{"id":1264,"date":"2020-11-12T11:54:04","date_gmt":"2020-11-12T16:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/?p=1264"},"modified":"2020-11-12T11:58:04","modified_gmt":"2020-11-12T16:58:04","slug":"sania-anwar-paradise-lost-book-review-of-the-second-founding-by-eric-foner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/sania-anwar-paradise-lost-book-review-of-the-second-founding-by-eric-foner\/","title":{"rendered":"Sania Anwar | Paradise Lost: Book Review of *The Second Founding* by Eric Foner"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Sania Anwar<\/h2>\n
\"\"

Radical members of the first legislature after the war, South Carolina.<\/p><\/div>\n

Abolition is a reckoning.\u00a0 A reckoning so profound and exact, in creating and fulfilling the antithetical to what is dismantled, that it can offer redemption along with emancipation.<\/p>\n

Eric Foner\u2019s \u201cThe Second Founding\u201d is the account of this nation\u2019s post-Civil War constitutional reckoning – the beauty of redemption in its egalitarian promise, and the tragedy in its unfulfillment.<\/p>\n

W.E.B. Du Bois wrote of post-Civil War Reconstruction: \u201cthe slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Second Founding\u201d provides the historical account of the three Reconstruction amendments: Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution – \u201cthe most tangible legacies,\u201d according to Foner, of the Reconstruction era, or that brief but monumental \u201cmoment in the sun.\u201d\u00a0 It was, Foner says, \u201c[the United States\u2019] first attempt, flawed but truly remarkable for its time, to build an egalitarian society on the ashes of slavery.\u201d\u00a0 It is a poetic claim, although \u2018smoldering embers\u2019 might be a more accurate status descriptor for slavery.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Second Founding\u201d follows three decades after Foner\u2019s seminal work, \u201cReconstruction: America\u2019s Unfinished Revolution,\u201d a comprehensive study in analytical history of Reconstruction discussing the participation and contribution of the Black freedmen and freedwomen to the transformation of Southern Society in line with W.E.B. Du Boise\u2019s thesis of Black centrality in \u201cBlack Reconstruction in America\u201d (1935), the interconnectedness of racial attitudes and social and political development, the emergence of a purposeful and expanded national state for the ideal of a national citizenship, the economic and labor developments in the North, and the demise of Reconstruction through political compromises of 1877.<\/p>\n

According to Foner, the Reconstruction era amendments were critical in creating the \u201cworld\u2019s first biracial democracy.\u201d\u00a0 The book is an ode to the emancipatory potential inherent in the promise of the amendments which \u201cforged a new constitutional relationship between individual Americans and the national state.\u201d For Foner, the profound change brought about by these amendments should be viewed as nothing short of a constitutional revolution, and therefore, a \u201csecond founding\u201d during which, as Senator Charles Sumner declared, the federal government was for the first time deemed \u201cthe custodian of freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n

The book\u2019s four chapters are methodically parsed out and trace the amendments\u2019 path to ratification and their subsequent contested meanings and jurisprudential interpretation.\u00a0 The structure of the narrative can create the illusion of a linear progression to the values and issues being discussed.\u00a0 This is amplified by Foner\u2019s decision to not include in this book – as he does in \u201cReconstruction: America\u2019s Unfinished Revolution\u201d – the socio-economic experiential context of freedman and freedwomen during Reconstruction.\u00a0 But he warns early on that \u201chistory shows, progress is not necessarily linear or permanent [b]ut neither is retrogression.\u201d<\/p>\n

The efficient narrative reads not unlike an experience in theatrical immersion, a tragedy to be sure, where the plot lays bare, through well-researched public commentary and excerpts, the inner demons and struggles of men involved in the process of drafting and ratifying the amendments.\u00a0 It describes the contests and compromises over meanings and scope of consequential words such as \u2018citizenship,\u2019 \u2018freedom,\u2019 and \u2018equality\u2019 within the context of the characters\u2019 own ideals, capacities, and prejudices, and their socio-political roles and motives.<\/p>\n

The cast of characters features the speakers, legislators, abolitionists, and jurists involved in contributing to the construction and demise of Reconstruction amendments, including Republican abolitionists in Congress and the most frequent voices in the book: Wendell Phillips, John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner, the outlier in his unwavering commitment to egalitarian principles with a penchant for controversial[1]<\/a> speeches; the various Black speakers, organizers, and abolitions often represented by the voice of the great orator, Frederick Douglass; the \u201cincorrigibly racist\u201d Andrew Johnson and his influence and political maneuverings; and the anonymous but powerful voice behind the Brotherhood of Liberty publication, Justice and Jurisprudence<\/em>, offering valuable critique and alternative holdings of the Supreme Court rulings on the Reconstruction amendments.\u00a0 Although white women make a guest appearance within the context of women suffrage, voices of Black women, and the profound intersectionality of their perspectives, experiences, and identity, remain conspicuously absent.<\/p>\n

The first chapter presents the historical account of the Thirteenth Amendment \u2013 the first amendment in the nation\u2019s history, Foner notes, to expand the power of the federal government rather than restraining it.\u00a0 Its passage, according to Foner, began the Second Founding, and its ratification in 1865 brought about the \u201cfinal, irrevocable abolition of slavery.\u201d\u00a0 Lincoln\u2019s proclamation \u2013 brought on in significant part for military and policy reasons \u2013 had ushered in military emancipation, and with the ratification of the amendment, military and legal emancipation \u201cproceeded together.\u201d Foner notes the \u201cthe depth and rancor of Democratic opposition\u201d to the amendment but does not set aside much word count for the overtly racist polemics and remarks put forth in opposition.<\/p>\n

Foner sets up the stage for the Fourteenth Amendment by a Sumner quote: \u201cLiberty has been won. The battle for equality is still pending.\u201d \u00a0Surely it remains far from over today.<\/p>\n

The meaning of \u2018equality,\u2019 \u2018American citizenship,\u2019 and \u2018civil rights\u2019 was debated at great lengths during the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then again during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u00a0 According to Foner, the Fourteenth Amendment was a plan to secure the guarantees contained therein for when the southern states were restored to the union, and it was also a \u201cpolitical document\u201d serving as Republicans\u2019 single-issue congressional campaign platform.\u00a0 Foner calls the election of 1866 \u201cthe closest thing American politics has seen to a referendum on a constitutional amendment\u201d ushering in the remarkably overlooked and misrepresented period of Radical Reconstruction \u2013 \u201cthe experiment in interracial democracy known as Radical Reconstruction.\u201d\u00a0 Through the Reconstruction Act of 1867, the new southern governments adopted constitutions that attempted to create the framework for democratic and egalitarian societies.\u00a0 During this period, Foner identifies the earliest arguments for incorporation of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, a belief deemed \u201ca virtually uncontroversial minimum interpretation of the amendment\u2019s purposes\u201d for the Republicans. \u00a0This notion was subsequently nullified, at least through the amendment\u2019s Privileges or Immunities Clause, by the Supreme Court and resurrected again gradually during the \u201crights revolution of the twentieth century\u201d via the Due Process Clause.<\/p>\n

Today, the significance of the Fourteenth Amendment in constitutional jurisprudence remains uncontroverted.\u00a0 In carrying forward the tradition of revolutionary constitutional expansion, where the Thirteenth Amendment served as the first to expand federal authority, the Fourteenth Amendment was the first to elevate \u201cequality to a constitutional right of all Americans.\u201d But what did \u201cequal protection\u201d mean, what did it offer, and did it offer protections against actions of private actors? What were the attributes of national citizenship? The Supreme Court would continue defining and interpreting the meanings of rights incorporated within the guaranteed of these amendments to this day, rarely for the benefit of Black Americans.<\/p>\n

The ratification of Fourteenth Amendment was met with little elation in 1868, writes Foner, as it was seen as a weak compromise in setting aside the provision for black suffrage.\u00a0 Despite the passage of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 during Radical Reconstruction, many black men still remained without the right to vote. Foner attributes the \u201crapid evolution of rights consciousness\u201d during Reconstruction for the increased acceptance of Black men\u2019s suffrage as the logical extension or part of abolition of slavery.\u00a0 But few states supported surrendering that power to the federal government.<\/p>\n

As Foner lays out, the debates and the movement for the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment brought out the \u201climits of western Republicans\u2019 egalitarianism\u201d by exposing prejudices against various other groups, especially Irish Catholic – the \u201cminions of despotism\u201d according to one Senator \u2013 and the Chinese immigrants. Typical of the zero-sum view of rights in a non-egalitarian system, voter, Black men\u2019s suffrage was negotiated within the exclusion of other groups, including women.\u00a0 Foner writes that the campaign of 1868 brought with it \u201cthe most overt appeals to racism in American political history\u201d and this \u201cinternal disunity\u201d of the Republican Party in its asynchronous group-based prejudices contributed to its complicated path to passage in 1869.\u00a0 In the end, a weaker version was adopted, not from a lack of support for Black male suffrage, says Foner, but from the \u201copposition to equality for others.\u201d \u00a0This would ultimately prove to be a \u201cdisastrous miscalculation\u201d which failed to anticipate and protect against the proliferation of disenfranchisement of Black Americans through over a century and a half.<\/p>\n

Enter, stage right, the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The final chapter, the climax of this tragedy, begins with the abandonment of Reconstruction and the battle over the meaning of its legacy amendments.\u00a0 The post-election political compromises of 1877 resulted in withdrawal of federal troops from the south and the Democratic control of the southern states.\u00a0 \u00a0Foner traces the retreat from the ideals and promises of Reconstruction in various Supreme Court holdings, attributing the abandonment to both \u201cjudicial racism but also to the persistence of federalism.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The issues related to the amendments before the Supreme Court were of meanings, scope, and purpose of the amendments\u2019 guarantees. \u00a0Did the Thirteenth Amendment include protections against the \u201cbadges and incidents\u201d of slavery, and if so, what were they? Did the amendments\u2019 protections apply to \u201cpublic rights\u201d such as rights to public accommodations and against violations by private actors? Were laws that were race-neutral on their face yet designed to achieve discrimination or interference with right to vote invalid?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the years and decades that followed, the Supreme Court\u2019s constitutional jurisdiction significantly abrogated the egalitarian and emancipatory guarantees of the amendments with respect to Black Americans.\u00a0 It did so by rejecting claims of inequality classified as \u201cbadges and incidents of slavery,\u201d by nearly nullifying the promises of the Privileges or Immunities provision, by distinguishing between civil and social rights, by refusing to invalidate state disenfranchisement measures, and by limiting its scope for reviewing discrimination or violations of constitutional protections by private actors.\u00a0 Foner does not hold back in attributing another cause in the Supreme Court\u2019s abrogation of constitutional guarantees: deficit of intellect.\u00a0 With the exception of the few talented jurists, he writes, most of the twenty-four men who served on the Court between 1870 and 1900 were \u201cmediocrities.\u201d\u00a0 This mediocrity still championed white supremacy, a belief further strengthened by the country\u2019s \u201cimperial adventures\u201d in the Spanish-American War, and the implementation of the vicious Jim Crow system.<\/p>\n

According to Foner, the Warren Court\u2019s decisions in the 1950s and 1960s – a period Foner calls the \u201cSecond Reconstruction\u201d – finally provided the reinvigoration of the Reconstruction amendments.\u00a0 However, the denouement of this entire saga \u2013 and one in which we as the audience are participating today – is the ongoing abrogation of the democratic principles of Reconstruction.<\/p>\n

Whether intentional or not, irony is a recurring theme in the book.\u00a0 It begins with Foner\u2019s connection with the Dunning School through Columbia University, and ends with the final words of the book, urging Americans to \u201creturn to the nation\u2019s second founding and find <\/em>there new meanings for our fractious and troubled times.\u201d\u00a0 How complete was a founding which remains lost to those for which it was sought? Does the word \u201cSecond\u201d indicate potential for a third? Was the \u2018Founding\u2019 in the title of the book meant to be a noun – designating the period in time and constitutional history – or is it a verb indicating a process that will remain perpetually unfinished, a direction to be travelled?<\/p>\n

Foner acknowledges the fraught historiography of Reconstruction, the \u201cpolitics of history,\u201d and the crucial role played by the account of Reconstruction developed by Professor William A. Dunning of Columbia University and his students.\u00a0 The Dunning School\u2019s scholarship condemned Reconstruction and provided the academic, legal, and intellectual foundation for Supreme Court jurisprudence limiting the guarantees of Reconstruction amendments, Jim Crow, and the Lost Cause ideology of the South \u2013 depicting a benign and nostalgic view of slavery and the saving of the South by white supremacists following the failed Reconstruction.\u00a0 In \u201cReconstruction: America\u2019s Unfinished Revolution\u201d (1988), Foner notes the irony of his original research on Reconstruction \u2013 which dismantled the erroneous historiography of the Dunning School \u2013 and was partly covered by the Department of History\u2019s Dunning Fund at University of Columbia.<\/p>\n

But the Dunning School itself developed on an ironic perch of academic standing.\u00a0 In support of introducing an amendment abolishing slavery in 1863, congressional representatives had relied on a proposal presenting a draft of seven amendments developed by Professor Lieber of Columbia University.\u00a0 According to Foner, Lieber\u2019s ideas and writings had influenced the passage of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.\u00a0 In 1903, Dunning was appointed the Francis Lieber Professor of History and Political Philosophy at Columbia University, and it was from this academic pulpit that he developed the Dunning Scholarship.<\/p>\n

The Second Founding reveals how the unanticipated subversion of the guarantees provided in Reconstruction amendments were built upon the very language of the amendments \u2013 language decided mostly on compromises made to promote acceptance, or in one situation, to allow for timely dinner.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 The irony in constitutional enshrinement of rights and guarantees is that it invites interpretation of the limits and confines of such rights.<\/p>\n

The Thirteenth Amendment, seeking to end slavery, allowed involuntary servitude to survive as a punishment for crime.\u00a0 This sounded the constitutionally sanctioned death knell for \u201cthe brief moment in the sun\u201d of the freedman and freedwomen and their generations to come, through convict leasing and involuntary prison labor in today\u2019s increasingly carceral system.<\/p>\n

The second section of the Fourteenth Amendment provided a penalty for restriction on voting rights of men, but not women.\u00a0 Not only was the penalty never enforced in favor of Black suffrage, it introduced a gender distinction for the time in the Constitution and further delayed suffrage for women.\u00a0 This sowed further division between the suffrage and abolitionist movements. \u00a0The division and strife would get deeper during the legislative and rhetorical battle over the Fifteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

The Fifteenth Amendment, in failing to provide a positive guarantee of enfranchisement, left itself vulnerable to circuitous interpretations which resulted in proliferation of laws disenfranchising most Black people without explicitly relying on race.<\/p>\n

The reader, as the audience to Foner\u2019s account of the amendments\u2019 grand egalitarian promise, can appreciate the dismaying irony provided by his critique of the Supreme Court decisions abrogating and nullifying the amendments\u2019 guarantees.\u00a0 The Supreme Court was more willing and more creative in its interpretations to extend protections to corporations rather than the Black people. During the Jim Crow period, Foner writes, the Supreme Court had a full docket of cases invoking the Fourteenth Amendment \u2013 but almost every single one of the cases sought liberty for corporations.\u00a0 The Court employed \u201ca state-centered approach in citizenship matters and a nation-centered approach in affairs of business,\u201d and felt it a legitimate interpretive exercise to extend the protections of the Due Process Clause to corporations as legal \u201cpersons\u201d and yet at the same time deny similar protections to Black personhood.<\/p>\n

\u201cIronies abounded\u201d Foner says, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, where those who sought an expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment were whites.<\/p>\n

Even modern-day Supreme Court jurisprudence, Foner notes, has proved more sympathetic to white plaintiffs claiming reverse discrimination in affirmative action than to the continuing \u201cbadges and incidents\u201d of slavery and the legacies of Jim Crow and convict leasing.<\/p>\n

Finally, no jurisprudential doctrine is more infused with irony than the phrase \u2018separate, but equal\u2019 from the now infamous 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson<\/em> case, where the Court denied the constitutional challenge to accommodation of a Black man in a whites-only train car by noting the white race as the \u201cdominant race\u201d and yet holding that as long as facilities were equal, separation was not \u201ca badge of inferiority,\u201d even if the \u201ccolored race\u201d chose \u201cto put that construction upon it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sometimes, irony can be more delicious than tragic. \u00a0Such was the case in Foner\u2019s account of the Taney inkstand. \u00a0Justice John Marshall Harlan had in his possession the inkstand which Roger B. Taney had presumably used in writing the Dred Scott<\/em> decision in which the Court had held that a slave could not be a citizen.\u00a0 The Civil Rights Cases made their way before the Court in 1883, comprising of five cases alleging violations of Civil Rights Acts of 1875 arising from denials of public accommodations to Black people.\u00a0 The Court refused to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to private owners.\u00a0 Harlan dissented.\u00a0 While deliberating over the decision, Harlan had suffered from writer\u2019s block in drafting his now famous dissent.\u00a0 His wife, Malvina Harlan, a connoisseur of irony,[3]<\/a> found and placed the inkstand on his desk, which inspired him to write his dissent and to emerge in his role as \u2018The Great Dissenter.\u2019\u00a0 \u201cIt was, I think, a bit of \u2018poetic justice\u2019\u201d writes Malvina Harlan in \u201cSome Memories of a Long Life, 1854-1911\u201d (2002), \u201cthat the small inkstand in which Taney\u2019s pen had dipped when he wrote that famous (or rather infamous) sentence in which he said that \u2018a black man had no rights which a white man was bound to respect,\u2019 should have furnished the ink for a decision in which the black man\u2019s claim to equal civil rights was as powerfully and even passionately asserted as it was in my husband\u2019s dissenting opinion in the famous \u2018Civil Rights\u2019 case.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHere is a profound irony,\u201d writes Foner, that the Fourteenth Amendment – which avoided language providing for black suffrage, but guaranteed the fundamental rights for citizens in a democracy \u2013 would never have passed but for the votes of Black men in southern elections and legislatures.\u00a0 This year\u2019s election and its turnout and results have established the continuing relevance of Du Boise\u2019s poetic words: \u201cDemocracy died save in the hearts of black folk.\u201d\u00a0 Time and time again, democracy is saved by those whom it continues to fail.<\/p>\n

The tragedy of Reconstruction comes not from its defects but from the failures in acknowledging, fulfilling, and furthering its promise.\u00a0 \u201cIf the era was tragic,\u201d says Foner, \u201cit was not because it was attempted but because in significant ways it failed, leaving to subsequent generations the difficult problem of racial justice.\u201d For all the misfortunate in the denied potential of Reconstruction, Foner urges hope throughout.\u00a0 The issues central to Reconstruction, he writes in \u201cReconstruction: America\u2019s Unfinished Revolution\u201d (1988) are \u201cas old as the American republic, and as contemporary as the inequalities that still afflict our society.\u201d\u00a0 A century and a half after the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments, the promise of equality remains unfulfilled. \u00a0In support of his optimism, Foner identifies the use of the amendments as constitutional foundation for the civil rights revolution.\u00a0 We are still trying to work out \u201cthe consequences of the abolition of American slavery,\u201d he writes, and in that sense, \u201cReconstruction never ended.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an echo of the fateful election of 1876, the nation is currently trying to grapple with the limits of its democratic institutions with a President who has refused to concede.\u00a0 \u201cReconstruction history has always been morally inflected,\u201d says Foner \u201cReconstruction: America\u2019s Unfinished Revolution\u201d (1988), because writing about the period stands in relation to key problems of our own time.\u00a0 Problems of our own time certainly depict democracy and morality in crisis.\u00a0 But it is hardly unprecedented.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most magnificent drama in the last thousand years of human history\u201d writes Du Bois \u201cwas the transportation of ten million human beings out of the dark beauty of their mother continent into the newfound Eldorado of the West: They descended into Hell; and in the third century they arose from the dead, in the finest effort to achieve democracy for the working millions which this world had ever seen. It was a tragedy that beggared the Greek; it was an upheaval of humanity like the Reformation and the French Revolution. Yet we are blind and led by the blind.\u201d<\/p>\n

Will this nation allow itself the humility of reckoning with the incomplete abolition of slavery and its legacies and give way to the egalitarian promise through the \u201cunused latent power\u201d of the Reconstruction amendments?<\/p>\n

It remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

And to be found.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/h1>\n

[1]<\/a> In 1856, Charles Sumner was attacked in the Senate Chamber by a South Carolina Democrat who used his walking stick to beat and seriously injure Sumner.\u00a0 Earlier, Sumner had condemned the pro-slavery senator using charged language in his \u201cCrime Against Kansas\u201d speech.\u00a0 United States Senate, The Caning of Charles Sumner<\/em>, May 22, 1856 www.senate.gov\/artandhistory\/history\/minute\/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> In the book, Foner notes Charles Sumner\u2019s regret in allowing the criminal conviction exception \u2013 the ultimate tool for abrogating the very freedom guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment – in the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment: he had hoped to propose eliminating the clause regarding convicted criminals but failed to act because his colleagues were anxious \u201cto get their dinner.\u201d<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> In a twist of serendipitous fate, the story of the inkstand comes from Malvina Harlan\u2019s memoirs which were first unearthed by another Great Dissenter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from the Library of Congress during her research for a lecture on the wives of prior Justices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Sania Anwar Abolition is a reckoning.\u00a0 A reckoning so profound and exact, in creating and fulfilling the antithetical to what is dismantled, that it can offer redemption along with emancipation. Eric Foner\u2019s \u201cThe Second Founding\u201d is the account of… Continue Reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2322,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38964],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-resources-4-13"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2322"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}