The Deacons for Defense was an organic, grass-roots, southern, self-sufficient, self-sustaining, African-American male organization that served as a counterweight to nonviolent organizations such as the NAACP, SCLC, CORE, and SNCC. Their ideology advocated stopping violence with countermeasures of equal or greater force, similarly to how a young student would halt a schoolyard bully by striking back as opposed to walking away. In Lance Hill’s The Deacons for Defense his premise is simple, the Deacons for Defense were the first organized group of southern African American men that effectively met Klu Klux Klan (KKK) and police terror with concerted armed resistance and leveraged their strength against longstanding oppressive practices of the white supremacist power structure.
Hill begins with an anecdote that segues into the history of rural Jonesboro, Louisiana – the seat of the organization – emphasizing aspects of the small industrial town that contributes to a spirit of rugged independence in its citizens both white and black. From here he builds the foundation of his narrative upon the byproducts of racial segregation of the Jim Crow caste system, such as latent animus produced by ever present discrimination and guerilla attacks waged against African Americans by racist police and a paramilitary white supremacist terror organization, the KKK. The two entities are described as the enforcement arm of the white supremacist power structure and the Deacons for Defense their antidote.
Popular culture and civil rights narratives often tout Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Thurgood Marshall as principal figures responsible for gains accrued during the Civil Rights Movement –Hill suggests that this is myth. He asserts that “black collective force did not simply enhance the bargaining power of moderates; it was the very source of their power” (Hill 262). Simply put, without the Deacons for Defense, their ideology, and other groups outside of the nonviolent sphere of influence, legislative concessions ¬such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible for African Americans. Furthermore, Hill argues that the principal impetus behind these gains was predicated upon a code of honor founded upon self-respect and the ability to command respect from oppressors necessary to prompt social change. Additionally, the author clearly communicates a varied composition of civil rights participants and supporters - radical, nonviolent, political, religious, and advocates of self-defense. In order to support his argument Hill not only underscores ideological differences between various organizations and interest groups, he elucidates disparate principles and needs between socioeconomic classes, geographic regions, age groups, and genders.
Lance Hill is obviously a student of history and a scholar. He presents a well-researched and nuanced analysis of the Deacons in the Civil Rights Movement buttressed by a plethora of primary and secondary sources comprised of oral interviews, FBI records, and other books on the topic, dissertations, newspaper articles, and other source materials. His writing style is sophisticated, but not laden with an overabundance of academic jargon. His use of anecdotes gives the reader the feeling of a historical fiction novel. For the studious reader it is imperative to utilize the endnotes to better explain historical context and the author’s argument. Hill supports his endnotes with a solid bibliography. However, I found his use of interviews conducted by anonymous interviewers problematic. For students of the Civil Rights Era, Resistance Movements, etc. it is extremely helpful to have some of the bibliographic material on hand to delve further into source material for a better understanding. I used this work to cross-reference Akinyele O. Umoja’s We Will Shoot Back. Between the two works I found minor discrepancies in the details of the Freedom Movement in Mississippi. Utilizing the endnotes I was able to deduce which account is more accurate.
Hill’s bias is evident in his writing style. It appears that he agrees with the Deacons’ ideology. However, he thoroughly explains the rationale behind their principles of armed self-defense, preventing his interpretation from appearing as an unwarranted appraisal of a group of angry reactionary African Americans. The contrast between the ideologies of the leadership of nonviolent and opposing factions was very helpful in understanding the efficacy of the Deacons. In the conclusion, highlighting the product of the Deacons’ tactics solidified Hill’s argument as well as the historical significance the organization. Deacons for Defense fomented a broader understanding of the Civil Rights Movement, especially the contributions of working-class men, students, and advocates of armed resistance. I am under the impression that many African Americans participated in the struggle to combat white supremacy, with a purpose, while rejecting nonviolent protest and white liberal support as a means to attain their objectives. ( )