Changes

In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson watched The Birth of a Nation, a film by D. W. Griffith that falsified the reality of the post–Civil War Reconstruction period by presenting blacks as attempting to dominate southern whites and sexually force themselves on white women. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), in violently oppressing blacks, was ultimately portrayed by the production as the savior of the South’s white female nobility. After that private screening of the film at the White House, Wilson reportedly stated, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”<ref>The Birth of a Nation, dir. D. W. Griffith (David W. Griffith Corp., 1915).</ref>

====What is the plot of "The Birth of a Nation"?====

The film lays out that process and its results in stark, albeit silent, detail. In one of the most telling scenes, labeled “An Historical Facsimile of the State House of Representatives of South Carolina as it was in 1870,” the black men who were elected to the state legislature as the result of Stoneman’s and his colleagues’ efforts “conduct their business with the decorum of a pack of wolves. One takes a swig from a bottle with a gesture as obvious as a stage whisper. Another makes a motion that all white people should salute black officers in the street. The men raise their fists in heated support. Representatives cheer, dance, and eat fried chicken as they pass a bill permitting the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”<ref> Richard Corliss, “D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation 100 Years Later: Still Great, Still Shameful,” Time, March 3, 2015. </ref>

The Birth of a Nation is as much the story of the Cameron and Stoneman families as it is about the Civil War, Reconstruction, or the KKK. However, the second subtitle in the silent film, and the first to deal specifically with the plot, provides a clear understanding of where Dixon (and obviously also Griffith) placed the blame not only for slavery but also for the Civil War: “The bringing of the African to America planted the first seed of disunion.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> The core of the novel and its cinematic portrayal are driven by that level of division and inequality. Dixon, and, by extension, Griffith, revel in that coarsest of racial imagery.

[[File:President_Woodrow_Wilson_by_Harris_%26_Ewing,_1914.jpg|thumbnail|left|250px|President Woodrow Wilson]]

On February 18, 1915, projectionists dressed in evening attire showed The Birth of a Nation on the white wooden panels of the East Room of the White House. Dixon had been a Johns Hopkins University classmate of Wilson, and that connection allowed Dixon to screen the film for the president, his daughters, and a few cabinet members.

====Did Woodrow Wilson share author Thomas Dixon Jr.'s worldview?====

Dixon was a Baptist minister from North Carolina, serving churches in the North while also working as a lawyer and an author. More specifically, he was “a professional racist who made his living writing books and plays attacking the presence of African Americans in the United States. A firm believer not only in white supremacy but also in the ‘degeneration’ of blacks after slavery ended, he thought the ideal solution to America’s racial problems was to deport all blacks to Africa. In the short term, his goal was to proselytize a southern view of Reconstruction to the rest of the country. In his mind, white southerners were the victims, not the villains, in American history, and ought to be portrayed as such.”<ref> Raymond A. Cook, “The Man behind The Birth of a Nation,” <i>North Carolina Historical Review</i>, 39 (Oct. 1962), 519–40; Corliss, “D. W. Griffiths The Birth of a Nation 100 Years Later.”

</ref>

Historians disagree on the extent of Wilson’s endorsement of Birth of a Nation, and whether he uttered “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true” may never be decided. Nevertheless, as president, Wilson demonstrated racist views and supported segregationist policies. Although calling Wilson a fan of the film is presumptive, the production did a tweak and reflect his dismal record on race.<ref> Joe R. Feagin, <i>Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, Future Reparations</i> (New York: Routledge, 2000), 86.</ref>

====References====

<references/>