our first civil rights crusaders. What they did was truly remarkable in the face of implacable racism and terrorist violence.
October 21, 2025
This is a well-written engaging book about the fight over the ideas of "citizenship"and civil rights for free African-Americans during the early part of American history. The author clearly researched the topic very thoroughly, and the result is a study that sheds a great deal of light on the fight for civil rights in the United States at a time when the institution of slavery was accepted by most Americans. One great thing about the book is that it brings to the forefront the story of many individuals whose contributions to this movement have largely been forgotten in the nation's "popular memory." The focus, before the 1850's, was primarily on the states of the Old Northwest, which, while banning slavey, continuously looked for ways to restrain the free blacks within their states and even to discourage or prevent their migration to these states. A couple of things stood out to me while reading the book. For one, it reinforced the fact that anti-black racism was pervasive throughout the nation, as the black laws of the midwest stayed on the books until the Civil War began, and in some places until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The second thing that jumped out for me was how in many places in antebellum America, most notably Washington, D.C., an African-American's mere physical appearance was enough to get them incarcerated as suspected runaway slave, unless they had their "papers." From my observation, if often appears that the 2025 manifestation of ICE is taking the same approach with Hispanics in many American cities. Is this really the look we are striving for? While I don't like to fault books for what they do not contain (who am I to say what should be in someone else's book?), I was surprised not to see at least a mention of the Amistad case, as its legal intricacies seemed to fit into the themes of the book. And while there were a few mentions of the fights in various places both before and after the Civil War to integrate northern schools, there was no mention of Frederick Douglass's successful campaign in 1857 to integrate Rochester's schools. In sum, while the subject of the book is rather narrowly focused, it addresses issues and controversies that are still at the center of our national life.
October 10, 2021
This is not bad work at all, very comprehensive and detailed. It concentrates on how this nation was built and the fundamentals it was built on; Most of the American ideals are based on those from the American Revolution, and a haphazard attempt at reconstruction after the Civil War. I think the author reflected best in the epilogue in reference to The Plessy V Ferguson case. A railroad case that "Combined traditions of State Police Powers, with the idea that policies that required racial separation did not necessarily violate the Amendments promise of equal protection."
So... what does it mean? It means that law - under my summation, looking through a critical lens - is thoroughly and wholly dependent upon who is administering it, and who it is being imposed upon. Therefore, as concluded:
"Despite the efforts of lawyers Robert Morris and Charles Sumner, in 1849, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had made an important contribution to the doctrine of separate but equal in the case of Roberts Vs. City of Boston when it held that the Boston school board was entitled to offer racially segregated schools if it believed the policy was reasonable and served the good of all. Drawing heavily on that case in Plessy Vs. Ferguson, the US Supreme Court noted that the laws requiring racial separation were generally if not universally understood, as appropriate exercise of state's police power; "any exercise of the police power must be reasonable," the court acknowledged, "and enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good and NOT for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class."
Working from that standard, the court found that a Louisiana law that required racial segregation on railroads was indeed a "reasonable regulation" consistent with established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and "with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order." Deference to the police powers of the States was an American tradition, and THAT was precisely the problem."
So... what does it mean? It means that law - under my summation, looking through a critical lens - is thoroughly and wholly dependent upon who is administering it, and who it is being imposed upon. Therefore, as concluded:
"Despite the efforts of lawyers Robert Morris and Charles Sumner, in 1849, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had made an important contribution to the doctrine of separate but equal in the case of Roberts Vs. City of Boston when it held that the Boston school board was entitled to offer racially segregated schools if it believed the policy was reasonable and served the good of all. Drawing heavily on that case in Plessy Vs. Ferguson, the US Supreme Court noted that the laws requiring racial separation were generally if not universally understood, as appropriate exercise of state's police power; "any exercise of the police power must be reasonable," the court acknowledged, "and enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good and NOT for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class."
Working from that standard, the court found that a Louisiana law that required racial segregation on railroads was indeed a "reasonable regulation" consistent with established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and "with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order." Deference to the police powers of the States was an American tradition, and THAT was precisely the problem."
November 9, 2022
A lot of focus in the period prior to the start of the American Civil War is focused on the abolition movement, but there was also an important civil rights movement that was ongoing, sometimes in conjunction and sometimes in addition to the abolition movement.
Masur looks at several different tracks of this Ante Bellum Civil Rights movement. While slavery was famously banned by the Northwest Ordinances, people of color found a number of state laws that limited their ability to pursue lawsuits, offer testimony, forced them to post bonds to live in state, or in some instances even banned them from living in some states. A second thread is the challenge black sailors faced when entering Southern ports - they were often detained in jail, and if not released were sometimes sold into slavery. Masur also looks at civil rights efforts in DC, and civil rights efforts during and after the Civil War.
In the process, Masur explores and explains how states and the federal government wrestled with concepts such as citizenship, the use of the rights and privileges clause, the debate around the 14th Amendment, and others.
It is a well written book that does an excellent job guiding us through these concepts and cases - it is no accident it was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History in 2022.
Masur looks at several different tracks of this Ante Bellum Civil Rights movement. While slavery was famously banned by the Northwest Ordinances, people of color found a number of state laws that limited their ability to pursue lawsuits, offer testimony, forced them to post bonds to live in state, or in some instances even banned them from living in some states. A second thread is the challenge black sailors faced when entering Southern ports - they were often detained in jail, and if not released were sometimes sold into slavery. Masur also looks at civil rights efforts in DC, and civil rights efforts during and after the Civil War.
In the process, Masur explores and explains how states and the federal government wrestled with concepts such as citizenship, the use of the rights and privileges clause, the debate around the 14th Amendment, and others.
It is a well written book that does an excellent job guiding us through these concepts and cases - it is no accident it was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History in 2022.
June 9, 2024
As somebody born in 1954, when somebody refers to the Civil Rights Movement, I think of what has transpired during my lifetime - particularly the 1960s. That was not the first Civil Rights Movement. The first one started with the formation of the nation and lasted through Reconstruction. The first battles for civil rights were culminated with a Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Of course, battle did not end then, nor is the battle over.
The terms of the first Civil Rights Movement included the obvious battle over slavery that culminated in the Civil War. Masur explains how the legal battles over slavery focused heavily on the power of states to determine who was a civilian and whether the Federal government had any power at all to enforce individual rights and freedoms, including the right of free blacks to travel between states, be protected from arbitrary arrest and enslavement, sue, or own property. The concept of a civil right was not defined in law for almost 100 years.
For readers unfamiliar with the names of people who led the first civil rights movement, this book is an education. It credits many important leaders who deserve recognition for the long and difficult effort to obtain civil rights.
The books can be a bit of a slow read and there are times when it felt repetitive. Nevertheless, it is an important work and well worth the read.
The terms of the first Civil Rights Movement included the obvious battle over slavery that culminated in the Civil War. Masur explains how the legal battles over slavery focused heavily on the power of states to determine who was a civilian and whether the Federal government had any power at all to enforce individual rights and freedoms, including the right of free blacks to travel between states, be protected from arbitrary arrest and enslavement, sue, or own property. The concept of a civil right was not defined in law for almost 100 years.
For readers unfamiliar with the names of people who led the first civil rights movement, this book is an education. It credits many important leaders who deserve recognition for the long and difficult effort to obtain civil rights.
The books can be a bit of a slow read and there are times when it felt repetitive. Nevertheless, it is an important work and well worth the read.
December 13, 2023
Pretty embarrassing to have majored in political science/African-American studies and been wholly uneducated on the period of time this book covers. We as Americans are taught effectively nothing about the substantial political will that existed prior to the Emancipation Proclamation whose energy was focused on the repealing of slavery, anti-Black laws, and racism writ large. A deeply informative book that, at times, did admittedly feel a bit like homework. The author's diligence in research could at times lead to some difficulties when it came to readability.
Anyways. This book serves as a good reminder that we are often far too easy and forgiving on people from our past that may have held awful views, blaming them on the times and suggesting that all of their contemporaries were the same. This book does a great job dispelling that myth, informing us in (extreme) detail just how widespread anti-Slavery/pro-equality efforts were for decades prior to the Civil War. Instead of expending energy making excuses for shitty people just because of their larger legacies, let's spend more time shining the light on their contemporaries that had the moral purity to know what was right.
Anyways. This book serves as a good reminder that we are often far too easy and forgiving on people from our past that may have held awful views, blaming them on the times and suggesting that all of their contemporaries were the same. This book does a great job dispelling that myth, informing us in (extreme) detail just how widespread anti-Slavery/pro-equality efforts were for decades prior to the Civil War. Instead of expending energy making excuses for shitty people just because of their larger legacies, let's spend more time shining the light on their contemporaries that had the moral purity to know what was right.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews