A couple of interesting things written here.

First, David Byrne being referred to as an "art-school geek from Up North". I bet that would amuse him.

Second, the claim that a person who is "at least three-fourths or more white...cannot be truthfully called 'black' or 'African American.'"

A person with any recognizable African ancestry is still considered "Black" or "African American" today, in 2005. I teach at a school that is evenly divided between black and white students. Any student, no matter what skin tone, no matter what ancestry, is considered "Black" or "African American" if there is any trace of African features, or African ancestry. In 1872 that was, if possible, even more true.

After all, that was part of the point of the kind of racism that was practiced by most whites at that time. That was part of the justification for slavery. Whites were "pure" and blacks were "impure." The smallest amount of black blood was enough to taint someone. The terms quadroon and octoroon refer to people with one-quarter and one-eighth black ancestry, respectively. Such people did NOT rank as first class citizens. Even in the post-WWI 1940s a person who had as little as one-sixty-fourth black ancestry, who could "pass" for white, would suffer discrimination if that small percentage were to be discovered.

So while mischling2nd's argument may be true from a strictly logical perspective, functionally it is completely incorrect.

It's great to see more scholarship on this period. I've never heard much about a real plan associated with Reconstruction efforts, or - dare I say it - an exit strategy.

A successful Reconstruction could have broken the spell that the aristocrats had over average Southerners, who after all were being conned into fighting a rich man's war. Instead, it gave rise to the Lost Cause and associated pseudoheroic myths that still linger today.

"Same as it ever was, same as it ever was."

Faulkner didn't write that, some art-school geek from Up North did. But he could have.