Review of Gary Nash's "Forgotten Fifth." (2006)
Gary B. Nash, The Forgotten Fifth: African Americans in the Age of Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), pgs. 235.
Gary Nash (1933-2021) was a prolific historian of the Revolutionary period of the American Republic who wrote expansively on the history of race, slavery, and the lower sorts. Writing often in opposition to scholars of political elites such as Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn, Nash emphatically emphasized the role the common man played in driving change and radicalism in the Early American Republic. Forgotten Fifth continues this trend by emphasizing the role of African Americans in the American Revolution and the post-revolution settlement. A short book, there are some strengths, but the book is hindered by almost polemical arguments that fail to capture the complexity of the Revolutionary generation.
Nash’s book is divided into three chapters, one centered on Black American experience in the Revolution, the second on political elites’ decision to perpetuate slavery, and finally on the shifting landscape of American ideology where race essentialism (i.e. one’s attributes were determined by their race) replaced environmentalism (one’s attributes were determined by their surroundings and upbringing) as the standard view of the differences between the races. Nash’s driving argument is that African Americans fought to fulfill the ideals of the Revolution by making the nation fully equal and free from slavery
Nash builds upon the scholarship of Benjamin Quarles in arguing that Black people at the start of the American Revolution were tied less to the ideals of white elites, but rather to the basic notion of freedom. This led some to side with the patriots, but far more, in Nash’s retelling, flee to the British who he centers as a semi-abolitionist force. These people risk their lives in seeking freedom for themselves and their families. Some even continue to fight to bring freedom to others by participating in emancipatory British armies. Drawing from numerous personal narratives, Nash notes that Black Americans were fighting for a “revolution within a revolution” and for the “purer spirit of 1776.” In this first chapter, Nash is clear that Black Americans are a unified group of heroic individuals fighting for freedom regardless of which side they aligned. While this narrative has proved to be popular, I fear that this repeats mistakes of past historians by not presenting the full, and often uncomfortable reality of the Revolution. In my own work I have found that I have had to humanize heroes both in American and Latter-day Saint history as the reality that these heroes were human beings confronted me. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there were not heroes or good women and men who made a tremendous impact on the world. To the contrary, I find many imperfect heroes in history. However, totalizing arguments, such as Nash’s argumentation, which paint one group as totally good, misses the reality of the human element that makes history more messy, but more truthful. I recognize that some historians may fear that by demonstrating any failings in a formerly oppressed group is enabling racist portrayals. Perhaps it does provide some ammunition to racist thinkers, whose views are sinful and wrong, but I stand by the Savior Jesus Christ’s words that the “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (see John 8:32) We cannot achieve full healing or understand the past with greater empathy and compassion unless we learn the full and messy truth.
Nash’s second chapter focuses on whether slavery could have been abolished during the Founders’ lifetimes. He is unequivocal that yes, such a feat could have been accomplished and that the Founders chose to promote and sustain slavery within their new government institutions. Needless to say, I find this chapter less reliable and more polemical than Nash’s other chapters. While important to recognize the reality of Nash’s evidence (antislavery ideas were not a foreign concept or even an unwelcome concept to the Founders and many did little to fight slavery), it is also important to note that his chapter brushes lightly aside the vast complexities of the Atlantic world and the reality of antislavery action in all levels of government in the years after the Revolution. Nash’s general trend of focusing on the common man is bucked by his near “great man history” which highlights the Founders as the sole reason that slavery continued in the United States. To say the least, this chapter was perplexing and less well argued.
The final chapter centers on the shifting tides of ideas of race in America. Nash, following many other historians, argues that the ideas of environmentalism were rapidly replaced in the 1790s and 1800s by a new ideal of race essentialism which confined African descended peoples to a perpetual subservient status in the minds of most white Americans. Nash is not incorrect that race essentialism gained in popularity during this period, however, he ignores the continued presence of environmentalism in the decades leading up to the Civil War. His tracing of the life of James Forten and Tench Coxe is fascinating, however, I find Tench Coxe and his sort to be only a portion of a much broader and robust abolition movement. Furthermore, the usage of Forten as a purely heroic figure (not to deny the man his dues) misses some of the complexities of the class struggles among the Black community and their own struggles to accept St. Dominguan refugees.
Nash’s book is a quick paced, engaging book. However, it lacks the rigor necessary to be able to prove defining in a field as complex as race and the Early American Republic. It does well to bring out the narratives of Black Americans in the Revolution and deserves to be commended for noting the impulse for freedom, which I believe is inherent in all men, however Nash doesn’t create the complexity that in reality existed in the world of the American Revolution. Nash highlights some important racialized strands of thought present in white America. However, his portrayal of these beliefs as the sole force leave much to be desired. In sum, it is a good book that is lacking.
Robert Swanson