The Leopard's Spots

The Reconstruction Trilogy #1

by Thomas Dixon Jr.

Thomas F. Dixon, Jr. (1864-1946) was an American Baptist minister, playwright, lecturer, North Carolina state legislator, lawyer, and author, perhaps best known for writing The Clansman (1905), which was to become the inspiration for D. W. Griffith's film, The Birth of a Nation (1915). Although currently his life and works are discredited by his racism, he was among the most popular speakers and writers of his day. His brother, the popular preacher Amzi Clarence Dixon, was also famous for helping to edit The Fundamentals, a series of articles influential in fundamentalist Christianity. He was the author of 22 novels; additionally, he wrote many plays, sermons, and works of nonfiction. Most of his work centered around three major themes constant throughout his writings: the need for racial purity, the evils of socialism, and the necessity of a stable family with a traditional role for the wife/mother. His other works include The Southerner: A Romance of the Real Lincoln (1913), The Victim: A Romance of the Real Jefferson Davis (1914), The Foolish Virgin (1915), The Way of a Man (1918) and The Man in Gray (1921).

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Classics

511 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1902

About the author

Thomas Frederick Dixon Jr. was a Southern Baptist minister, playwright, lecturer, North Carolina state legislator, lawyer, and author.

(wikipedia)

Reviews

[Keith Long · Rating 1 out of 5]

I chose to read this as an extension of Uncle Tom’s Cabin because it functions as a response (I will also be finishing the Reconstruction trilogy, sadly). It’s a pretty tough read because of how intense the racist themes are. There’s tons of bad stuff in here, whether it’s Physiognomy, racism, white supremacy, abuse of religion, or abject moral poverty. But, I value reading multiple angles of a thing, to better understand those who are wrong. And boy, are they wrong.

[Humphrey · Rating 1 out of 5]

First and foremost, this novel is deplorably racist in its portrayal of the majority of post-emancipation African Americans as fundamentally inferior to Anglo-Americans. The novel's main protagonist, Charlie Gaston, vocally criticizes lynchings and white citizen's circumvention of law, yet the novel's presentation of such activities as justified by circumstances often undercuts him -- to say nothing of the racist "one drop" logic even this more moderate character still subscribes to. Yet it remains interesting as a historical artifact of a significant current of Southern opinion, as reflected both within the text and by the text's popularity with readers; additionally, Dixon's frequent historical falsehoods help illustrate how some Southerners were already at work writing revisionist histories of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

[Kachi Nwaobasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very racist but very well-written.

[Patricia Dietz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, written by a man who lived in the South through the Civil War and Reconstruction, is an amazing glimpse into the mind of a man of his period and place. He delivers a broad spectrum of insights into many types of people who lived in his time and how they thought. Extremely melodramatic and romanticized (written per the expected style of the time) it's a very entertaining read, very absorbing. The intensity of his racial prejudice and his extensive justifications for it would come I suppose from someone who'd never seen a black person in the guise of anyone but a slave who had been systematically prevented from learning beyond his narrow range. It will make you cringe. But if you can see him as a product of his time and place, the book is amazing in other respects.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, the author is a racist but a racist who can write quite well. I enjoy his works even though I do not agree with his thoughts on race.

[Joshua Norman · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.

[Dimitris Papastergiou · Rating 1 out of 5]

What can I say? I like it when I read anything historical, but this one wasn't fun. It was a challenging reading experience, largely due to the deeply ingrained racism that pervades the narrative. I really thought I could deal with it and just think of it as a period piece and just get over the fact that the author was obviously racist, but trying to convince me that what you say it the norm? Nope.

The book's portrayal of African Americans is troubling and offensive to say the least, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and promoting racist ideologies. Despite its historical context, the racist themes are hard to overlook, and the worst thing is how it shows historical events happening but it fails to mention what exactly happened, and to top it all of changing the narrative and making the KKK look like fucking heroes.

Moreover, even setting aside the problematic racism, the love story within the novel fails to capture my interest. The characters lack depth and chemistry, leaving their interactions feeling forced and unconvincing. The romantic subplot becomes overshadowed by the larger narrative issues, making it difficult to fully invest in the storyline for sure.

Overall, "The Leopard's Spots" is a challenging read, marred by racism and an uninteresting love story. It's essential to approach this book with an understanding of its historical context but equally important to critically examine and question the harmful perspectives it presents. As readers, we must strive for literature that fosters inclusivity and understanding, moving beyond outdated narratives that perpetuate discrimination.

Anything that promotes violence and diminishing other people of any race or background shouldn't be anywhere, and in my opinion even though it is a historical piece, the world would be much better if it didn't exist.

[Jimmy Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The Leopard's Spots" is the first in a trilogy by Thomas Dixon, with the second being "The Clansman" and the final book being "The Traitor." It was the second book, with a few portions from this, that became the basis for D.W. Griffith's 1915 movie "The Birth Of A Nation" - as well as an earlier play with the same title as the movie.

"Spots" gives a singular view of the conclusion of the civil war. The narrative focuses on the perceived influence of rapacious carpetbaggers and, more importantly, violent unfettered slaves, upon the unfailingly genteel southerners. Confronted with violence against their women-folk and the usual corrupt Northern government, returning soldiers of the south must band together - forming the Ku Klux Klan - to protect what is left of their homes and honor. As women are attacked by ferocious uncontrolled slaves and businesses ruined by uncaring Northerners, the Klan and its members work to help injured southerners reclaim their own.

Dixon apparently felt Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had a far reaching impact on the North, and was one of the reasons for widespread support of the war; interestingly he used similar names for his protagonists, including Simon Legree and Tom Camp. The book is written in the flowery language that is sometimes fun to read, but in this case was a bit tortuous, and I found myself missing Hemingway.

And, unfortunately there's no historical documentation indicating the Klan was formed specifically to safeguard citizens; immediately after the war the organization started as an effort to overthrow the government in individual states - not surprising considering the timing - while the second incarnation grew out of a wave of enthusiasm for D.W. Griffith's movie. Although I thoroughly believe there was good and evil on both sides, and the south suffered tremendous hardships - the hardships of a conquered nation, rather than reconciliation - after the war, the role assigned the Klan in this novel and inferred as Klan-wide is simply inaccurate and perpetrated a myth.

An interesting read, nonetheless - gives insight into attitudes of many that sadly persist to this day. The author's statement in the prologue should underscore this: although Dixon states he tried to write with "the utmost restraint," he describes it as based in "the Carolinas ...destroyed as States by an Act of Congress in 1867." Historically, the proscribed military jurisdiction ended in 1868; Reconstruction itself (except voting rights to all) ended in 1877 with a return to conservative government. The book was written in 1902.

[Will · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is essentially a love story but with a side story of white supremacy. All of its most racist characterizations of black people by white people are caricatures by today's standards. It would be much easier to see these arguments made in a parody than a real conversation or taken seriously. (Think Django Unchained) Ngl, I was expecting it to go much further or be even darker than it was. It wasn't overly shocking, just extremely dated. The white supremacy is almost second place to a love story. Even the lynching that does occur feels like it was just put in there just because and has nothing to do with the plot.

One quote that did point to its racism that is quoted throughout the book is:
"You can not build in a Democracy a nation inside a nation of two antagonistic races. The future American must be an Anglo-Saxon or a Mulatto."
It portrays a very insecure culture in the South. Very low quality culture that shuts itself off from the world like a hermit.

What is probably the strangest is that the people that make the same or similar arguments today are those that claim to be "anti-racist".
i.e. It was the Progressives that claimed Senator Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian due to a DNA test that says she was 1/1024th American Indian. And that she is due to the "1 blood drop rule" which is even used in the book by the white supremacists against black people or anyone that has any black ancestry. Not only that, she even claimed that she was American Indian due to her high cheek bones. Just as in the book the "niggers" were "flat nosed" and had "kinked hair". It is an acknowledgement of people being completely different creatures, not just people from different corners of the world having different traits. Same shit different package.

The best thing about this book it is a perfect time capsule of the southern state of mind of that era. But of course, this was the whole reason for reading the book in the first place.

[Susan Humeston · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tortured combination of purple prose, unfiltered racism and questionable history at best. This particular story celebrates the establishment of segregation in the south in the early 1900’s. 160 years have passed and Mr. Dixon’s theories have been proved wrong.

[Cameron Berry · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm gonna start by saying this is a HORRIBLY racist book that I do not recommend to anyone unless you're doing a study of racism in America or something similar. It was assigned for my Fascism and American Literature course as part of our exploration of pre-fascist thought, and to that end, it was very informative, but it was truly just so disgusting. I have mixed feelings about even putting it on my "shelf," but I think the one-star review probably makes my opinion clear. If you're curious about the book but don't feel like subjecting yourself to Dixon's godawful ideology, the main takeaway is that Dixon presents the Southern white man as the primary victim of American Slavery and the Civil War and offers a radicalization narrative for his protagonist that leads him to the conclusion that the only way forward is violent and horrific white supremacy. DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. My professor sent us a pdf of the text, but pretty much anywhere you buy this book from is going to be despicable. It's not the kind of text where the author has racist views but the book is readable/enjoyable anyway. Racist ideology is the subject of the book (it's the first installment of Dixon's KKK Trilogy if that clears things up). Anyway, it definitely shed some light on pre-fascist writing for the purposes of my course, but holy shit, this is the most abhorrent book I've ever read.

[Theresa Kulenkamp · Rating 2 out of 5]

Currently reading, but the drooling idiot dialect attributed to Nelse is so obnoxious I could puke. A lot of people say things like, "Well, it's just a product of its time." or " But the poor southerners had justification for feeling this way." Bullshit. My grandmother was born in 1902, the year this book was published. No one could be as ignorant as to believe that blacks were somehow not human. Many high profile black speakers were known at this time. Also, the term "carpetbagger" is pejorative invented by discontented southerners who were pissed off at having their way of life disrupted. This author never thought to place the blame on all the plantation owners who caused this, not the blacks or the poor white northerners struggling to survive. It is very typical for the few wealthy at the top of the hill to set all of the poor below them to fighting with each other for paltry scraps. It is just lazy to give this twit a pass. Big deal, he wrote a bunch of books. So did David Duke. Neither should EVER be excused.

[Kenneth · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first volume of the author's Reconstruction Trilogy. A story of the American South in the years after the Civil War, told from a white Southern point of view and very racist - par for the era it was written in. But for all that, Dixon told a good story, as I remember - I read it sometime in my Junior High/High School years, the copy belonged to my grandmother, now in my possession.

[Daniel Kleven · Rating 1 out of 5]

“I am writing you this letter to express the attitude and feeling of ten million of your fellow citizens toward the evil propagandism of race animosity to which you have lent your great literary powers. Through the wide-spread influence of your writings you have become the chief priest of those who worship at the shrine of race hatred and wrath” - Kelly Miller, As To The Leopard's Spots: An Open Letter To Thomas Dixon, Jr

This book is racist trash.

So why am I reading it (and it’s sequel, The Clansman)? Fundamentally, it’s another step of “reckoning” (see Matt Jantzen’s great work on this) with the fact of white-supremacy in this country. And if you want to reckon with this, you have to deal with Thomas Dixon at some point. Most famously, it was D. W. Griffith’s film adaption of Dixon’s two books, “The Birth of a Nation” (1915) that President Woodrow Wilson screened at the White House and praised, while Black people and organizations across the country protested and called for it to be boycotted or even outright censored.

How and why did this happen? How did a sitting American president promote a film which features the actual Ku Klux Klan as the heroes of the story? So that’s why I’m reading Dixon, to grapple with these questions, with this reality.

Interestingly, I’m reading another book right now: Joel Goza, Rebirth of a Nation: Reparations and Remaking America, which is a fantastic survey of some episodes of American history. He has chapters devoted to: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and … Thomas Dixon, before continuing with Madison Grant, and Ronald Reagan. Goza says that Dixon was “one of the preeminent ‘ideas’ men of his era” and that his novels “provide an entrance into the mind of the white South following Reconstruction” (78). Goza says that “Dixon’s fiction—and the movies it inspired—became the preeminent shaper of America’s racial imagination at the turn of the century and for the next sixty years. In his writings, lynchings transform into a symbol of heroic counterrevolution aimed at redeeming civilization from the realization of one of America’s deepest fears: an interracial democracy” (81)

The book was a bestseller, selling hundreds of thousands of copies, which tells you as much about a receptive white America, as it does about the author himself. At height of lynchings in America, their literary justifications were bestsellers. White folks liked their lynchings in person on a Sunday afternoon, in print to read as an entertaining novel, and soon as a blockbuster on the big screen. The appetite for racial violence was insatiable.

Goza notes that: “perhaps Dixon’s impact is best measured by the wrath he elicited from Black American writers.” Indeed, Black people protested every new installment in the “Klansman Cinematic Universe,” books and films.

Kelly Miller again:

“You preside at every crossroad lynching of a helpless victim; …wherever the cries of the crucified victim go up to God from the crackling flame, behold, you are there; when women and children, drunk with ghoulish glee, dance… and mock the death groans of their fellow-man…, you have part in the inspiration of it all.”

A year later, W. E. B. Du Bois would publish The Souls of Black Folk. The juxtaposition of the two books is striking, to say the least.

I do not recommend everyone to read Dixon’s books or to watch The Birth of a Nation. But if you are serious about reckoning with the legacy of white-supremacy in this country, to grapple with the overwhelming popularity of lynching; with the enthusiasm for white-supremacy and racial violence at every level in this country, then you will have to face Thomas Dixon at some point.

[William Guerrant · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best way to get an understanding of how the American public remembered Reconstruction is not by reading Dunning School histories, but rather by reading novels such as this one--a popular best-seller when published in 1902.

Unfortunately, I was surprised to find it a slog to get through. The stock characters, stereotypes, and enthusiastic racial antagonism was expected. But I had also expected the story to be engaging, at least in some maudlin sense. Instead it was shallow and so predictable as to be dull. There is a saccharine romance embedded in it, but the book is principally just a vehicle Dixon uses to express his political and racial ideology. The only value I found in this was historiographical.

The book is available on line from the Gutenberg Project and Google Books.

[MC Speight · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have to rate it according to my time, not the time in which it was written. I do not approve or condone the actions of the major characters in this book, both with regard to race as well as gender. I made it half way through the book and could not go any farther. It is not worthy of reading, either for today and it encouraged the wrong behavior when it was written! DNF

[Freddie the Know-it-all · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love Story

Everyone likes a love story, not just women and little girls, but real men like love stories too.

I recommend this book to anyone who has a heart overflowing with hunger for a true love story. But I especially recommend it to women and girls.

Otherwise, it's like a Dickens epic, but starring Foghorn Leghorn and Dave Chappelle.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first in a trilogy about Reconstruction. Carpetbaggers took a lot out of the south mostly economic items (cash) but brought into the south much hatred and tyranny. I had known about the cash theft but not about the hatred and tyranny. It would have been better if Lincoln survived I am sure.

[Isiah XP · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Here in this pretty world gallantry took it's last bow..
Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair,
Of Master and of Slave...
Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered.
A Civilization gone with the wind."

This is one such book.

[Da1tonthegreat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a work of historical fiction. And yet, it contains far more truth than anything written more recently concerning the period. The Leopard's Spots is a tale of Reconstruction and Redemption, of romance and race realism. It was apparently written, a half-century after the fact, as a response and reaction to Harriet Beecher Stowe's bleeding heart melodrama Uncle Tom's Cabin, several of whose characters appear in the narrative. This novel is truly a hidden gem of American literature, buried underneath the political correctness of our "woke" modern age.

[Sam Motes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A look at the sentiments that fueled the hate during reconstruction. Highly fictionalized and biased towards portraying the whites of the south as the heroes and victims while the blacks were lazy and overly vindictive.