1/15 You'll hear a lot of talk today about how what happened yesterday is extraordinary and antithetical to our history. It's important to reject that idea, not out of cynicism or pessimism but because that pretense of innocence is dangerous. Let's talk about U.S. Cruikshank.

2/15 Cruikshank is a case virtually every single con law casebook discusses though most con law professors don't necessarily spend a great deal of time talking about but it's instructive about how we frame yesterday's events.
3/15 In Cruikshank, decided in 1875, SCOTUS considered whether, under the Enforcement Act of 1870, the federal government had the power to prosecute members of a white mob that killed between 80 to 150 Black people. The case was essentially about a mass lynching.
4/x The Court concluded Congress lacked the power to authorize such prosecutions because the massacre involved criminal matters constitutionally left to the states. In short, the court said the massacre was a series of murders and it was up to the states to prosecute such crimes
5/15 The thing is if you read the opinion, you'll get a vague sense that a mob was charged with violence but you'll never get that it was about the 1873 Colfax Massacre - the single deadliest instance of violence during Reconstruction and one that occurred because of an election
6/15 In Louisiana’s 1872 gubernatorial election, two candidates declared victory: William Pitt Kellogg, a Republican and supporter of Reconstruction and John McEnery, a Democrat and former Confederate commander.
7/15 While the disputed election made its way through the federal courts, each camp attempted to appoint local officials. In the parish that included Colfax, Louisiana, both sides made judicial appointments.
8/15 Colfax was a closely divided electorate: Its 4,600 voters in the 1872 election were split between approximately 2,400 hundred mostly black Republican voters and 2,200 white Democratic voters. Freedmen gathered in the parish courthouse to to protect the Republican appointees
9/15 In what came to be known as the Colfax Massacre, three hundred white men, most mounted on horseback and armed with rifles, set fire to the courthouse, and killed more more than a hundred freedmen as they tried to surrender.
10/15 After the state failed to prosecute the murderers, the US indicted several several of them under the Force Act charging that they had conspired to deprive the murdered freedmen of their civil rights.
11/15 The case made its way to SCOTUS as U.S. v. Cruickshank, in which the court held that Congress exceeded its powers when it authorized federal enforcement of what the Court regarded as state-granted rights. It therefore dismissed all of the federal changes.
12/15 Cruikshank can be read to stand for many things, including, that it was the beginning of the end of Reconstruction and that it absolved the federal government of any responsibility of protecting Black people from domestic terrorism.
13/15 But above all, Cruikshank belies the idea that our transition of power has always been a peaceful one. During Reconstruction, all over the South, violence was used over and over again to prevent the peaceful transition of power to multi-racial coalition governments.
14/15 I get that it makes sense from some political leaders to tell the ideal story of peaceful transition of power: stories, even when not altogether true, can serve a valuable purpose in holding people together. But, it's important not to confuse the story for innocence.
15/15 There's a history in the US of using violence to keep power. A significant portion of that history occurred all over the country between 1867 & 1877 and involved resistance to multi-racial government. Viewed through that lens, perhaps, just perhaps, yesterday was not unique
PS. One last point: in case anyone is tempted to think that 1875 is ancient history, look up the history of the US House of Representatives. Count how many Black members there were in 1877; then jump ahead and count how many members there were in, say, 1957.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like

First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic


Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits

Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their


Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time

Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods