well during the rican struction period following the civil war, congress investigated a sharp rise in violence against freed black slaves and their supporters. it was violence committed by a

new organization called the ku klux klan. in 1871, hearings were held in congress, heard gripping testimony from victims about what they had suffered. these congressional hearings helped lead to new laws and the creation of a new department of justice. they had a major impact on our country for decades. well, as part of our series congress investigates, we hear the story from professor sean lee alexander of the university of kansas. he's the author of the book reconstruction violence and the ku klux klan hearings. professor alexander, following the civil war, were freed. black slaves starting to make progress and changes in their lives. absolutely. in the immediate years of the emancipation, african-americans organized in tremendous ways and and began to build build wealth,

own property. they began to set up schools and go to schools and began to exercise the franchise wherever they could before the 14th and 15th amendments were passed. and that progress in many ways challenged white perception of african-americans that they held in bondage and considered inferior to themselves. what size population are we talking about? freed black slaves at this point. you're looking at about a over 4 million individuals in the south at the time. now we're attitudes changing among white americans in the north, in the south, or was and was there a difference in how white americans in the north, in the south were viewing freed black slaves? did you time determine it? it is determined by time and space. like many things. right. so there is percept tions of

african-americans that are positive in the north and individuals in the north who see that. but there's also discrimination and violence and and racism in the north and in the south. there is certain violence, intimidation, racism, discrimination in the south. there are members of the north that are coming down, people from the north or coming down to aid the african-american population. but there are people that consider it something that they do not want or see it as competition in wages in others. so it is mixed in many ways. but the bottom line is that the african-american population is is progressing and the white population is beginning to question as a nation, what is going on and what is not. but there is a small percentage that are going to continue to try to aid the black population as much as possible. professor alexander, was racial violence increasing in the south at this point? racial violence was absolutely increasing in the south at this point. racial violence is used to

define what is freedom and what is not. the idea of emancipation brings in this new idea of freedom within within the nation and the that freedom. what that freedom means is going to be defined by individuals again over time and space, but in particular by different groups of people. and the african-american population is going to see freedom as being autonomy, i.e., the ability to move and and go around where they want to possibly own their own land, certainly to gain in education, to to be able to live in their own neighborhoods, to if they don't own their own land, to get a fair wage. and ultimately, this will the highest level of that will be the franchised the vote and be able to exercise the vote is considered freedom. and then you've got the white community, white supremacists

notion, white nationalists, promotion of an ideology that is simply saying it's to make it very simple. it's almost everything against that. they're going to challenge african-americans in owning land and say that that's not what it is. we're going to give the land back to the southern landholders and you're going to be able to rent out land or or farmland with them and you're not going to be able to vote your voice doesn't count. you don't have the right to go to school. and if you have the right to go to school will be a very limited time. and so you have the tension of these things going on and the way that these things are going to be imposed most, more often than not is the use of violence. professor 1871, six years after the end of the civil war, how did this issue of racial violence get congress's attention? it got its attention mainly because it is so perverse and it's widespread.

acts of violence happening throughout the sth. the murder of individuals that is taking place. black and white individuals, black individuals that are trying to exercise their right to own land in particular try to exercise their right to vote, is being challenged. and whites that support them, republicans in the area that support them are also being challenged. and and being murdered for their actions, being threatened by their actions. you have the rise of the ku klux klan beginning in the in the 1860s in tennessee and spreading throughout the south. and that vigilante group is going to spread that violence. other groups are going to rise in its wake and collaborate with them and institute that violence. and it's becoming something that the congress in the us cannot deny. people are writing to congress, calling on congress. blacks and whites, pleading for help around that.

the violence that's taking place. and so in particular over the franchise and the vote is where congress sees that they can intercede and so congress is going to pass a series of enforcement acts. the third being the ku klux klan act all around this idea of, you know, trying to find some way to federalize, if you will, these violations on southern's civil rights and political rights, in particular, black southerners, civil and political rights. and one way that they're going to do that is they're going to form the department of justice, which the department of justice initial one of their initial ideas is to actually investigate this this violence in this klan activity is to investigate terrorist organizations and congress very quickly realizes that they cannot ignore the

reports that the department of justice is coming up with. and so they decide that they're going to create a commission to organize and investigate what's happening in the south. and that commission will become known as the. they're going to the commission will come known as the ku klux klan commission in a short title. and what they are going to do is is have these hearings to investigate for themselves what the department of justice is giving them. well, before we go any further, let's get some background on the formation of the ku klux klan and some of the personal stories that led to these congressional hearings. the ku klux klan emerged at the moment that the formal institution of slavery was receding. klan violence. was one of several all new methods that white people developed to push back on black

claims to a larger share of political power, property jobs, rights and dignity and it's important to appreciate that there's a whole land scape of ways in which white southerners after the war are figuring out how to restore their mechanisms of control right. and the klan is going to be one of them. there's going to be a particularly effective one. but certainly it exists among a vast array of, you know, private violence, state violence, as you know, and different kinds of mechanisms of control to understand the klan. it's important to understand that the whites oppression of black rights was not inevitable. and to kind of visualize the possibility that this might not have happened or might not have happened to the extent that it did, was surprising.

speed competent leaders and organizations emerged among freed people after the war and the that you have this surprising ability of recently enslaved people to start to organize to start to or to to pull on organizations that had existed before the war and start making them relevant to the postwar order. these people were supported by a racist, certainly racist, but generally sympathetic. northern public in the south that was still under military occupation. and billy and the people in the north believed themselves obligated to support freed people in making their move to freedom. so i'm just have a couple of images here. so that we can have have this visualize ation of what this ultimately thwarted, you know, black in power. it started to look like during

the reconstruction era. my first image is actually from the 1880s because i wasn't able to get a picture from earlier, but i believe it would look extremely similar to this is the capital city guards in montgomery, alabama, in the 1880s. but you have the organization of black militias, both formally like this group and informally and local. locally, you have black armed groups or black groups who are marching, doing military drills, sometimes without arms, you know, in many different communities, they are claiming public power and public authority. they're doing so visibly and in a way that is disconcerting to, you know, to to some white people just another image here. okay. a lot of you guys have probably seen this appears in many, many histories.

right. but this is an image of the first black congressman who were elected to congress in the first two elections that african-americans were allowed to vote in. and so you have a black a black senator and representatives that came to power immediately after the end of the war. and this is just the tip of the iceberg of black office holding black men successfully won positions locally throughout the south, in some cases serving as certainly trial justices. but in all sorts of roles, even sometimes, including sheriff casey, you actually do have this this true possibility of black empowerment that they could compete for these things that they want for for a share of the public goods. right. like the ku klux klan, violence

was meant to stop this. okay. and on one level, klan attacks were simply an example, a vigilante violence which already existed right in which usually small groups of white men attack two black men and women and their white allies who posed a particular threat to white control. they threatened them. they whipped them. they raped them. they shot and maimed them. right. usually at their homes, usually at night. and sometimes they killed them through shooting them or hanging them. most normally such patterns of violence were not new. they would have been too familiar to people in the south, particularly during the civil war and right after the civil war. there was a lot of guerrilla violence aimed at a whole bunch of different kinds of people, including freed people.

right. but this kind of nighttime attack by armed groups of men was something which was not unfamiliar in the rural southern landscape. by the time the klan emerged so that wasn't particularly what was new. yeah, the klan was not simply an epidemic of white on black collective violence. the klan added a sort of specter killer performance to the violence, which made it more than the sum of its parts. the cost humes ritual special language and mystery that the klan added to the violence made it seem as though their violence had some larger meaning. it made their violence tell a story. this klan violence is what i call the white war on freedom. now, it may seem odd to liken what we've been taught was the peace to war, but wars never end as neatly as we think they do. they're often followed by new

conflicts. and after the civil war, the new conflict was white. southern conservatives fight to undercut black people's freedom and the establishment of a more egalitarian democracy. and so there was no peace. as one historian put it, especially not for black people in the south and african-americans like abe and eliza lion knew it. white extremists targeted black people with regularity and with shocking impunity. they shot down black male voters at the polls. they stalked black officeholders and offered them bribes to leave office. and assassinated them. or tried to assassinate them. when that didn't work. they kidnaped black men and women at gunpoint and disappeared. them disposing of their bodies in waterways and woods or just along the roads. they ambushed african-american families with nighttime raids, which are like domestic home invasions. today. and during these visits, white

men holding black families hostage subjected them to humiliation, torture and murder. and during this period, there were countless massacres and mass killing events. african-americans resisted this violence, to be sure, in ways that made sense to them in the moment. some hid or fled. others bore arms, defending their homes, injuring or killing their attackers. but white extremist violence was so widespread that black southerners often found themselves outmanned and outgunned. thousands of black men, women and children were killed or injured. and that's why the failure narrative of reconstruction is so problematic. reconstruction didn't fail. white southerners violently overthrew it in white northerners, and westerners essentially let them. i saw death coming. tells that story. it follows black southern

families on their journeys out of slavery through their experiences of the war. white southerners wait on their freedom to their testimonies before congress and beyond. it shows how black people understood and articulated the human costs of reconstruction, overthrow and abandonment. and it does that through the stories of families like abe and eliza's on june 6th, 1871, abe spent the day in his blacksmith shop, and eliza finished her homemaking tasks. the children had completed their chores and lessons. what time for play? after they were all in bed at their home at 11 p.m. when someone knocked on the door and asked the babe what home? the family never heard any threats and were not thinking about such a thing. eliza later said. that's why abe answered that he was home and he got up from the bed to open the door. but something perhaps the sound

of the visitors and his awareness of the threat they posed or just the feeling his skin tightening and puckering with goosebumps so terrified abe that he did not move human bodies and minds are wired to sustain themselves, and when under attack, focused solely on surviving and avoiding injury. when the mind detects threats to life like abe experienced, it triggers these preprogramed excuse me. preprogramed escape patterns by secreting stress chemicals to propel the body into action. specifically to survive by running, biting or hiding. but for some people, especially those who those who've experienced a prior trauma, the unthinkable happens. the brain's defense circuitry shuts down and they freeze. that's what we believe happened to abe. he might have felt heavy as

though he were in a nightmare from which he would soon awaken. but this wasn't a dream. and that horrified him. eliza, who remained calm, said abe looked like he was in a perfect square, suggesting he was completely paralyzed by fear. and abe remained in that trancelike state, prompting the lizard to act. hoping to guide her husband to safety and to protect herself and their children. abe grant. excuse me. eliza grabbed abe trying to steer him out the back door of their home. he was so scared, eliza recalled. he wheeled around the room in that square, not knowing what to do. eliza's hoped that her husband would regain control of his senses were soon dashed. the survivors, or excuse me, the invaders burst through the door and threw a rope over his head and dragged him outside and away from their home. eliza yelled to her neighbors or any passers by for help.

but no one came to silence, eliza screams. the attackers drew their guns on her. they told me if i didn't hush hollering, they would blow a hole right through me, she said. eliza knocked away one of the guns with her hand. the men held fire, but eliza said they told her they would finish with me directly. the night riders carried abe away from his home and up a hill nearby. eliza didn't follow, but soon she saw the flash and heard the blast of a double barrel shotgun. then one of the men shouted, in order for the rest of the gang to fire. and they did. after the terrorist killed abe, eliza spotted about 75 men returning to her house. i knew they were going to kill me, she said. eliza ran inside to gather her children to flee, but her son, william, had disappeared, probably to go get help moving

with her two daughters by her side. eliza snuck out back to a field neighboring their home. they stopped at a thicket of woods to monitor the men's activities and take stock. eliza could go no farther without knowing william's whereabouts, but staying put rendered her girls and her vulnerable to discovery. eliza and the girls watched from the woods as the white men made up a light and began ransacking and searching their home. they tore up everything, she said, wearing only their nightclothes. eliza and the girls move farther into the woods as the night riders shot up her home. it sounded like there was over 100 shot that once. eliza said she and the girls remain hidden until sunrise, when she could see that the men had left. that's when she went to confirm abe's killing and then find william. eliza and the children lost abe.

their cash, all their possessions. that year's crop, their hogs, and most of abe's tools. their home had been destroyed. and the men's knowledge that they left an adult witness meant that it probably wasn't safe for the family to continue living on the homestead. eliza reported what happened to local authorities and a grand jury was convened to investigate the spate of attacks and spree killings in the area. but many of the witnesses were too afraid to talk. initially. eliza wasn't afraid. it's not clear who or what spooked her, but suddenly she and the children shot out of choctaw county enroute. she learned that abe's killers were pursuing them, but she and the children managed to pick up the pace and they safely made it to demopolis, where she thought they might be safe. receiving a flood of reports of attacks like the one on abe and eliza's family, the us congress

convened an investigation into the execution of laws and the safety of the lives and the property of the citizens of the united states. the committee's work became known as the clan hearings. professor shawn leigh alexander of the university of kansas. were these hearings controversial? were they? well publicized? they are well publicized. the news coverage of them are is pretty extensive. the reaction to that is is mixed. some. some people are reacting to it in horror. some individuals, north and south are reacting to it and saying that these are these are this is not real. this is a political hit job. this is politically motivated. we don't believe the individuals. and what's being told. part of that also is to the extension of what's going on in the hearings, said individuals

are being, you know, testifying before the committees and they could contradict each other. so what is being covered by the newspapers add to that controversy and misunderstanding of what's really going on. where were they held and who were some of the major organizers? sure. so the the hearings are held in d.c. as well as the vast majority of the south. places like south carolina, mississippi, florida, alabama, they're going to the unty seats of those places, various counties, and holding the hearings. so they're actually going into the south and holding those hearings a little bit different than what we understand for congressional hearings today, though, they do hold hearings in washington, d.c., as well. there are the the chairman of the of the committee is going to be in a pennsylvania senator named john scott.

there's going to be 21 members on the on the committee as a whole of five of them are republican senators. five of them are. two of them are democrat senators. eight are going to be republican members of the house and six are going to be democratic members of the south or of democratic members of the house. out of that number, you've got six of those that are going to be former confederate states and three of them on top of that or forming former slaveholding states. right. so not all states that were slaveholding, of course, became part of the confederacy. so you have nine total members of that atommittee that are from confederate former confederate or former slaveholding states, which is also going to vary on their responses and the way they interact with the testimony. how did it vary the responses?

i mean, it's what you expect that the for the most part, the democratic representatives of congress, senators or members of the house, sit in disbelief and and don't believe and and try to counter the testimony, try to poke holes in the testimony where the republican senators are more sympathetic, at least, and trying to allow in particular allow the african-america community to choose tell their story, which is a remarkable thing. and one of the most remarkable things about these hearings ultimately, not a lot is done out of these hearings, but african-americans were able to tell their story, sit before congress in this moment of emancipation, right shortly after the war and the 13th amendment is passed in the 14th and the 15th amendment or passed to to give rights and give the franchise and uphold numerous things based on citizenship

rights with the 14th amendment and now you have this group of, you know, quote unquote, newly freed individuals sitting before the house, the the house committee saying this is what's happening to me, despite the fact that you have the 13, 14th and 15th amendment. this is what's happening to me and my community. and that is being picked up by the newspapers. and it's a strong, strong sentiment that they feel, i think, very much as much as the nation feels that something is being told and something is being aired. would it be fair to say that this is one of the first modern investigations conducted by congress? i would absolutely say that. and it's it's not only that. i think it's the closest thing we will ever have in this country to a truth and reconciliation committee, something looking at racial injustice in a in a full fledged

way and actually letting people tell their story again, whether or not new things are passed, new laws are passed. a lot of people were, you know, held accountable. i wish that was the case, but that's not the case. but being able to sit before congress and tell their story, this is the first time and probably the only time that we'll ever have that in our country, unfortunately. how long did the hearings go? how many witnesses? they go on for aumber of a number of nths. the exact number of witnesses? i do not know. i will tell you that there are th are 13 volus testimony with over 8000 pages. it is one of the largest collections of testimony until the modern, modern era. some scholars have argued that it's the largest testimony we have until the iran-contra scandal and the hearings around that was there. we reluctance to appear before this committee.

there's a reluctance on both sides. black and white, using the binary. there. i think that we you have reluctance of political officials in the states, white political officials. you have individuals who are saying, you know, that are perpetuating the violence, saying we don't want to testify as well because we have nothing to say. we're not involved in this, etc. lying before they even get there. and then of course, lying before congress oftentimes as well. you have african-american communities being afraid as well. and the white sympathizers with them being afraid about repercussions. but i think the most important thing, i guess i keep saying is the fact that the hearings do take place and thousands of people do go before congress and tell their story. was the issue of reparations ever brought up in these hearings? the issues of reparations directly is not necessarily

brought up in this hearing, but the issue of who owns land and who has the right to own that land is brought up numerous times. professor alexander, you came prepared to read from the congressional record some of the witness statements. tell us what we're about to hear. we're going to hear about here to hear a little bit from hear it several out of south carolina, columbia, south carolina. and she tells the committee the details about being attacked by a group of individuals that come to her residency to attack her, as well as her her husband. and we will jump into her testimony with the question from the individual saying, what did they do? and she says that it was the second time they came. they came back after the first time on sunday night, after my old man again. and the second time the crowd was bigger.

did they call for your old man? yes, sir. they called for him and told him he wasn't. i told them he wasn't here. then they argued me down and told me where he was. i told them no, sir, he wasn't here. they asked me where was my old man? i told them i couldn't tell when he went away. he didn't tell me where he was going. they searched about the house a long time and stayed with me an hour. that time searched it long. a long time and made me make up a light. and after i got the light made, en they began to search again and questioned me again about the old man. and i told them i didn't know where he he had gone. what did what did they do to you? well, they were spitting in my face and throwing dirt on my eyes. and then they made me blind. they burst open my cupboard.

i have five pies in my cupboard and they ate all the pies. and then took two pieces of meat. then they made me blow up the light again, cursing me. and after a while, they took me outdoors and told me all they wanted was my old man to join the democratic ticket. if he joined the democratic ticket, they would have no more to do with with him. and after they had got me out the doors dgged me into the big road, and they ravished me out there. how many of them? there was three. one after another? yes, sir. threw you down on the ground? yes, sir. they throwed me down on the ground. do you know who the men were who rashed you? yes, sir. can you tell me the men? there were chess. mccullum, tom mcclellan and big jim harper. who ravished you first? tom mckone grabbed me first by the arm. what next?

and we'll stop it. there. and professor alexander. should we interpret to mean rape? yes, absolutely. ravished his rape into sexual assault. and you see this throughout the testimony that they often attacked the place, the person's home, often looking for the male. but when they can't find the male, they they do assault the women. and often sexually assault the women. and we we have this over and over again. i think it's also important to note that they are that you see in this case, as you see in numerous cases, that they are removing the individual from the home, that they are attacking their home at night, of course, a place that they feel safe by many, by many degrees. but then they are removing him from that safe place. and in attacking them, either beating them in numerous ways or

in this instance, sexually assaulting them outside of the home, something did not have to happen except for the fact that they are once again explaining you're not safe in your home and it's a place that you cannot hide. professor, did you stop where you did? because it gets more graphic. it does get more graphic and it continues through all through the rest of the individuals in this section of of her hearing. yes. do you know, was she a former slave? she is a former slave. yes. and do you know anything else about her past history that i do not know? no. what was the reference as to the democrat ticket? yes. oftentimes they're attacking the homes because it's around the franchise, which is what the the hearings are initially about. again, those enforcement acts are while they have broader capability, is it's really around the franchise in ensuring

the franchise. and so the democratic ticket is making sure that the individual does vote for the democratic ticket in the south and do not vote for the republican ticket. often referred to as the radical ticket. it, of course, is important for us to note that america is lazy and we don't change the name of our political parties. and while the we still have two political parties today, neither the democratic party and the republican party, they are very different than they were in 1871. and we continue to change keep those names. and it's unfortunate as a historian that you have to explain that. and walk through that rather than the names just being changed into something else. did did president grant have any thoughts about this? did he express opinions about these hearings? grant does he supportive of the hearings or he signs off an on doing it and supports them in general as he does?

you know, in in trying to stop the violence as much as he possibly can, he doesn't use his authority as much as historians would have liked him to, meaning he doesn't use the military to go down and occupy spaces as much as he is. he probably could have or should have. but he is he is horrified them. the unfortunately, it's coming the hearings are coming to a close at basically the time that the political winds are changing in america as well. and we're moving into an economic depression. the panic of 1873 were many people, the old abolitionists that would have been pushing this issue are dying off. thaddeus stevens dies when when grant elected. charles sumner, the two stalwarts, if you will. charles sumner is is is failing in health and will ultimately die in 1875. and so the people that would have pushed him in many ways are fading away from. that republican ticket and the

republican party, as i said, is also changing. so while he is supportive of and appalled by much of what he's doing the political will is not necessarily there to force him to to make the action that maybe we or people looking back would have liked him to do. or maybe that was thought would have happened in the initial beginning of the hearings. professor alexander, how far was reconstruction in 1871? what was going on in reconstruction is fairly, fairly far along. by that time, reconstruction can we can see it beginning it during the war something that a lot of people don't always recognized it happens lincoln begins to reconstruct, if you will. parts of the former confederacy that the union has taken, really taking control of as early as the 18 1863, in certain areas. then, of course, at the as the war comes to a close, as lincoln continues that reconstruction

plan in 65, before his assassination, his vice president johnson will continue it for a couple of years, but change it very much beginning to pardon step away from a number of issues. pardon a number of southern former politicians, the members of the confederacy, high ranking members of the confederacy, etc., which will force congress to wrestle that reconstruction legislation. ideas away from them. that will happen in in the late 1866, 1867, and they will begin what we call radical or congressional reconstruction, which brings out the civil rights act of of 1866, the 14th amendment ratification, the 15th amendment's ratification, the enforcement acts, etc. so we're fairly along in it. by this time period. we have the major legislation

that's been passed except for the civil rights act in 1875 being done, and so we're there, which i think is an important aspect tied to these hearings, because the hearings, the way that we tell this story of reconstruction most often is exactly what i just kind of recaptured for you in, that it's something that happens in the halls of congress. it's something that happens in washington d.c. it's the legislature and passing bills and passing a new amendments to the constitution. but what these hearings tell you is that the reconstruction actually happens on the ground in the south by by death, very much by the the will of the southern democrats trying to enforce the right new ideas of freedom and saying that while this 14th and 15th amendments are here, this is how we define it. and if you don't agree with it,

we will use violence and intimidation to force you to agree to it. professor alexander i think it's probably fair to say, at least in modern america, that an incident will happen in this country, will react, but then we move on as a country. by 1871, had america tried to move on past the civil war. yes. america is very much beginning, at least on the trail, to begin to move on. some people have already moved on, but they, you know, the at the end of the hearings, while there is some action that's going to be taking place, most people are moving on in. and again, it's because of the the voices many of the voices that may have been pushing things are not there. individuals are beginning to lose their seats with the reconstruct to governments and redeemed governments, rewriting constitutions, gerrymandering, gerrymandering of districts, etc. and the public sentiment is

just tired. unfortunately. and too often we're tired, particularly around race issues and we move on very quickly from those issues, rather than truly addressing the problems and putting in long lasting change. here's a little bit more about the hearings from professor kidada williams. they share their stories with governors and other office holders, with the press and even members of congress and the president of the united states. and as they told their stories, they reveal how much they gain with freedom and what they were losing to white violence, brave survivors made their way to the hearing sites by foot, train, boat and wagon carrying stories. violent attacks as extremists made clear their determination to sustain as much of slavery as possible. they had released black people from bondage, but we see from who, when and why they attacked that they didn't believe that

black people had the right to their children to choose their sexual to education, to free religious lives, to labor autonomy, to land in capital and to political power to protect all these rights. eliza and other survivors decision to testify was informed by their individual and collective sense of self love self-respect. and what tony morrison called self-regard, targeted at people's testimonies provide a counter-narrative to the stories we've been told about. reconsider actions. suppose that failure. speaking with one voice, they said white southerners were waging war on reconstruction by attacking the people who are making the most of freedom and naming their attackers, detailing their injuries, saying the names of their slain kin crying out for justice and doing

what they could to keep the record of what happened to them alive. survivor said black people's lives, freedoms and futures mattered. reporting and testifying about the war on freedom or survivors. best defense against its erasure. these testimonies did help to drive the federal investigation that eventually drove the klan underground, but not before they seriously freedom and black people's participation in american democracy. after confederate overthrew reconstruction and boarded up the temple of liberty. they crafted what i call the big lie of the 19th century that experiment in american democracy had failed. they falsely claim that white northerners unfairly punished white southerners for secession by enacting, quote, black rule. black men did vote and they were elected into office, but they never enacted any policies that

hurt white people or took away their rights. but none of that mattered to the confederates and their supporters who were determined to deprive black people of any opportunity to transcend slavery. so they falsely claim that emancipation, equal rights and the franchise were wasted on black people. these claims were part of a larger white supremacist political project to deny black people dignity and equality after slavery. with black people, quote, not knowing their place white southerners claimed they simply had no choice but to restore their honor. and the only way they could do that was by forming white terror gangs, overthrowing their oppressors, and installing the racist apartheid system of jim crow. they flooded the public discourse with so much of this propaganda and qihoo 12 education, popular culture, politics, professional history and public policy that americans ignored the stories that

survivors like eliza left on the historical record. and i for that coming, i use testimonies like hers to challenge the failure narrative of reconstruction. by highlighting the story of african-american families who leapt from the frying pan of slavery into the fires of freedom. and we're back with professor sean lee alexander of the university, kansas. professor, you mentioned this a little bit earlier, but how extensive was the news coverage and the public reaction to these kkk hearings? the news coverage is extensive. the newspapers are covering it. republican newspapers, newspapers at the time were very politically affiliated. republican newspapers are covering it extensively and trying to show the violence that's occurring. democratic newspapers are coring it and trying to do the opposite, show that these are a farce. public reaction is mixed.

again, public reaction is, you know, someone most people in republicans and a number of people in the north are horrified by that. that action, it's trying very much to the old idea of the abolitionist that this is moral suasion. we're trying to bring, convince people that this is morally wrong and we must do something. unfortunately, it doesn't have a lasting impact on the community and it will go, you know, in a very short order. it will disappear from a lot of people's public imagination and reality. what were some of the criticisms faced by this committee? the criticisms by the committee are a number of the the it's you know, from the democratic side it's this is nothing but a political hack job. right. very similar to what we hear today, that this is a political motivated they're trying to bring in sympathy for the republican, particularly around

attacks on republican voters, black and white in the south, public officeholders in the south. we're trying to change that. and and the so that's the democratic the republicans are trying to show that the democratic party for the most part, is a vigilante terrorist party and does not want to govern and go forth with that process. the so that's the political and newspaper coverage criticism. the criticism another criticism that will come is how people are getting their people testifying. are people being some people are paid a very small amount to offset travel costs. and people say that those are, you know, bribes are not really you know, it allows them to testify. it doesn't you know, it takes them off of the idea that they are doing it willfully and for their own good, that they're being paid for it. of course, a dollar at that time for travel is not a great amount. so that can be questioned in

that process as well. professor alexander, i want to go back to here at symbol's testimony. she name names. did she suffer repercussions when returned home to south carolina? from a we know she did not suffer repercussions, but naming names is not unusual. and that, i think, is one of the things that the hearings try to do, is they try to put a name to the action and i think the most important thing that you see from this testimony is, is the fact that they do know the people they are their neighbors, they're members of the community. these are not the people that they you know, that they're they're not afraid on many levels to to expose them because they they do interact with them. they see them and they feel the comfort, at least for a moment, sitting before congress or the commission that they you know, whether it's in d.c. or in the in the in the county seat, they see someone who's who's willing

to listen, someone that will them that will, they hope, take action. but the only way they can take action is if they name and so i think that that's that's a very powerful move, not just by her, but by the number of individuals who who in this, of course, is not unusual. it will continue around racial violence on into the 20th century. right. the people you know around emmett till's murder, they were able to name names. right. they were able to point out the the family in the individuals that persecuted the violence. the family that persecuted the violence in the courtroom. right. and nothing was done to those individuals. right. and we can tell we can still name names today in racial violence oftentimes. and it's not always prosecuted. 8000 pages of testimony and written statements. you said what were the

committee's conclusions? the committee's conclusions were the. majority report, the republican report sees that they they want to take action. they want to enforce the end of violence. they want to enforce the end of an organization like the ku klux klan. they want to bring people to to. indict individuals and bring them to prosecution and the minority report, the democratic report is very much saying, very simply that this is a political force, that this is not here, this is not true. if you look at the testimony of certain individuals those people like nathan bedford forrest, who testifies, the founder of the klan and says he knows nothing about this and and doesn't understand why he's there or why

this is happening. i think that that's, you know, indicative of what's what's going on. and they will they will pump that up in numerous ways. and despite the fact that, you know, force goes home to tennessee and tells his local newspaper, i lied before congress, nothing is done to him. so in many ways, the democrats are correct that nothing will be done. and while it's not a force that nothing will be done, shawn leigh alexander is the author of this book reconstruction, violence and the ku klux klan hearings. these have faded from memory in many ways, haven't they? they absolutely have. i would say that the the. yes, they they absolutely have the the volumes have sat on on the shelves of libraries in the government documents for, you know, over and over 100 years

and for the most part were not used in studies in most recent, we've had a number of people that have published things on it. this volume is just a one small sliver that in that studying, kidada williams has published two wonderful books in most recent years on the hearings as well as a number of other authors. and we've gotten people beginning to go back and this beginning to use the documents themselves in the classrooms in ways that we we have not had. and i think the reason is because the country doesn't want to talk about violence. the violence that occurs in the post-civil war era is something we to skip over and we want to ignore and act like it has never happened. and it makes it easier for us as a nation to talk about how racial violence, if racial violence doesn't occur, then racial animosity and in the way

that that racism is perpetuate created usually by force and intimidation is not real in our country. and we can like it doesn't exist. and we we've done that many, many times. and i think that we we suffer for it until we are actually honest with ourselves as a nation and recognize the violence that exists in these 8000 pages. you know, as a man named thomas fortune once said, those 13 bulky volumes that haunt me from my bookshelf until we recognize that haunting voice that's in these testimonies, as well as the people who have talked about other racial violences. we will never change as a nation. we can always consider ourselves an innocent nation. we can have political figures tell us, looking at a broad and tell us that the barbaric nature of violence that occurs in other nations, the beheading soldiers and things like that, is something that would never happen in america.

but yet it's happened in america, and it's happened numerous times in testimonies. is one example of that. and if we do not correct it as said, i think we will continue to suffer a nation and your fellow history. and henry louis gates jr of harvard said this about the hearings the united states never had a truth d reconciliation commission after slavery ended the klan hearings were as close as we came. it was extraordinary. congress was actually listening to black people testifying about the atrocities committed against them. professor shawn leigh alexander, university of kansas, author of this book reconstruction, violence and the ku klux klan hearings. thank you for being part of american history. tv's congress investigate series. thank you for having