“Eerie similarities": CNN's Dana Bash on "America's deadliest election," fact-checking and Trump

Based on the title of CNN anchor Dana Bash’s new book, “America's Deadliest Election,” you might think it's about the 2020 election and the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It's not: Bash has actually written about the little-known story of the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana.

The level of lethal violence in that election was many times greater than anything that happened on or after Jan. 6, with hundreds killed in the year that followed. One of the deadliest incidents is known as the Colfax Massacre, in which more than 150 Black Americans were killed by white supremacists.

As Bash explained to me in our "Salon Talks" interview, that 1872 election took place held in a “tinderbox." Many former Confederates were still outraged about losing the Civil War and about the notion that Black people would be able to vote. “The fundamental belief of these people, who were white supremacists, was that Black people shouldn't have those rights,” Bash explained.

I was struck by the historical parallels between that time and what we are living through today. The highly partisan media of 1872 peddled lies that helped the politicians they supported, misled people and stoked violence. Those publications, as Bash noted, were simply “mouthpieces of the parties and the party leaders, and it was hard for people to find the facts as they were, as opposed to the feedback loop that they were getting.” Does that sound familiar?

Bash and I also discussed her role as moderator in the now-famous presidential debate that ended Joe Biden's political career, her interview with Vice President Harris and the recent social media attacks on her from Donald Trump and his supporters. “I'm a human being and it's not pleasant,” Bash said, “but it honestly makes me more resolute in understanding the impact and the importance of what we do as journalists and to try to tune it all out.”

Watch my "Salon Talks" interview with Dana Bash here on YouTube or read a transcript of our conversation below, edited for length and clarity.

When people hear the title of your new book, their minds may go to Jan. 6, but that’s not what the book is about. Tell people about this gubernatorial race in Louisiana, how did you find it and why is it so compelling to you that you wrote a book?

In 1872 in Louisiana, there was real violence, hundreds and hundreds of people died including a massacre of Black men. That's really the context in which this election took place. It was during Reconstruction and the election beforehand was in 1868 and newly freed Black men — of course it was only men then — were allowed to vote and they did.

They elected people who, as they should, supported their point of view and support their rights. The segregationists, the racists, saw that and said, "Whoa, we can't let that happen again." That was when they began to use intimidation, disenfranchisement at the polls, and they were successful in keeping probably thousands of Black men from voting. So the election was so corrupted, nobody knew who won.

Nobody would concede. So there were two governors, they were opposing candidates, neither would concede, so both were inaugurated by their own people. The legislatures, same thing: Two legislatures were sworn in, two slates of judges. It was total and complete chaos, and it got to the point where the leaders were calling for violence. And that happened.

In the Colfax Massacre in Grant Parish, named for Ulysses S. Grant, there were 150 Black men murdered in cold blood because they were trying to protest and make clear that they didn't have the right to vote, and they should have. They realized that these white men probably wouldn't get convicted in a jury of their peers in the state of Louisiana. In order to prosecute that, it went into the federal court, it was tried on the basis of civil rights, and it got all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided in a very important decision, United States v. Cruikshank, that it is up to the states and not the federal government to determine people's civil rights. And the South said, "OK, we agree and we're going to impose Jim Crow laws for the next 100 years." That is how we got there, and it all started with this election.

This is in the post-Civil War era, during Reconstruction. Tensions are very high. There are former Confederate soldiers who had fought to keep slavery there. They're seeing Black people voting, people who they had enslaved. How much of a tinderbox was Louisiana leading up to this election?

It was such a tinderbox. First of all, it was just the fundamental belief of these people who were white supremacists that Black people shouldn't have those rights — even if they're not slaves, they shouldn't have rights. Then there was the economic aspect of it, which was huge because they suddenly didn't have free labor. That was a big part of Reconstruction, to try to answer that.

Up until then, and this is one of the many parallels between then and now, people by and large trusted the electoral system. You cast your ballot, it was done by hand, it took a very long time, and somebody said, "This is who won." That was it. That stopped with this election because it was so incredibly corrupt and people who had the right to vote were not allowed to vote.

Then we fast-forward to 1876, the presidential election where this kind of corruption was true in Louisiana again, and also other states. The president of the United States could not be determined because in four states, including Louisiana, their electoral slates were so messed up.

In fact, they sent two electoral slates to Congress. It was the first time that we could find that a vice president had to decide whether or not his job was ceremonial or whether he could have an impact and decide which slate of electors would be determined. And that vice president, or the people around that vice president, determined that it was only ceremonial.

As a reporter covering politics, had I known about this history before, never mind the 2020 election and all that happened then, but on Jan. 6, 2021, there were so many parallels, watching Mike Pence struggle with that question and then decide, just like back then, that it was just ceremonial.

The people in the streets of New Orleans screaming "Hang him." Assassination attempts, including one [similar to] Donald Trump’s assassination attempt, which happened after the book was already done. The gubernatorial candidate, when they tried to kill him, he describes the bullet whizzing by his head and hearing the bullet. It's eerie how many similarities there are.

Another similarity you talk about in your book is the partisan news media feeding lies about election misinformation, which helped incite violence. I think a great point you make is about how partisan media has been with us, and was probably worse in the early days. Can you share about how partisan media played a role in fueling this and the lessons for us in 2024?

Partisan media has been around since the press. The difference in 1872 is that technology was starting to improve. The telegraph existed, so there were many more newspapers and information could flow more freely and faster than on horseback and via train. That was a big part of it, and it was big business to have newspapers.

Gosh, I don't advocate having partisan newspapers in local cities and states, but having more newspapers, can you imagine? They had hundreds of newspapers on the local level, and they were printing many a day. For the most part, they were mouthpieces of the parties, of the party leaders. It was hard for people to find the facts as they were, as opposed to the feedback loop that they were getting.

You assume if they believe in the Democratic cause and the segregationists that you're going to buy those papers, so that's basically all they were hearing. It's eerily similar to today, except that we're all seeing that on our phone with algorithms so it's a hundred times worse.

In the book, you go into great detail about the Colfax Massacre. There's also so much other violence that went on at that time, it is jaw dropping.

The Colfax Massacre was in Grant Parish. There was violence on the streets of New Orleans, pitched battles on the streets, and the Battle of Liberty Place. I know that there are plaques there to tell people about it. People who grow up in Louisiana and learn Louisiana history learn a little bit about it, but I don't believe they learn the whole story about the real violence and the need for federal troops. That's the other part of the story that also led to the South being able to do what it did for a hundred years, until the modern-day civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s came about. The states were left alone to fend for themselves with regard to the troops down there as part of the 1876 compromise, which is another crazy story. They couldn't get agreement on who won the presidency because the Electoral College was split thanks to those four states being thrown out.

They came up with a commission and eventually the winner was decided to be Rutherford B. Hayes. It was part of a backroom deal where Hayes, with more than a wink and a nod, was like, "OK, I'll take it." But it was very clear that the implication was he would have to pull federal troops out of the South. Any chance at keeping the peace and keeping Black people safe with federal troops, which Grant tried to do on and off throughout the early 1870s, was over.

You also talk about the rise of the White Leagues there. Do you see any similarities today between them and some of the far-right movements in the U.S.?

Sure. The White Leagues still live on. One group was actually called the White League, but the KKK was born in Tennessee at this time. Offshoots of it spread all over the South, and white supremacists were an outgrowth of Confederates, of slave owners. Not all of them, but some of them. This is all about not just wanting free labor, but genuinely believing, in a disgusting way, that people who are not white are lesser than, and that it is their right to do whatever they need to do, including kill and suppress in order to keep that way of life. If they see a Black man or woman as lesser than, then they don't think it's a problem to commit violence against them. It's absolutely horrific and it does still exist. Not like that, we're not in the post-Civil War era, but it still exists in pockets of America.

You recently did an interview with Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz. You know the left and the right are going to look at that interview through a microscope. Does that impact the way you prepare or the way that you deal with the actual interview in real time?

It's funny, as I was preparing for the interview, one of my amazing colleagues said to me, "You have to think of this like the [presidential] debate. You're going to get a you-know-what storm on your head." I was like, "Yeah, I know." But I felt like it was different, and it was for lots of reasons. The stakes were certainly not as high and the consequences didn't end up the same. It's related to what we were just talking about, about the partisan media and people in their echo chambers and in their silos.

On the left, they can't understand how a journalist would ask a question to help voters who are not with them, and illuminate what this person would do as a leader and as a leader of the free world.

From the right, they can't understand why I didn't just absolutely destroy her with each question. And that's not our job. That's not my job as a reporter, as an objective reporter. It is to do what I just mentioned earlier, just to get more information, especially in the situation where we are now, where Kamala Harris is a very new candidate. She didn't go through the paces. She didn't go through a primary process where Democratic primary voters could decide whether or not they wanted her, as flawed as those processes are. That's a whole different conversation.

She has been somebody who only had her own platform of ideas up until she became Joe Biden's vice president. And as all vice presidents do, they are underneath and they adopt the policies of the presidency. So it's a long way of saying, yes, I expected it. As another one of my colleagues says, it comes with being in the arena and with modern-day politics.

Does it impact you in any way as a human being where before the interview Donald Trump is saying, "Do a good job," and then afterwards, at his rally, he’s saying that you're "nasty."

Oh, really? I missed that. No, it's fine. The Truth Social post that he put up before was a long ... Did you see his long diatribe about how I have the potential for greatness? Obviously I failed. [Laughter.]

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Does it matter at all as a journalist? Or do you have such a thick skin that you're like, well, this comes with the business. Does it impact you in any way?

I'm a human being and it's not pleasant, but it honestly makes me more resolute in understanding the impact and the importance of what we do as journalists, and to try to tune it all out. It's hard, but I try, especially when it all comes onto your phone.

You're going to have to Google yourself.

No, I'm good. I do not do that. That's how I preserve my mental health. I do not do that.

The big debate between Trump and Biden that you moderated with Jake Tapper happened in June, and now we have the first debate between Trump and Harris. How much push and pull is there inside the world of CNN or ABC about, "Do we fact check or do we not fact check?" As a journalist, when you hear Trump lying about the election, is your instinct, "I should say something," or do you go, "That's it. These are the rules and that's life"?

My instinct is always to say something. In that situation, which is a debate, it's not just us, it's not the interview that I did. It's him against the person who he's challenging to be president of the United States. Historically, since Kennedy and Nixon, virtually all presidential debates are done with the moderators facilitating and not participating.

We made the decision that we were not going to be participants in that way, in saying, "OK, hold on, President Biden, we're going to get to you in a second. But let me just say that XYZ that [Trump] just said is not true. Go ahead, President Biden." We felt that that was his job to do. And the way that the debate unfolded, imagine if we did all the aggressive fact-checking on Donald Trump. We would've been accused of doing President Biden's job for him.

And by the way, we would've also had to fact check President Biden, which Donald Trump didn't do, on a couple of things. Big things, like he said, "No American serviceman died on his watch," which is not true. At Abbey Gate [in Afghanistan], 13 people were killed. So it's tough. I'm not saying it's not tough. It is really, really tough. But a debate is very different from an interview or a town hall where you are the person who is running the show and you're the only one there to challenge.

When you were moderating that debate, did you get a sense that something was wrong with President Biden? 

We saw what you saw. We saw what everybody saw and it wasn't what we — we did a lot of prep and that was not part of our prep process, I'll just say that.

“America's Deadliest Election,” is about a dark time in American history, and there's some connective tissue to what we're living through today. How do we prevent things from getting darker? How do we prevent 2024 from becoming like 1872?

That's a really tough question, and I don't know the answer. All I know is that whoever said originally, "If you don't know your history, then you're going to repeat it," that is very true. I think we just have to be really focused on the guardrails that do exist in our democracy, in the system, that allow for it to continue, and just be hyper-aware. I do think that after 2020 and early 2021 we are more aware of it, but as we saw in 1876 with that contested presidential election where nobody won, it could actually be worse.