Customer Reviews

The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This novel is important reading--not as a lesson in historical fact, but rather to understand and envision the power (and inherent violence) of a white supremacist worldview in American history. Dixon is careful to detail many facts about historical figures, particularly President Lincoln and Republican Congressman Thad Stevens, including many actual quotes and near-quotes of these men in their dialogue; he is meticulous and masterful with so many aspects of this novel. The Clansman (and Dixon's later novel, The Traitor) are virtually the only works of popular American literature to render a sympathetic, insider view of the Ku Klux Klan. Dixon includes so many rich and rare details of history that it's no wonder readers have been persuaded (and still are, apparently) that this is a complete and accurate picture of what is perhaps the single most tumultuous period of American history.

But it would be a gross error to assume that Dixon's portrayal of race relations is at all accurate. Dixon makes it appear that southern whites were made vulnerable (by the federal government, by military rule, and by the ravages of war) to the attacks of an animalistic race of out-of-control freedmen, but nothing can be further than the truth. White southerners inflicted violence upon blacks to maintain their brutal control over social relations and labor--and then generated a powerful, lasting mythology of black criminality and brutality to perpetuate this violence and justify it.

Any reading of first-hand accounts of black freedmen during Reconstruction is alternately chilling and saddening--particularly the Congressional testimonies of freedmen about the race riots of Memphis and New Orleans in 1866. Throughout the South freedmen were coerced into slavery-like labor; they were prevented from migrating elsewhere by vigilante groups (in many cases, the KKK); often the Freedmen's Bureau and military officials sided with the unjust practices of white planters; and Republicans in Congress seemed to manipulate freedmen's vote only to benefit themselves and turn a blind eye to the interests of freedmen. White men and women in the South had it hard after the Civil War--but black men and women, by and large, had it far harder.

Any scholarly history of Reconstruction written after 1950 (after Americans got over a long period of racist and xenophobic hysteria) will elaborate on the above details... particularly the work of Eric Foner, or the excellent account of The Trouble They Seen. Pick up one of these books as a reading companion to The Clansman!

Dixon may not accurately represent the FACTS of history, but he does accurately represent the EMOTIONS of history--the many emotions of southern whites about a newly freed population of black men and women, particularly their fears and their psychological/sociological need to keep ex-slaves in a subordinate social position--to separate black and white in a society that coexisted a little too close for comfort.

It's a fascinating book. I recommend it to every American who seeks to make sense of our complex, tragic, and gradually evolving history of race relations.

As a novel, The Clansman has many faults, but as a popular exposition of the Dunning interpretation of Reconstruction (pro-Southern, anti-radical republican), it is excellent. First published in 1905 (my copy has pictures from 'The Birth of a Nation' so it's post-1915), it was written by the descendent of a Klansman in the glow of the reconciliation of North and South that was finally symbolically completed in the Spanish-American War - when two former Confederate generals (Joe Wheeler and Fitzhugh Lee) returned to the National colors to serve against the Spanish.

The novel's historical significance is enhanced beause it was the basis for D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, one of the dozen or so greatest American films.

Thomas Dixon, Jr.'s "The Clansman" is best known as the prime source for D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation." A bestseller in its own right, "The Clansman" presents a vision of a South overrun with lascivious black men out to rape white women unless the KKK can intercede. As a novel it is maudlin, melodramatic, and unconvincing; as a history textbook, it is damnable.

Some reviewers for the hardcover edition of this book would have you believe that, because Woodrow Wilson approved of both Dixon's novel and Griffith's film, his affirmation validates Dixon's depiction of the poor maligned white man and his sexually threatened wife and daughter. Hardly the case--in spite of history textbooks' portrayal of Wilson, he was himself a virulent racist, outmatched only, perhaps, by his wife. As James W. Loewen indicates in his review of history textbooks, "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the "filmmaker David W. Griffith quoted Wilson's two-volume history of the United States, now notorious for its racist view of Reconstruction, in his infamous masterpiece 'The Clansman' [later retitled Birth of a Nation], a paean to the Ku Klux Klan for its role in putting down 'black-dominated' Republican state governments during Reconstruction" (18). Loewen notes later that "Wilson was not only antiblack; he was also far and away our most nativist president, repeatedly questioning the loyalty of those he called 'hyphenated Americans.' 'Any man who carries a hyphen about with him,' said Wilson, 'carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready' " (19).

If you read "The Clansman," read it because it was a bestseller, was recommended by an American President, and spawned a movie which at the time was a landmark in cinematic technical achievement--facts which should shock you. It may be racist tripe, but its historical significance remains relevant--as does the continued dangerous potential for people to buy into versions of reality that bear little congruence with truth. If we've learned anything over the past few years, just because a President of the United States says something doesn't make it true, nor does it excuse you from the need to think critically for yourself.

Dixon was no historian, either in the traditional or the modern sense.

History is dull, complicated, and nuanced and does not lend itself to narrative. Humans are natural story tellers and so we want history that fits that form of thinking. Which is why so many popular histories are so terrible; historians cannot know what was going on in the minds of historical figures anymore than we can know what is going on in the minds of neighbors. We might think we know, but we don't. Nonetheless, this innate need to impose a narrative upon history, with well defined characters (including villains and heroes), and a recognizable story arc that fits with our preconceived notions. Moreover, we love anecdotes and we naturally tend to generalize about whole populations based on isolated stories.

What I call 'actual history' requires data, large amounts of primary source mining, rigorous analytical thought, and above all else, emotional detachment with no political agenda. This kind of history is never popular, because it isn't fun or exciting or simple. Hence it does not capture the popular imagination, nor does it influence the thinking of large numbers of people.

So if a person wants to manipulate the masses (and earn some serious cash in the processes), writing History is not the way to go. Rather, a budding manipulator should write a novel and get a movie of it made, which is what Dixon did.

'The Clansman' was written as a response to what Dixon saw as the demonetization of white southerners in the popular consciousness. It was a deliberate act of propaganda which was created to counter other propaganda, and it has to be read as such. Believing this book to be capital-H History, is just wrong. It should be placed alongside any other agenda driven popular work.

Dixon's agenda is pretty obvious: racial superiority, racial purity, and the veneration of the south despite the venality of the North and criminality of the southern blacks. And gaging by the increase in Klan membership after this book and the film adaptation were released, it was very successful propaganda.

So if you're going to pick this up in hopes getting some capital-H History, you will be disappointed. Dixon should be put alongside other propagandists such as Joseph Goebbels, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone in PR. This book is suitable only for those looking for examples of propaganda from the past.

As noted, this book was the basis for D.W Griffith's controversial "Birth Of A Nation". I found the book useful as an historical reference only. Dixon's writing is at its best when he discuss the political currents and controversy of the Reconstruction period from a "Southern" viewpoint and some of his criticisms are worth reading.

As fictional writing it is maudlin, predictable and strewn with racism. His characters appear as cardboard cutouts, all good or all bad, depending on the function he uses them for. The only character with any depth is the Radical Republican Speaker of the House, Stoneman.

Granting the maudlin style was popular at the time, it still becomes tiring and/or alternately amusing to read phrases such as "the epitome of the Southern woman, rendolent with grace and the suppleness of beauty", contrasted with "jungle brutality shone from his eyes, set in an apelike frame"etc.,etc....

As a typical example of the plot, the bad black rapist who leads two "pure" Southern women to suicide from the shame, is discovered and convicted by the heroes of the Klan, based on a doctor's testimony that he saw the image of the "brute" burned in the retina of the dying mother. That's a far fetch even for 1904, and typical of the mechanics of Dixon's plot development.

He shows no compassion whatsoever for any of his black characters, even the one faithful one, who the plot leaves dangling in a prison. Another black is cheated of his money and is made an object of mockery for being so duped.

Lincoln becomes, by some curious inversion of Dixon's mind, a hero who would have prevented all the evils of the Reconstruction period, including black sufferage. He is graciously forgiven for the carnage of the war, leaving one grasping for Dixon's rationale for it all.

It is in this political commentary that the modern reader will find of most interest, particulary the events of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

I had considered reading some of Dixon's works, but it is clear they will all be of equal or less value that this one, which is to say very little. Some of the work is available on line, search on the author's name, and then buy a copy of DuBois "Black Reconstruction In America" instead.

Dispite my negative feelings about this book, I do feel it should be freely available to those interested, as it does retain a kernel of historical interest. If not for that, it would rate only as an example of hack literature.

I picked this book up out of curiosity. Although it has a slow start it soon has you hooked. I appreciated the author's use of historical fact to provide the backdrop for the story. Having watched numerous documentries on the whole reconstruction era as well as reading about it, I don't think the author took many liberties with documented facts. Having read all the other reviews, I am amused by the righteous indignation displayed by those who have had their warped view of history challenged.

This book was written 40 years after the war and even less time had passed since the end of reconstruction, so the accounts of this period were still fresh in peoples minds who had lived through this era, and I seriously doubt that it would have become as popular as it did had it been lies. The southerners were and still are a proud bunch and they would not have endorsed a fantasy as fact.

I have far more faith in the record of events as told in the novel than I do in revisionist ramblings of modern liberal historians who are bent on recreating history, 150 years removed from the events. The comments I have read prove how the modern American mind has been brainwashed into believing the dilusional revision of American history. Anyone who has any doubt about the behavior of the "freedmen" in this book need only look at Africa in 2007, and they will realise that if anything the author downplayed their behavior and actions.

The biggest problem that most of the reviewers have with this book, is that it wasn't written in a world ruled by the PC police, and it gets under their skin that there is nothing they can do about it.

The book is definately an uncommon one, namely one that lionizes the post-Civil War KKK. As a novel, it is a fair adventure yarn and only dips into childishness when it deals with romance. As history, it is very controversial. Some things in the book are obviously made up but others cannot be so neatly dismissed. Anyone who would do this out of hand and condemn everything in the book as a lie should remember the comments made by President Woodrow Wilson after screening, The Birth of a Nation, the 1915 movie based on The Clansman: "It is like writing history with lightning. I regret that it was all too true."

This novel was the inspiration for D.W. Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation. I got insights into American history which never could have been had by any standard high school textbook. Today, it would probably be rated as the epitome of a politically incorrect story. In a society where all views are supposed to get a fair hearing, this novel tests the principle

I do not agree with Mr. Dixons glorification of Lincoln, thus I found the first several sections of the book difficult to stomach. However, once the book reached the Reconstruction of South I gave it my undivided attention. You'll find no P.C. revisionism here. Mr. Dixons novel reads more like fact than fiction, yet no one these days has the courage to tell the truth for fear of being called a racist. President Woodrow Wilson said of the book (and the film "Birth of a Nation") that it was "All Too True" and he should know as he lived in the South during Reconstruction. As an A.P. History teacher I only wish I could get away with having my students read this book.

Read this book! It is not as fictional as most people think