Whom Can We Trust Now?: The Meaning of Treason in the United States, from the Revolution Through the Civil War Book

[Review written by my younger self]
Franklin's The Color Line is the chronicle of US racial struggles from the 17th century onwards. The color line, that subtle racial strain that separates society in schools, housing, government, and employment, is covered in great detail. Focusing on the oppression of the African American race in the US, Franklin covers President Carter's attempts at recruiting more women and black people into his administration and goes on to criticize President Reagan's attempts at removing any office appointment that contradicted his values. The various incidents of racial tension and outright persecution become the framework for Franklin's stand against the color line.

As first suggested by the distinguished writer, sociologist, and co-founder of the NAACP, William Edward Bughardt Do Bois, the racism that divides American will keep on growing and alienating persons. In carrying on this premonition, Franklin admonishes, just as Du Bois, that the world in general cannot function properly if color continues to be a fact in all aspects of life and in considerations of rank and leadership.

Franklin denounces those who claim the United States is color-blind and accuses them of being noncommittal, not interested in changing their country for the better. He refers to the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, stating that the Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan and Plessy's attorney Albion Tourgee figured prominently in the dissent of civil rights, adamantly believing the law and Constitution, like justice herself, is color-blind. Not acknowledging racial tension, Franklin believes, allows others to abuse racial discrimination.

The various claims Franklin makes are supported with a plethora of evidence and instances. This should be expected with the gravity of the accusations he makes. State governments, he writes, would not be color-blind while the national government executes non-racist laws purely on the reluctant need and superficial responsibility of pleasing the people.

He reveals the government's extensive role in the color line going as far back as Virginia's explicit definitions of a "Negro" in 1879 (with the main requirement of having one-fourth or more of "Negro" blood). Franklin infers that such precise, authorized forms of discrimination can occur again if the color line is not recognized and eliminated.

At first glance, Franklin's work appears far from an objective historical reference. While his accounts of the pivotal events of the civil rights movement are seemingly accurate, Franklin's acrid attitude and condescending tone may make the reader dubious. Across the pages, his script has a tone of anger and frustration at the silence of the African American race and the people who invoke this silence. He takes on a certain sarcasm in speaking of the unappreciated achievements of the African American.

It is possible, though, that the biased demeanor of his prose is purposeful, meant to inspire people to further investigate the implications of the color line. Franklin spews forth his information without mercy or sensitivity. In his aggression for the color line, Franklin is not suggesting the elimination of aspects of culture and the total disregard of color. Franklin advises his readers to sway the government away from the color line, and to look to themselves as individuals not to keep lengthening the color line's divisions. The solution, he says, is in looking at America's past without dismissing it or flinching at it, without closing eyes or minds to the brutal events of racial inhumanity. In doing so, Franklin endeavors all Americans to look at each other, not in terms of color, but as human beings.