This paper compares Harry Haywood's, James S. Allen's, and W. E. B. Du Bois's historical interpretations of Reconstruction and its relationship to their contemporary political and social projects from the 1920s to 1940s. By comparing their approaches, we gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between race and democracy, the political significance of Reconstruction, and their hermeneutical engagements with black history. Their historical readings of Reconstruction were largely similar. The primary difference between them was in Allen and Haywood's belief in a Marxist, stagist teleology and Du Bois's belief in a more open, contingent temporality. Allen's and Haywood's stagist approach attempted to complete Reconstruction's unfinished revolution by establishing the right to self-determination. Through an interracial revolution, black people would create a black republic that would decide whether to remain in the United States or secede, ensuring democratic development regardless of the broader nation's support. Skeptical of such a revolution, Du Bois instead proposed that black people adapt to segregation by utilizing their collective purchasing power to create a consumer cooperative movement that would help them secure democratic control over the private and public sectors for their collective development. For Du Bois, Reconstruction left a tradition of economic cooperation that black people should continue, adapted to their contemporary political conditions. However, Du Bois's belief in a peaceful consumer cooperative movement failed to address the history of Jim Crow violence, a problem Haywood's and Allen's stagist belief in revolution partially addressed.
Pritish Das (Fri,) studied this question.