Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
my dog
Official Sponsor
An interactive way of understanding our nation's history
my dog
Blog Archive
Who's this Mr. O?
Official Sponsor
43 comments:
One of my first impressions of Reconstruction is that many Northerners over simplified it and were too optimistic. People like Presidents Lincoln and Johnson and others who believed that these Southern states could be re-admitted to the Union without consequence and that it would be smooth were incorrect. For a sucessful Reconstruction, politicians needed to recognize that while the South did lose the war, their original ideologies were still intact. Whites regarded the new freed slave class with the same inferiority as they did with slaves. The overly optimistic thoughts of certain Northerners were quickly rethought when Black Codes were established. In addition to these, race riots broke out in large Southern cities, like Memphis. Lastly, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan definately does not show a positive Reconstruction. I cannot believe the naiveity of certain proponents of quick readmittance without some lingering racial tensions.
Evan makes a point when he says that the South retained its previous identity. The KKK was a clear indicator of the racial tensions still lingering in the Southern states. Freedmen were unpleasantly surprised to learn that this "freedom" the North had won for them did not include freedom of speech, privacy, or from fear. Reconstruction did not solve these issues. Poll tax, intimidation, and lynching kept the black southerners out of politics. Technical freedom did not grant them social or economic freedoms. Reconstruction, while meant to address this, actually promoted it, with the lack of Southern consequence
Overall, I feel like the Reconstruction did accomplish things but started to slow down over time and eventually reached a halt in terms of its progressiveness by 1877. I know that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed which abolished slavery, extended citizenship to people of all races, and gave all [male] citizens voting rights. The Black race made many gigantic steps, like having the first few Black representatives elected, and recieved rights that mad long been denied to them. However, Black families still struggled to get by and had to form contracts which put them in situations very similar to slavery. They were also constantly terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan and subjected to continued racial discrimination. They were often denied their rights, for example, some Freedpeople in the South found themselves threatened at gunpoint to vote for certain candidates at elections. By the time that Hayes is comes into office, the United States no longer protected the rights of Black people and chose to ignore their hardships. In the end, I just think that the Reconstruction started off well but the policies made weren't enforced, defeating the purpose.
I agree with Evan's point that the formation of the KKK exemplified how the Reconstrution overlooked racial tensions. The government during this period tried to lighten racial tensions but failed to enforce any of its policies. It only allowed violent, illgal activity against Freedpeople run rampant and in a way, turned a blind eye. It did pass the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 but tha had little effect and was not really enforced.
Reconstruction was most certainly a period of radical thought, especially considering the country had just ended a war. Its fast paced activism to institute change, in my opinion, caused much confusion and dissension among the citizens. Evan makes the point that mentally, nothing really changed, and I agree. Just because an amendment said that blacks had the right to vote certainly did not mean that the public had to respect them as citizens whose votes actually matter. Yes, their votes helped Grant win the presidency, but the white population in the South, most certainly, would probably be unwilling to admit such power in the hands of the blacks.
This is clearly depicted in the formation of the KKK. The Ku Klux Klan was a response to the sudden elevation in social ability that blacks were granted. Obviously many whites were not ready to see the African Americans as equal, or even close to it, citizens.
Another impression I had about Reconstruction was its failure to set guidelines as to where the country was heading. One would think that after a war, yes reconstruction is needed, but along with that should come some sort of hint as to what the United States of America would furthermore be defined as. It very much focused on the "now" of its time and trying to create the illusion that America is heading towards a direction of civil rights activism for African Americans. Though, in retrospect, many citizens at the time were conflicted with what truly defined "America" after the war. Was there any Southern motifs that the Union would instill? How would this tension between races even begin to settle out? Should a citizen of the Union join groups such as the KKK to provoke traditional thoughts or is it loyal to agree with the government and its decision to grant African Americans various rights? Finally, it must have been difficult for a citizen to understand where the country stands with a President, Grant, whose election into office was controversial and whose cabinet was made up of his best buds, rather than constituents whose opinions would reflect the needs of the country.
Reconstruction may have included the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, but the overall condition of the nation was not greatly altered. Yes, blacks had the right to vote but that did not mean that racial discrimination would disappear and the new freedpeople would instantly become members of society. Rather, the country was still divided over the issue and the formation of the Klu Klux Klan was one example of this resentment. African Americans may have received minimal rights but people tried to resist this as much as possible by limiting what rights and freedoms they did have. They did play a part in the election of Grant to presidency however, as Alexa has mentioned, on some occasions were forced to vote for certain candidates.
The purpose of the Reconstruction was to create a new united America, with freed slaves. Although Reconstruction brought social and political changes to the African Americans, these reforms were short-lived. African Americans would have to wait another century before gaining the rights of the white man. The Black codes, sharecropping, and the KKK revealed the underlying racial tensions in the South. The Civil War did not change the people fighting it, as the South retained its racist views. In attempting to to aid the freed slaves, the Republican Party extinguished itself in the South for nearly 100 years. Thus the Reconstruction resurrected more than reconstructed the Old South. According to William Dunning’s late nineteenth-century theory:"the failure of Reconstruction could be blamed on carpetbaggers, (Northerners who came south) scalawags (southern Republicans who supported the Union), and freed slaves."
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA-------
I think the word Reconstruction sounds a lot better than the period actually was. I don't think a lot of people at the time were that into it, and like we said in class, started forgetting about it. The southerners didn't really want social change, but were forced into it because of the military stationed there. Moreover, it was obvious that the feelings of the whites towards the blacks remained the same even though the 14th and 15th amendments were supposed to protect their civil liberties. Race riots broke out, Black Codes treated the blacks like slaves, and groups like the KKK spread rapidly trying to strip blacks of their rights and lives. A lot of Northerners stopped caring about the south, and some republicans exploited them to make a profit. Johnson's plan to reconstruct failed because old Confederates were in Congress, and there was a threat of the south becoming Democratic. When Grant took office he was inexperienced and corrupt, and our country was suffering to find a new leader. Unfortunately, I do not really see the whole reconstructive aspect of Reconstruction, I see more conflict and violence like there was in the war, just aimed at and between different people.
I feel the goals of Reconstuction served more to punish the South than bring advancement for African Americans. This can mainly be attributed to Andrew Johnson who at first pleased the radicals by publicly attacking the planter aristocracy and insisting those involved in the rebellion must be punished. The obvious intent was to shift political control in the South from the old planter aristocracy. Thus the Reconstruction became a way to being social change to the Southern states: from the once dominating plantation owners to smaller farmers and freed slaves.
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA----------
I agree with Marianne that Reconstruction focused on the "now" of its time and failed to set guidelines as to where the country was headed. Like many times in history, I feel like the Republicans were so happy they won the war that they jumped quickly to give blacks some rights, but didn't answer a lot of questions they should have. They didn't really come up with a way to reunify the South after Johnson's plan failed and I think most of the country was left really confused. They didn't know how to view their southern fellow citizens they just tried to kill. They didn't know how to treat the blacks- as inferiors? citizens? slaves without the title? I think also that Grant was not the right man for his position. He was a product of political machines and did not really have his own voice or opinions. And obviously, he had no experience in politics and stacked his cabinet with his friends- not the smartest move. I think someone more interested in setting up the country and organizing it with a clear, steady goal of his own would've made Reconstruction a little easier.
At the risk of sounding too much like Evan I would have to say that the only thing different between the pre and post civil war South was the lack of slavery. However, banning slavery could never change the feelings that the South had about the newly freed blacks. These feelings were intensified by the fear of Africanization which plagued the country. Soon Black Codes were established which led to large scale race riots across Southern cities. Eventually this haste to recronstruct destroyed any new found freedoms which blacks had earned. Instead it prolonged their wait for equal rights by around 100 years.
Reconstruction was part of a larger plan to give African-Americans the same rights that whites enjoyed. It was a time of change for the laws governing African-Americans but not so much in their treatment. The south did everything they could to fight back from these changes; things like black codes and the KKK bound blacks to their roles as less important and undeserving of equal rights of white Americans regardless of what the laws said.
The south tried harder than ever to resist change and eventually when the north got bored of making the south comply with their rules, they stopped being enforced and progress stopped being made for a long time.
No matter what, Reconstruction definitely was not going to be an easy process. It is not easy to change the political views of the South in a single term, when those views had been held for a hundred years. Moreover, the South was extremely stubborn and wanted to cling to the past as much as possible, which made the process even harder. I think that people such as Lincoln and Johnson were a too soft by saying that the South had always been a part of the Union and the entire War was only a minor disagreement. Considering how the South treated freed slaves and disregarded Northern policies, I think the South deserved some punishment for breaking away. If the South was punished for what they did, things for them would probably have been put into perspective and they probably would not have acted out by forming the Ku Klux Klan and creating Black Codes.
Since my good friend Chris has yet to post I'll have to find someone else to agree with, not Stef because although she sits next to me I don't like her as much. Instead I'm going to agree with Ritu because she used a quote to support her arguement and this quote included the word scalawag. Additionally I truly believe that she is right in asserting that the reconstruction efforts cost the GOP support for many years to come. If there's one thing Southerners can do it's hold a grudge.
I agree with what Stefanie said about the era seeming to be more of conflict and violence. The political conflicts had also been a large factor during the Reconstruction, as Grant election was controversial. In addition, although he was popular and a war hero, he did not have the proper experience to run the nation and filled his cabinet with his own favorites and friends rather than balancing out the people.
I am a little disappointed that there have not been many oposing views, which I could comment about, a.k.a. Alex. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea that many people lost interest in Reconstruction. From the end of the Civil War, there was not set timeline of when this process should end. Presidents and politicans did not know if it would take 5 years or 50 years to rebuild the South. As stated many times before on this blog, the social changes were very sparse. However, the nation did develop economically. New banks were created that stabilized the economy, despite the 1873 Panic. Also, new industries grew and a new relationship between the North and the South developed, as well. Both regions became reliant on certain industries, despite the ruined condition of the South.
Like a few have mentioned, the theory of reconstruction sounds a whole lot better than it actually was. The progress that was made was substantial; the 14th and 15th ammendments held great power and certainly cannot be overlooked. The biggest problem with what at first seems to be great progress is that it was simply too much too fast. The change was so short lived because amidst all the eagerness on the part of the republican northerness to re-admit the south as soon as possible to re-establish the union resentment soon grew. The black codes and the KKK grew from this resentment and further hindered any other social change.
Another component I find interesting about reconstruction is waht we talked about in do now today, the effect that federal troops stationed in the south had on the southerners. We pretty much came to two conclusions in class: first that none of the changes would have even occured in the south had the federal troops not been there to enforce them, and second that the federal troops most likely led to an overwhelming amount of resentment and therefore essentially stopped the reconstruction phase in the process. To continue on this train of thought, what would have happened had the north not moved so fast and not been so aggressive in the approach to re-unifying?
once again i am posting right after Evan. Anyways, just to respond to Joanna, do you really think if the North had been more vindictive the South would not have acted out? Maybe we should consider the possibility that if harsher punishments were pushed on the South, the KKK, Black codes, etc, would be more extreme and detrimental. While i agree the Reconstruction period did not do its job entirely, do you think harsher punishments would have put down the backlash or augmented it?
ok never mind, i guess i didn't post right after evan.......
Although I acknowledge that reconstruction may have been better on paper than in practice, I don't think that slowing the process down would have helped the south come to terms with the ideas any better than they did.
Regardless of the speed of Reconstruction the south was going to resist this change. I don't believe that had these changes been made over 15 or 20 years instead of over the short period of time that they were made in, the south would have embraced them. The south was not open to these new equality laws and that wouldn't change for a long time.
Well reconstruction, I thought had both its good points and bad ones, like anything else. On one hand, reconstruction gave rise to great strides in civil rights. The black codes, and the 14th and 15th amendments gave rights that African Americans never though possible before this time. On the other hand, reconstruction also gave rise to violence. Martial law was declared in the south and the Ku Klux Klan was created which was only the beginning of hate that would brew in the south for centuries. Reconstruction had both positive and negative results.
I think Reconstruction could have been carried out in a much better manner than it was under President Johnson. His whole plan of amnesty did not coincide with military districts or forceful enforcement of new laws which the South wasn't ready to accept. Basically, by not allowing ex-Confederate states back into the Union until they agreed to their terms, the North twisted their arm into agreeing to uphold Northern principals. There's a major difference between saying you agree and ACTUALLY agreeing, especially when you're still licking your wounds and feeling the sting of having lost a major war.
In order for Reconstruction to have been successful, however, one of the sides had to give. Unfortunately, the Southern recapitulation came with heavy consequences, like the formation of the KKK, Black Codes, and extreme violence and hatred towards Freed Blacks. Maybe, if the North gave the South a stricter set of guidelines for readmitance to the Union, Southern states would have been more qualified to be members of the United States. More importantly, they may have been more proud.
On another note, I feel like reconstruction could have gone much smoother were Lincoln alive for its duration. Johnson and all the controversy surrounding his policy and decisions made reconstruction an arduous and long process.
I agree with Kyle that Reconstruction had its ups and downs. It seems that the downs outweighed the ups when you consider how much prejudice spread in the south during that time period.
I feel like the South, in general, was extremely immature about being reconstructed by the North. It's almost like because they didn't get their way, they threw a tantrum and tried to rebel by establishing their own government, with former Confederate leaders, and by creating laws and hate groups that undermined the effort of the North. To me, this is almost on a level of toddler behavior.
It seems like the Reconstruction efforts were doomed to fail once Grant stepped into office. He really wasn't the right candidate for the job. Perhaps, he was even the worst candidate for the job. First off, he was politically inexperienced. It's so ironic that someone without that valuable experience is put into office at such a vulnerable time. What's even worse than his own ineptness is his cabinet's. He gave his friends, who didn't have a clue what to do politically wise, high positions. On top of all that, there was corruption. That type of instability and immorality put a dark stain on any and all Reconstruction efforts.
Despite Grant's mistakes, Reconstruction should be thought of overall as a success. It did, after all, improve blacks' conditions. Sure, conflict ensued. The formation of KKK groups and southern violence should not have been surprises. That should be expected when dramatic change is made. But the giant social leaps that blacks made must be commended. They did become free. The 14th and 15th amendments were passed. And although the practice of these rights was impeded, the important thing to note is that the blacks technically possessed the right. Sooner or later, the south would adjust to the change and society would accept blacks as equals. Just because there were problems does not mean we should discount all of the tremendous progress that was made.
A deep impression of the Reconstruction period left in my mind is of Johnson's failure in office and the confusion after the Civil War. Like we said, one day the South were the North's enemies, and the next, their countrymen. This does not necessarily mean that the South suddenly changed their views, which is why there is so much conflict between the two sides. The confusion was brought upon by opposing views and the hastiness of leaders to "forgive and forget" By forgiving southern leaders so quickly, leaders like Lincoln and Johnson forgot why the war was fought. It was the fundamental difference between ideologies, and those do not evaporate just because the South loses the war.
I likewise agree with Kyle's statement that Lincoln's death was definitely detrimental to the health of the country during the Reconstruction period. Johnson was too unpopular to begin with and evidently was "doomed to failure." Had Lincoln been alive, he probably could have passed several bills and laws that would have stabilized the country a little, even though we think he might have wanted to step down from his position. Nevertheless, the support he received from the North and Blacks demonstrates how he could have possibly achieve more over the short period of time in the Reconstruction than other presidents. Maybe Blacks' civil rights would not have been vetoed had Lincoln survived. However, this is simply a guess(although probably an accurate one).
Although the war was over and fighting had stopped, it seems like the country was still split. What I mean is that reconstruction was more of a time where people were confused and frustrated than it was a time to actually fix the nation. Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South, Johnson didn't quite get along with Congress, the south had to be split into military districts, johnson's plans weren't getting much support, etc. So far, Reconstruction hasn't shown many benefits.
"everyone has heard the expression: history is always written by the winners. it's because of this idea that when people look at the reconstruction era, they focus on unaltered southern idealogy. but what people tend to forget is that during any period in united states history, racism has in fact been an objective experience. look back at the history of civil rights legislation following the civil war and you'll find that in the north, it is nil. NINETEEN out of the twenty-four northern states did not allow blacks to vote after the civil war but instead candidly recognized the disenfranchisement of blacks that had been written into law in the southern states." - shafat alam, former student
My first response to Reconstruction is that it never had a real chance to be successful. The North and South were two very different places before the Civil War even began. The war only further separated the differences between the sides. The North wanted to forget about the war and move on with a better country. On the flipside, the South had certainly not forgotten about the war. They were still bitter towards the North because they completely changed their way of life by eliminating slavery. To think these two sides would work together is actually an absurd idea. I feel as though the North was trying too hard to impose it's ideas onto the south, as opposed to letting the course of events flow naturally. Yes they needed to be involved, but the South really needed to take the lead for two reasons. One it would boost their confidence and make them feel more welcome in the Union and two it would allow them to reform life in a manner they feel suitable.
It said my other comment saved,, but i dont see it so in a nutshell it said "" In my opinion, reconstruction was a good idea in theory, but was unsuccessful. In fact besides the passing of the 13, 14, and 15 ammendments which put the rights of freedmen into the actualy constitution, the Union was still vastly seperated in view points. If Lincoln had stil been president i believe that he would have drastically changed how reconstruction took place. Johnson was not strong enough and did not pay enough attention to the south who went ahaed and created black codes which in a sense put the freedmen in even worse oppression becuase they were supposed to be free and were still oppressed. This was a good theory, great radical ideas that the nation needed, but did not have the backbone to be implemented and therefore was a step backwards.
Chris that's an interesting point about letting the south take the lead, but i dont think it would have helped anything. The south was so scared of africanization in their words of society that they would never have gone quietly about the northern resolutions and the new laws. They needed a stern hand, not a sympathetic lenient one. If Johnson had been more stern, and still been forgiving, there might not have been such a huge mess. But the south was given free reign and just reverted backwards.
While freed slaves were able to gain many rights in a short amount of time under the plans carried out in reconstruction, it did not initiate the social changes that were sought after during reconstruction. Johnson did not make the most effective plan during his time in office to help the South, and it couldve been much more successful and permanent with a better plan. The KKK which was present following the war can attest to the Racial tentions that still existed even with the South supporting the North fully in theory. Reconstruction served to pass laws that provided major improvements for Black people living in the United States, even though all citizens may not have agreed with them.
I agree with Evan's thoughts regarding the social structure following the war. While people in the North believed progress would follow with the federal government supporting reconstruction, race riots and the general feeling of superiority of White people of Black in the South disproved these ideas. The feelings toward freed slaves was much the same as it was before the war and abolition may have only sparked more hatred for Black people in the South.
As Mr. O mentioned towards the end of class, more progress for Blacks was made during the ten or so years immediately following the civil war than during the eighty or so subsequent years. This indicates that reconstruction did indeed accomplish a few objectives in integrating freed Blacks into society. However, the problem was that the Reconstruction was rushed and not sustained. Johnson envisioned a Reconstruction period of one year or a few. Instead, he needed to set goals for both the short term and the long term to be accomplished through passing legislation such as the fourteenth amendment.
The second major issue with Reconstruction dealt with the attitude towards Blacks. A victory and legislation written on paper would not change the fundamental mindset and ideology of Southerners. This can be seen through the formation of groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. Southern resentment towards the North and towards Blacks was funneled through hate groups instead of openly expressed. This made Reconstruction much more difficult because of the counter-progressive attitudes prevalent in the south.
The Confederates surrendered on April 9, 1865 and the official fighting ended; however this did not mean the Civil War ended. The war became a social war instead of armed combat. The South was still rebellious and unyielding to the government’s policies. Reconstruction for the country was the long period after the “short war”; like picking up after a party. Both sides were resentful of the war and how it affected their region. The North was determined to make the Reconstruction period go as quickly and painlessly as possible. However, the South was determined to “not go down without a fight”. They rebelled and fought Reconstruction until the end. Lincoln’s death was not only a social tragedy but also a political tragedy as well. Johnson and Grant’s policies seem sloppy compared to what Lincoln could have done. These two presidents also seemed less determined to fix the Union to what it was; they seemed to want to fix all the small problems by putting a temporary fix. Reconstruction would have gone smoother if Lincoln had been in office. However, Reconstruction became a sloppy process both in the South and Washington D.C.
Alex brought up a good point... Johnson envisioned reconstruction to end in a few years or less. Putting a time limit on Reconstruction instead of setting goals delayed, rushed, and made Reconstruction harder on both sides. Alex's suggestion of setting both short term and long term goals would have benefited Reconstruction. Johnson should also have had at least some concern for the restoring of the Union as Lincoln had, instead of having a good time in office with his friends.
I agree with Evan that racial issues and accomponing solutions were incorrectly handled. The Black Codes were made with the intention of protecting blacks, but rather ended up doing the opposite. These codes endorsed discrimination, essentially allowing a form of slavery with the contract clause. Also the race riots and formation of hate groups such as the KKK exemplify the tension that would last even to today. The government needed to enforce strong laws to protect civil liberties, because the leinient laws they did pass, did little to benefit blacks.
Many of the things taht surprised me were the effects of Reconstruciton. With the collapse of the plantation system, the new form of agriculture that developed in the South was call Share-Cropping. The ex-slaves could not afford to purchase land and the only thing most of them knew was agriculture. Whites who owned land usually did not have the money to pay wages. So the system of Share-Cropping provided for the White owners to supply the ex-slaves (on credit) the seeds, tools, etc. to start planting a crop. When the crop was harvested, the ex-slave would pay off the White owner with the profit from the sale of his crops. The problem was that the sale of the crop never allowed the debt to be fully paid off. The White owner would then advance more credit for the following year and the ex-slave would continue to go deeper into debt. This system tied the ex-slaves and their descendants to the land but never allowed them to get out of debt. Industry did start to develop in the South, in areas like Virginia, with northern capital and northern investors mainly coming up with the money to start manufacturing.
Another point is whether the Reconstruction was a success or a failure. As others have stated, it depends on your perspective. However, I believe that the difference in perspective was not one of North verses South, but rather one of State verses Federal and the continued degradation of the Constitution. What began under President Lincoln in terms of extra-Constitutional acts was carried further with reconstruction. While Lincoln initiated acts declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (initiating an income tax, removing Habeas Corpus, jailing Northern politicians for simply speaking out against the war), during reconstruction increasingly blatant acts occurred such as applying the 14th Amendment which never meant Constitutional requirements for ratification and the forceful removal of duly elected legislatures and replacing them with new hand picked (unelected) members.
Post a Comment