Thursday, January 31, 2013
On Line Seminar
We will be having an online seminar. You can start posting today and you have until Monday morning at 9:30 AM to post. You must post at least three times. When you post, be sure you are using proper grammar and spelling. Be sure that you have evidence to support your ideas and also make sure you are responding to other posts by your peers. The question you should discuss is: Was Reconstruction successful? You should consider its impact on the African Americans in the South, how well the Union came back together and the impact on the Southern states. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to begin the conversation by stating that I do not believe that Reconstruction was successful. As we discussed in class, some beneficial things came out of it, but the overall detriments of the system far outweighed the benefits. For example, one may simply refer to the scene in New Orleans depicted in "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War". To briefly review, the governor of New Orleans wanted to enact black suffrage in the state of Louisiana, so he called a Constitutional Convention to change the voting laws in the state. While the convention met in the Mechanics Institute, New Orleans black people marched for the vote. Upon reaching the Mechanics Institute, the black protesters were met with angry ex-Confederates and a bloody riot broke out. In this scene, we witnessed Southern hatred for the North and racism against black people - the exact opposite of what Reconstruction was trying to achieve. The Southern people were going through enormous enough changes as it was - trying to rebuild their entire infrastructure - without Reconstruction. Reconstruction, although it was trying to achieve positive things, was too much change for the Southerners and was happening too rapidly. Because they felt oppressed and invisible in the government's eyes, they acted out against the black people. The Southerners' burgeoning hatred made them feel more animosity towards the North and the black population, and therefore hindered the Union coming back together and the atmosphere for freed black people. As these were the goals for Reconstruction and they were failing miserably, Reconstruction was not successful.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree Sabina, and the scene you mentioned serves to perfectly back up your point. The riot also, as you mentioned, exhibited that racism was still rampant even after the Civil War had ended and the slaves had been freed. Reconstruction failed not because the North was unsuccessful in quelling southern racism, which was and still is arguably incurable, but because they failed to protect freed blacks from laws and acts that employed said racism. One such instance is in the "Black Codes of Mississippi" source in For the Record. On page 461, a portion of Section Three of the "Civil Rights of Freedmen in Mississippi" states: "...that it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro, or mulatto to intermarry with any white person.." and later in the source, "...and any person who shall so intermarry, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof shall be confined in the State penitentiary for life..." These two excerpts completely exemplify how the government failed to stop the legislatures of the Confederate states from perpetuating slavery and increasing the divide between blacks and whites after the war. As we discussed, this particular section carried the harshest penalty of all; most of the other violations resulted in either a small fine or a relatively short imprisonment. The fact that a violation of this law called for a life sentence is an example of how the governments of the Confederate states wanted to make it clear to the freedmen and women that they still did not view them as equal and they still did not wish to mix the races. While all of the laws enacted in the Black Codes oozed inequality and nearly mirrored slavery, this particular act symbolically emanated the most racism with its implications. The fact that these laws were ever passed goes to show another example of how Reconstruction failed. The federal government should not have allowed the Confederate states to continue to pass their own laws regarding the rights of freedmen. Instead of simply passing the 14th Amendment later, the federal government should have enforced it more stringently to ensure that blacks truly were equal, even at the state level. Reconstruction failed to secure this for freed blacks and failed altogether in enacting equality.
DeleteColby, I’d like to go off of what you said by talking more about the governments role in causing reconstruction to be an unsuccessful endeavor. The United States government made the crucial mistake of not being completely sure that the south was dedicated to the idea of becoming a functioning part of the Union, which included black equality. This failure put the South in a great position to enact the “Black Codes” you spoke about. The governments obliviousness can be seen in their first attempt to bring the South back into the Union, Lincoln’s Ten Percent Plan. In the Wiki primary source, “Salmon P. Chase to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, April 11, 1865 (Reconstruction),” Chase, a moderator of President Lincoln showed his advocacy for Lincoln’s lenient plan. He said:
DeleteThe easiest & safest way seems to me to be the enrollment of the loyal citizens, without regard to complexion, and encouragement & support to them in the reorganization of State Governments under constitutions securing suffrage to all citizens of proper age & unconvicted of crime. This you know has long been my opinion. It is confirmed by observation more & more.
The main problem with this strategy was that the government could not tell which citizens were actually loyal to the Union. The Ten Percent Plan allowed states to be admitted just as long as ten percent of the population took an Oath of Allegiance to the United States. However, the government had no way of knowing if the citizens who tool this oath actually would leave their slavery values behind, or were just playing the government in order to gain the advantages of being a part of the Union. The leniency of the Ten Percent plan was detrimental to Reconstruction because it showed the Southern States that they could continue to mistreat the black’s and there would not be any type of punishment from the government. The North’s reconciliation with the South did physically reconstruct the Union, however, it did not reconstruct in a way that would allow for a healthy transition for newly freed slaves into American society. Forgiving the south for such a brutal battle over slavery allowed the south to think that they had control over the government, and that they could manipulate the government to see their point of view. The North’s ignorance let the South target the black population further, which is why Reconstruction was not successful.
Sabina, I would like to go off of the riot example that you presented from the movie. You said that the riot displayed how Reconstruction pitted the North and South against each other. Not only was reconstruction a failure in that it created further tension between the North and South, but also created enormous societal differences in the dividing political parties. This division is seen in the creation of Carpetbaggers and Scalawags. In Sarah Wallace’s Wiki space, she presented a primary source entitled, “Horace Greeley Reports on the Carpetbaggers in the South.” Horace Greely, who advocated for the ridding of carpetbaggers, referenced them by saying, “And there they stand, right in the public eye, stealing and plundering, many of them with both arms around the Negroes, and their hands in their rear pockets, seeing if they cannot pick a paltry dollar out of them.” Due to the government divisions between Democrats and Republicans during Reconstruction, the process of building the Union back up became even more difficult. Reconstruction was a failure because the political parties could not agree, which allowed citizens, specifically carpetbaggers and scalawags, to interpret Reconstruction in their own ways. This free interpretation allowed tensions to rise based on the issues mentioned by Greely. Issues such as how much to protect the freed slaves, and how much money should be given to them for their labor were able to dictate Reconstruction and hindered the government’s ability to create a functioning Union. The division between carpetbaggers and scalawags shows that Reconstruction fueled the tension between the two parties, and therefore was unsuccessful.
DeleteI strongly agree with Sabina that the violence during the Reconstruction period was a reason to consider the Reconstruction unsuccessful. In the video “Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War" the narrator said: “In Pine Bluff, Arkansas a mob of Ex-Confederates burns a Black settlement to the ground then hangs 24 of the Black men, women and children. In North Carolina, a wealthy White woman is charged with killing a Black mother who had try to protect her child from a whipping. A reporter in Nashville writes, White men are writing about whipping, maiming and killing all negroes who do not obey the orders of their former masters just as if slavery existed”. The problem was not just simply violence, but the refusal of the Southern Democrats to accept the abolition of slavery. The Ex-Confederates passed the “Black Codes”, which basically brought back the slavery into effect and the federal government couldn’t do anything about it, as they were not allowed to intervene in the state laws, according to the Constitution. The New Orleans massacre was an important event, which portrayed the cruelty of the Southerners. “About 200 Black Union Veterans begin a freedom march toward a building called the Mechanics Institute. Here, Union delegates debate the fate of Black suffrage. Local Ex-Confederate leaders opposed to the Black vote have created a large police force to arrest the delegates at the convention”. The Democrats were totally against blacks having the right to vote, which led to a massacre of two hundred innocent black citizens. The Reconstruction was supposed to create equality among all the citizens of America and give them equal opportunities and right, but by killing every one of the Black Union Veterans, it was almost the same as returning to the period before the war. What was the point of fighting such a long war if it wasn’t going to change anything? The importance of the Reconstruction period was in some ways greater than the war itself, which was why it was such a hard task to accomplish, however, the government was unable to wisely and properly deal with it without causing any violence. Therefore, there are more than enough reasons why the Reconstruction was unsuccessful in general.
DeleteWhen thinking about if Reconstruction was successful or not, the state of the freed black population often receives the most emphasis, and not for bad reason; the aim of the Civil War, as discussed in class, was mainly to end slavery. However, Reconstruction was meant to not only help African-Americans, but also to piece the nation back together and reincorporate the states and people of the Confederacy back into the Union. In the latter aspect, Reconstruction failed. In "An Unreconstructed Southerner", Howell Cobb, a politician from Georgia with an illustrious career, exemplified how the South felt towards Reconstruction: "Standing today in the midst of the gloom and suffering which meets the eye in every direction, we can but feel that we are the victims of cruel legislation and harsh enforcement of unjust laws..." The South had been destroyed in the war, both physically and mentally. Their lands were ruined and their economic and social infrastructure was disassembled and transformed drastically. After all of that, they were expected to submit willfully to the North. As punishment by the North, this is understandable. However, the North's efforts to reconstruct the South, although arguably sincere, served to only make the South feel victimized and as if they were being punished further. The North failed to make the South feel welcomed back to the Union, as Reconstruction had aimed to accomplish. Instead, the constant presence of federal troops and the seemingly never-ending argument between Congress and the president over how to handle the situation only made the South feel patronized and as if the North was trying to send them deeper into ruin. The North failed to make the South and its inhabitants feel comfortable in the Union once again, and in this aspect, among many others, Reconstruction was not successful.
ReplyDeleteAs Colby states an import issue of Reconstruction is the effects on the south. Not only did the south had economic disaster from losing the work force of the slaves the south had a massive social disaster. Their entire way of life was destroyed. Slavery had been socially acceptable and integrated into southern society since the American Colonies were founded. To be told after loosing a bloody civil war that they would have their way of lives completely change it was very hard for them to accept the changes. As also Colby stated before the constant military in the South also threatened the South further making them feel like they were being punished further. A perfect example of this is from the movie when hey describe the scene between the union soldiers and the widow. Union soldiers arrived at a, widow in the south's house. She had refused to go into mourning because of Lincoln's death stating that he's the reason she is without a son or husband. They tell the widow that if she does not put on the widows weep they will go get the clothing themselves and force them on her. She proceeded to go into her house and hang herself by her widows weeps. In this aspect I don't think that the Reconstruction was successful in bring the union back into the union. Even though the south was technically apart of the union the south felt abused by the North and mis-treated. Because of this animosity para-military groups sprang up over the south including Jim-Crowe laws that made the South basically go back to the way it was before the civil war. In retrospect I don not think that Reconstruction was successful.
DeleteJust to play on the opposing side, I think one can argue that Reconstruction was successful because as Colby mentioned, Reconstruction was not only to help African-Americans but also piece the nation back together, which you can argue that it did. On Sabina’s ID on the blog, her primary source says, “The hard feelings of Reconstruction carried over into the election”… “To keep peace with the Democrats, some of whom threatened violence, filibustering, and other impediments to his inauguration, Hayes struck a compromise.” Later on in the source, it described the Compromise of 1877 as “A truce—not a compromise, but a chance for high-toned men to retire gracefully from their very civil declarations of war." As we know, the Compromise of 1877 was when Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to remove the federal troops from the South for their votes in the election. I believe that this compromise, like the source said, eliminated many of the tensions between the North and the South allowing the Union to come closer together and ultimately stopped another civil war. Yes, I understand that this compromise was extremely unfair to the African-Americans but just looking at the “keeping the union together” side of Reconstruction, it succeeded. Without this Compromise, I believe another Civil War would not have been far off and the North and South could not have afforded that economically and in the sense that too many Americans already died. I think it was extremely important to piece the nation back together because a nation at war with itself is bound to fail. And although this was a corrupt way to piece the union back together, it did release some of the tension between the North and the South. I think it is fair to say that Reconstruction, in a sense, was successful.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Reconstruction could be seen as successful in some ways. Although Reconstruction was far from a smooth process and many things were ineffective, three solid things did immerge from Reconstruction: the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment. Jane’s ID on the 13th Amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The ID on the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And finally the 15th Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These amendments all still stand today, which shows people were thinking the right way during Reconstruction. As Nick has said in class, though, “Laws cannot change human nature, they can only oppress it.” Because of the racism present in the North and South and the cultural differences between the North and South, Reconstruction was bound to be problematic. The slave-owners were not going to do a one-eighty and suddenly become best friends with the people they considered their property. Also, after the Civil War finished the North and South could not just revert back to mentally being one unit, unrest and tension would still be present in the different communities. Therefore, Reconstruction could be seen as successful in some ways. Although it was not as effective as it could have been, Reconstruction probably wouldn’t have been very successful no matter what the government did. Therefore, because Reconstruction produced the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it could be seen as successful.
DeleteI agree with Taylor and Olivia, that while Reconstruction was unsuccessful for the most part, there were some benefits to the time period. Lauren's primary source on the Freedmen's Bureau outlines the goals of this plan, "Their responsibilities included introducing a system of free labor, overseeing some 3,000 schools for freedpersons, settling disputes and enforcing contracts between the usually white landowners and their black labor force, and securing justice for blacks in state courts." All of the aforementioned goals of the Freedmen's Bureau were beneficial to blacks, and were truly fighting for their rights as American citizens. I think it is also important to keep in mind that President Andrew Johnson tried to veto this bill, but Congress overrode his veto to enact the Freedmen's Bureau. The fact that the entirety of Congress took a stand against the President of the United States to fight for black rights shows some modern thinking within the government. While I do not believe that Reconstruction was successful when looking at the overall view, acts such as the Freedmen's Bureau can be looked at as small victories that were gained in the black community during this period of our history.
DeleteWhile, on the whole, I disagree that Reconstruction was successful, I think that we should recognize the successful portions of it, as Taylor, Olivia, and Sara have done. While Reconstruction did not deal with all of its issues in the most prudent way, the people were making steps in the right direction. On Nick's primary source, the text of section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment states that, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." As we discussed in class, passing this amendment was controversial because so many people at the time obviously still projected racism towards the African Americans and were not open to looking at them as their equals. Not only allowing ex-slaves to vote, but also guaranteeing them other rights would have been difficult to make the Southerners abide by. Bu the fact that such a controversial amendment was even drafted and, even more, passed by the country displays a changing attitude. The states were willing to pass laws for equal rights, and the racist attitudes were slowly ebbing away in our country. Although the Reconstruction period did not do enough for the black people in our country, it was a step in the right direction.
DeleteI agree with Taylor, Olivia, Sara, and Sabina that the Reconstruction was an overall success bringing the Union back together, helping freed blacks start off with the Freedman's Bureau and creating the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that are still a part of our government today. Another successful aspect of the Reconstruction was the Civil Rights Act, which established laws to create equality between the races. In Section 2, it states: "That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act...shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court." The government successfully created rules for equality, and then also created set repercussions for those who went against the law. Though they may not have been enforced, the Act was successful in creating guidelines and backing them up with punishment for those who don't follow the law. The Reconstruction had it's share of successful and unsuccessful parts, but in the big picture, it was successful because they set forth guidelines and rules for equality
DeleteAlthough I can understand what you are saying Taylor, I agree with Colby and Sabina in that Reconstruction was not successful. As Colby previously said, the purpose of the Reconstruction period was to repair the various damages in the South, which at first they clearly did not accomplish. Although the New Orleans massacre that was portrayed in the movie "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War" and the primary source "An Unreconstructed Southerner" are both great examples of the failures of the Reconstruction period, I think that those issues stem off from a central issue. This central issue is that because of the many sectionalism issues prior to the Civil War and then during the Civil War, the North and the South developed their own cultures. These different mindsets and ways of life proved to be detrimental once Reconstruction started. In “An Unreconstructed Southerner” a Southerner named Howell Cobb writes how the North stole property from the South: “Since the close of the war they have taken our property of various kinds, sometimes by seizure, and sometimes by purchase,-- and we have asked for remuneration have been informed that the claims of rebels are never recognized by the Government” (pg. 464). The property that was stolen in this case were their slaves. However immoral the entire institution was, it became their way of life; they depended on it. Therefore, when it was taken away, the Southern society and economy were left destroyed. The use of the word “property” in this excerpt demonstrates the opposing mindsets of the North and the South; Northerners did not view slaves as property or have the same importance for them. Reconstruction was not successful because it relied on personal and subjective feelings in both the North and the South. The government could not cure this, which is why is was inevitable and necessary for Reconstruction to fail.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point with the mention of how the mindsets of the North and South were completely different, and how this led to problems with Reconstruction. The example of the South viewing slaves as property even after the war shows how the South continued to perpetuate white supremacy, and how Reconstruction failed to stop them from imposing this on freed blacks. The Fugitive Slave Law of the Compromise of 1850 was one of the most implicating, if not the best, example of how blacks were property to the South and people to the North. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, this law was obviously negated, because blacks were no longer slaves. However, the Black Codes of Mississippi essentially enacted the Fugitive Slave Law under a different name: "Every civil officer shall, and every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman, free negro, or mulatto who shall have quit the service of his or her employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without good cause." That excerpt, from page 461 in For the Record, goes to show that the South had found a way, despite the efforts of Reconstruction, to keep freed blacks beneath them. While the different mindsets of the North and South were more intangible and couldn't be changed by law, Reconstruction should have ensured that the racist attitude of the South remained only in their minds, instead of in their legislature where it would actually affect freed blacks; Reconstruction failed to do so.
DeleteAlthough I understand Jane and Colby’s points, I agree with John’s point that laws cannot solely be expected to change a deep-rooted mindset of racism. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated, “All persons born in the United States…are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States…of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude and… shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States.” Although, this act became federal law, it was easily overpowered by the Black Codes of Mississippi, aforementioned by Colby. The Black Codes squandered any chance for equality between Blacks and Whites. Like Nick said in class, “Laws cannot change human nature; they can only suppress it.” A progressive law like the Civil Rights Act or a racist one like the Black Codes both reflect two paradigms for equality and treatment of African-Americans. These two views clearly differ and can only be reconciled through the passage of time. Therfore, the success or failure of Reconstruction cannot be based on whether or not it changed a mindset since a mindset cannot be changed through laws, but only by time. However, I will agree with Jane that Reconstruction failed from the North and the South's inability to compromise which could have saved many lives during Reconstruction.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Colby, Sabina, and Jane are saying, and I also understand where Taylor’s coming from. I believe Reconstruction was very poorly executed. The intentions behind the federal government’s actions and ideas all had the same goal of melding the black race into the society as free people and physically mending the Union by bringing back the confederate states. One example is the Freedmen’s Bureau. On Lauren’s ID, her primary source states, “That there is hereby established in the War Department, to continue during the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter, a bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands, to which shall be committed, as hereinafter provided…” This bureau was exactly what was needed at the time. The majority of the freed slaves were uneducated and subject to immense racism in the North and South. The Freedmen’s Bureau would have been immensely beneficial to the black race. The government’s failure to continue the program is what enhanced the ineffectiveness of Reconstruction. The black community had been enslaved for over a hundred years, and the Freedmen’s Bureau lasted a year. The effect was a harsh transition for the freed men and women. Instead of being given the tools to build new lives, the free blacks became trapped in a system akin to slavery; the only difference was now the bond was through contracts. They also became victims to incredible violence and, for an extended period of time, with no protection from the government. Because the government failed to follow through with good ideas, Reconstruction failed to effectively bring the blacks into the Union as free men and women.
ReplyDeleteOlivia, you make a strong point about the Freedman's Bureau. The government would put on a face of wanting to help the African Americans, but their actual sentiments were shown through their lack of follow-up. Another example of this is shown through the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags. On Sarah's primary source, there is a quote from a carpetbagger that relays his situation, "I strayed down here and was appointed Register in Bankruptcy by Judge Chase and to use one of our western phrases, 'am making it pay.'" Many carpetbaggers came down to the South with seemingly good intentions of helping the Reconstruction efforts for the Southern people. However, when it really came down to what they were actually coming down to the South for, their intentions lay with money. Carpetbaggers exploited the plight of black people for their own personal gain, which embodies the self-serving nature that Americans had. Southerners tried to rig the political systems so they could stay in power and suppress the blacks, and the Northerners wanted the black people to have the vote so the Republican party could stay in power. The morality of trying to help the black people was not even a factor in most people's minds at the time. With that in mind, the reason as to why the federal government didn't act against the carpetbaggers and scalawags. Although it would have been more helpful to the African American community for the government to do something about the carpetbaggers and scalawags, doing so would have no personal benefit for the people in the government, and thus nothing happened. These attitudes are what threw the black people under the bus during Reconstruction and, since their plight was put second to people's own agendas, Reconstruction's goals were not fully achieved.
DeleteI agree with you in that Reconstruction failed to support the freed slaves even though the Freedmen's Bureau was intended to do so. As you said, the government exacerbated the growing racial discrimination and set Reconstruction up to fail because they discontinued the Freedmen's Bureau after only a year of it being in affect. The failure of the Freedmen's Bureau occurred because of a larger issue, which was the clash of Congress with the president. The controversy over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 shows this clash. On the Civil Rights Act page of the Class Wiki, the link to the primary source says, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." Although Johnson, a president who was only ever interested in hurting the planter class, attempted to veto this legislature, Congress passed it anyways. This legislature was passed to help the freed slaves and make progress in reconstructing the nation. Therefore, when President Johnson vetoed it, along with the continuation of the Freedmen's Bureau, it showed that he was working against the progress of the nation. Furthermore, if there was not a strong foundation for the government in which Congress and the president worked together in the best interests of the country, then Reconstruction was inevitably going to fail. The main reason why Reconstruction was not a success is because there was no strong government, because the Congress and the president constantly disagreed.
DeleteI agree with both of you that the main cause for the failure of Reconstruction was the federal government’s inablity to follow through. I especially agree with Jane’s point that the failure of Reconstruction was due to the power struggle between President Johnson and Congress. This power struggle is furthere highlighted during the attempted Impeachment of President Johnson. In Article I of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Johnson wrote Edwin M. Stanton, “By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States you are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication.” Johnson’s termination of the only Radical Republican in his cabinet appeared to blantantly breach the recently passed Tenure of Office Act, which stated, “the Secretaries of State… shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed. subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Johnson’s executive action to fire his Secretary of War without consent of the Senate (and breach of the Tenure of Office Act), pushed the Radical Republicans in Congress to put him on trial for impeachment. Johnson ultimately, did not get impeached since Stanton was appointed by former President Abraham Lincoln and not Johnson. As a result of this trial, Johnson became much more cooperative and passed the The First Reconstruction Acts supported by Congress. The fact that Radical Republicans had to threaten impeachment in order for President Johnson to cooperate further proves Jane’s point that the weak leadership during the Reconstruction Era was a primary cause of why Reconstruction failed.
DeleteIt is difficult to determine whether or not Reconstruction was “successful” in the United States, because there are many different definitions of success. However, like most people have said, I do not believe that Reconstruction was successful. Many people’s definition of the goal of Reconstruction at the time was the end of slavery, and while technically all black slaves in the Union were free after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, the basic principles and practices of slavery continued into the Reconstruction era. Black Americans could not be held on plantations and work without earning some sort of wage, but this does not mean that the wages were fair or adequate to maintaining a decent quality of life; also, Southern plantation owners used the vagueness of the laws set in place to get around the rulings of the Emancipation Proclamation. In For the Record, the source that talks about the black codes in Mississippi outlines the rules pertaining to black laborers in the South. The source says:
ReplyDelete"Every civil officer shall, and every person may, arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman, free negro, or mulatto who shall have quit the service of his or her employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without good cause" (461).
The rules in the South regarding black work are very strict and binding for the newly freed slaves, and it is very easy to draw parallels between the Fugitive Slave Law and this rule: that all slaves who have broken their pre-established contracts must return to their employer and fulfill their contract, unless a court can justify the freedman’s reason for leaving. As Calli said in class the other day, if you replace “freedman” and “employer” with “slave” and “master” you have the Fugitive Slave Law, almost word-for-word. In this sense slavery was not ended at all; yes, black people who worked in the South were not called slaves, but the conditions of their work contracts spoke volumes about the reality of their status in the American working society.
I like your point about the vagueness of the laws constructed during the Reconstruction period. The Black Codes, already a very oppressive piece of legislation, could be manipulated to further the blacks' difficulties. The quote that you brought up says that any black employee who leaves work before the expiration of their contract without good cause can be arrested. "Good cause" is undefined and open to interpretation, which the Southerners most likely took advantage of. Another example is the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment stated that, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The South was able to get around this as well through intimidation and threats towards the blacks; blacks were forced to vote the way the southerners wished. The government was unable to protect many blacks living in the South, which should have been a major priority during Reconstruction. Even though there were laws that said the right things, southerners still managed to make life for blacks utterly terrible. In this way the government failed to protect the freed blacks' rights.
DeleteI agree that because the term "successful" can be defined differently by different people it is ultimately hard to answer if Reconstruction can be called successful. But I think one way to look at this would be if both sides, the North and the South, thought Reconstruction was successful and because the South absolutely detested Reconstruction, I think it can be determined that it was not successful. In “ An Unreconstructed Southerner” Howell Cobb said, “…but they tell us that a successful war to keep us in the Union left us out of the Union” and “ In such reasoning is found a justification of the policy that which seeks to put the South under Negro supremacy. Better, they say, to hazard the consequences of Negro supremacy in the south”… “than to put faith in the people of the south.” Even though these do not directly reference the Black codes as Sarah and Olivia talked about, it is easy to read the hatred that Cobb, and the rest of the South, have towards the freed slaves and that they resent the freedom they receive, which will eventually lead to southerners enacting black codes. Obviously this shows the failure of reconstruction because the attitudes towards freed slaved did not change and there was nothing the government could do to change that. Also the quote, “but they tell us that a successful war to keep us in the Union left us out of the Union” shows that the war did not “bring the Union back together” because the South still detested the North. The North and South might be physical together but they’re not mentally and happily together. Reconstruction was not successful because the South saw it as a failure and it did not bring the North and the South back together.
DeleteI think many of my classmates have brought up many good points supporting both sides of whether or not Reconstruction was successful and I think Sara made a good point. She said that it is difficult to determine what type of “success” we are talking about. If it was to free slaves and keep the Union together, then yes, Reconstruction and the Civil War were “successful”. It can also be argued, like Colby, Sabina, Jane, Olivia, and Sara have said, that because freed slaves were basically still enslaved, simply by contracts and even more by the Black Codes, that in this case, because blacks were not treated equally, Reconstruction was not successful. I personally think that the success of the entire period of Reconstruction, which spanned between 1865 and 1877, cannot be defined simply on whether or not it was helpful for blacks or if it helped the Union. We cannot simply choose one side and say that it was beneficial for the South therefore detrimental to freed blacks and vice versa. I think, looking at everything that was accomplished during the time, yes Reconstruction was successful. One of the most important successes of Reconstruction was that there was not a second civil war and the South came back to the Union. And I know that in the movie, “Aftershocks: Beyond the Civil War”, the New Orleans massacre, not to mention the KKK and the hatred between whites and freed blacks and Native Americas was portrayed correctly, showing just how close a civil war really was. However, I believe that the pros out way the cons. One of my classmates mentioned that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution came out of the Reconstruction period. Just as a refresher, on the wikis by Jane, whoever did the fourteenth amendment wiki, and Nick, the amendments are listed. The thirteenth states “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Fourteenth Amendment, as we learned, meant that no state could deny a person their rights (which meant their equality) and finally the fifteenth amendment. This amendment states that the government, federal or state, cannot deny a person the right to vote based on color, race or prior condition as a slave. Without the Reconstruction period and the creation of these amendments, people of color would still be enslaved today, they would not have been given the right to vote, and there would still be tension between the people in the South. Without Reconstruction, our entire country would not be the place we live today and I believe Reconstruction was successful in that way.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading what you have written, Clare, I can see how it could be viewed as a success. Although there were many negative aspects of Reconstruction, a positive outcome was achieved by the end. The positive outcome is that slavery, or other analogous employments are no longer used today and also like Clare said, the South entered back into the Union. An example of a successful aspect of the Reconstruction period is the issuing of the Force Acts, Acts that helped to stop Klu Klux Klan activities. They said, "[I]f any person, by force, bribery, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means, shall hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, any citizen from doing any act required to be done to qualify him to vote or from voting at any election as aforesaid, such person shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the state, with full costs, and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also for ever such offence be guilty of a misdemeanor." The Klu Klux Klan was hindering the progression of reconstruction, which is why the Force Acts were so important at the time. The Force Acts temporarily stopped the Klu Klux Klan, which is why they are considered a success. Although there are many negative aspects to the Reconstruction period, it was a success overall.
DeleteI agree with Claire that Reconstruction was a success. After any war of the size of the Civil War, there is bound to be violence and struggles in the period following. A good example of this is the period after World War 1, which was not easy in the slightest. The period of Reconstruction was not easy. As we saw in the movie, there were race riots, small scale civil wars such as the one in Tennesee,and Blacks were no better off in the South because of laws like the Black Codes. The success of the Reconstruction can't be judged based on whether the country instantly became great for everyone. The true success of the Civil war Reconstruction was twofold: the relative unity that came to the country, and the 14th amendment. As Lincold said in his famous house devided speech: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided." Reconstruction was the period that the country started to come together, it did not happen immediatly, but it started. The other major accomplishment of Reconstruction was the 14th amendment. The Citizenship clause, the Equal Protection clause, and the Due Process clause were some of the most important parts in the constitution and are still imfluencing the Supreme Court today.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere are many ways to explain the outcome of the Reconstruction period, however, I would certainly agree with Claire, John, Taylor and many other people who mentioned that the Reconstruction was successful. Although there was a lot of violence and struggles between the Southern Republicans and the Radical Republicans in the North, the Reconstruction Acts and the three new Amendments were able to reunite the nation and put a starting point towards equality of all men in the United States. It would have been impossible to avoid the violence in such a long process of a radical change in the country anyways because there always has to be some kind of a sacrifice to achieve a certain goal. Moreover, people would physically unable to accept the blacks as free men after about a hundred years of slavery. Everyone would agree that it wasn’t the ideal way of “reconstructing” the country after the Civil War, but, as many of my classmates have mentioned, the North brought back the South into the Union and abolished slavery, which were the main goals of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, in the Emancipation Proclamation, stated: “And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons”. The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments were not quite successful in equalizing the blacks with whites because of the states establishing the “Black Codes” which took away the basic rights of the blacks and, basically, “re-enslaving” them. However, just like the Ten Percent Plan, which began the process of reuniting the country by bringing back the states one by one as quick as possible, the three Amendments helped the country to strive towards equality of blacks and whites by, first, establishing a law and, then, enforcing it through the placement of federal police officers in cities and towns. At least, the country made a step closer towards equality and unity.
DeleteReconstruction was successful in that it brought the south back into the Union, however it was not successful because blacks were still not able to live their lives free of worry from southern plantation owners. The formation of the Ku Klux Klan is a prime example of reconstruction was not as smooth as it should have been. More importantly though, the ability of the Ku Klux Klan to survive years after the period of Reconstruction shows how the black equality ideals that were supposed to dictate American lives during Reconstruction were much more of an afterthought. In Sarah’s Wiki space, she gave an example of a Klan rally from 1986, decades after Reconstruction ended in the minds of Americans. It said, “The Ku Klux Klan, rallying today at what was billed as a national convention, burned a cross on an isolated farm here as more than five dozen police officers ringed the site.” The Klan’s ability to continue their existence throughout the years of Reconstruction and years after shows that Reconstruction never stalled the South’s discrimination against blacks. The goal of reconstruction was to bring the South back into the Union in order to be a contributing factor to a functioning Union. Even though Reconstruction did bring the South back into the Union, most citizens in the south, especially the ones involved in the Klan, stalled the societal advances in the Union by reeking havoc on the lives of freed slaves. Since the North never put a stop to the violence of the Ku Klux Klan, the issue of black equality was never resolved, resulting in further tension between the North and South. This tension put the United States at a disadvantage for years to come. Reconstruction was more of an attempt to make people think that the North and South were in agreement. However, the preservation of discrimination through groups like the Ku Klux Klan displayed the true differences between North and South.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really good point here, Thomas, but pointing out the the Ku Klux Klan was in effect a result of the Reconstruction era. If Reconstruction had not been put into place for the major reason of giving blacks equal rights, the KKK would not have formed and thus the development of the Union could have progressed quicker and more seamlessly. In your Wiki space, you talk about the Force Act that was passed in regard to the Klan. Your secondary source on Britannica Online says that, "This act and earlier statutes resulted in more than 5,000 indictments and 1,250 convictions throughout the South." This fact is important to keep in mind; while the Force Act did stop the extreme terrorist actions of the KKK for a few years, there were still repercussions. The Force Act itself led to conflict in the Southern states, even though it got rid of the largest threat to newly-freed blacks in America. If Reconstruction had been successful, the KKK obviously would not have formed, and thus the Force Acts would not be put into place, and further conflict between blacks and whites in the South would have been avoided. You say that the issue of black equality was never truly resolved, and I believe that this is due largely not only to the development of the KKK, but also to the acts following it's founding--those such as the Force Act you talk about on your wiki space. The fact that black people were subjected to such horror by the KKK, and because the plan to stop the KKK had negative repercussions itself, I believe that it is safe to say that Reconstruction was far from successful.
DeleteI think it was a good point to bring up that though Reconstruction was successful in bringing the South back into the Union, it was unsuccessful in giving and protecting the rights of freed blacks. While the Force Act was able to suppress the KKK and other terrorist groups, and the Fifteenth Amendment stated that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude," the KKK still managed to exist and exterminate many blacks. If Reconstruction had been successful in creating equality among blacks and whites, racist groups like the KKK would not have formed and killed so many. Therefore, Reconstruction was not successful on the level of creating equality.
DeleteAfter reading through my classmates’ opinions on whether or not Reconstruction was successful a lot of good points were made. I think that it is easy to point to certain events that took place and mark it, by saying that it was beneficial or that it was unsuccessful. This question is complex, in that there are so many issues that took place, so its hard to say that it was successful or not. Going back to what Sara and Clare mentioned, success doesn't have a single definition, everyone might view success in different ways, which makes it harder to agree with a side to this question. Reconstruction was an effort to try and rebuild what had been broken. It was a time when many leaders had spoken up, goals were set and accomplishments were made. I understand that there were numerous ways in which the Reconstruction period could be viewed as unsuccessful, but as some of my classmates said there were successful pieces to the Reconstruction as well. It was a step in the right direction. I think the Civil Rights Act is an important point to look at, to provide evidence that this was helpful to African Americans in giving them support and comfort. In one of my classmates ID of the Civil Rights Act they mentioned that Congress came out with the Civil Rights Act, which had the intent of nullifying the Black Codes and guaranteeing "equal benefit of all laws." In the class wiki the primary source of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "that all persons born in the United States of America are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." This went to show that Congress really did care about the African Americans and the rights and privileges they thought they should have. It was an effort to make them feel that whites were no longer superior to the colored people and that African Americans should be treated as citizens. Again, I know this was only a small piece that shows success and it doesn't prove that Reconstruction was an absolute success, but I do think it is important to look to the points of Reconstruction where achievement was made. In Clare's comment she ended with saying "our country would not be the place we live today" and I completely agree with her. Without the Reconstruction it would have never led to some of the important events that happened in history. It gave other groups, like women the courage to fight for the rights they fully deserved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Sarah, that Reconstruction was a time to rebuild what had been broken and that the Civil Rights Act was a great example of a step in the right direction. This act was created as the government's way of nullifying the Black Codes, which had already hindered the Reconstruction so much. The Civil Rights Act states: "and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude...shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." The act was a real attempt by the government to create equality between all citizens, giving them all the same rights to buy, sell, and hold property just like whites. I think that Reconstruction was a success in that their goal was to take steps to try and create equality between the races. Although their attempts were met with much racism and hatred from the Southerners, the success was in the attempts of the government to create equality.
DeleteI would like to add to this conversation by agreeing with those who believe that Reconstruction did not work. I will first bring up the combined economic and sectionalist issue that is that of the carpetbagger. "D.P. Upham goes to Arkansas , he acquires a cotton plantation and he puts it back into production. Now, that's all well and good uhm, except that was exactly the kind of carpetbagger that southerners resented so much. Because he has not only been an Union soldier, but now he is coming south and taking advantage of their situation. He is gonna become rich where they have become impoverished. So there's a lot of resentment toward Upham in Arkansas." (Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War) The whole point of Reconstruction was that the North was going to rebuild the South. What happened was that carpetbaggers, much like Upham, would take advantage of the cheap land and labor of the South to turn a quick buck. They did not care for the South, her people, and her devastation. Moreover, the fact that many were Union veterans was seen as an insult to the South. It maintained the North vs South and us vs them mentality that Reconstruction had planned an ending to. The federal government could have planned for a solution to this, such as bringing stimulus to Southern businessmen, but instead ignored the issue of carpetbaggers. If the federal government, and indeed Reconstruction, were a success then the issue of violence between the carpetbaggers and the Southerners would have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would wish to follow up another student, I have waited for hours. Now I must follow up myself, with myself.
ReplyDeleteI would like to bring up the following song as evidence against Reconstruction, and its failure to unite the country.
"I'm a Good ol' Rebel"
Oh, I'm a good old rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do no give a damn.
I'm glad I fought a ganner,
I only wish we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
I hates the yankee nation and eveything they do.
I hates the declaration of independence, too.
I hates the glorious union, t'is dripping with our blood.
I hates the striped banner, and fitted all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee,
For three years, thereabout.
Got wounded in four places,
And I starved at point lookout.
I caught the rheumatism
Campin' in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some more.
3 hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust.
We got 3 hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of Southern Fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish there were 3 million
Instead of what we got.
I can't pick up my musket
And fight 'um down no more
But I ain't gonna love 'um
Now that is certain sure
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstruted
And I do not give a damn
Oh, I'm a good old rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do no give a damn.
I'm glad I fought a ganner,
I only wish we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
Again, I bring up the evidence of song because it is in song that we see the true soul of a people. In this song, we see the true opinion of the post-war South. They hated the idea of Northerners coming in and changing their way of life. They believed in slavery and Southern rights as much as they did before the war, and the enforcement of Northern law would do nothing to stop their beliefs. If anything, it just enraged the Southerners, seeing as they were the ones to lose the war. Again, Reconstruction failed to bring together the divided country.
Many of you have said that Reconstruction was a complete failure. I do not think that this is true. That being said, Reconstruction did not go nearly as well as it could have. The reason that it did not go perfectly is largely because the North did not often follow through on its programs or laws. There are several examples of this. One notable exaple is the Freedman's Bureau. The beginning of the act says: "Be it enacted... That there is hereby established in the War Department, to continue during the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter, a bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands, to which shall be committed, as hereinafter provided, the supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel states, or from any district of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the bureau and approved by the President." As is evident from the law, the North got rid of the Freedmen's Bureau only one year into its existence, even though they had the Congressional majority to extend the time limit, and they could see that the Bureau was a success. Another example of the North coping out was when they agreed to remove the military which was enforcing the laws and Constitutional Amendments in exchange for electoral votes so that they could get the Republican candidate into office. While the North and the Republicans did not act perfectly during Reconstruction, I think that it is still unfair to write off the entire effort as a failure.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a good point that the American government coped out on the Reconstruction efforts on the south. Though the Freedman's Bureau is a good example of how the Reconstruction succeeded it is also a perfect example of how Reconstruction failed. The initial principals were successful but by giving up and pulling out the American government set a precedent for reconstruction. They allowed the south to set up laws and promote racism that all most equally paralleled to what the south was like before the civil war. From the Black Codes of Mississippi we see in the laws that Mississippi legislators passed how the south was able to pass laws forcing african-americans back into work contracts that were basically slavery. In section 6 of the Black Codes it states "...if the laborer shall quit the service of the employment before the expiration of his term of service, without good cause, he shall forfeit for that year up to the time of quitting"(Black Codes of Mississippi 1865). The government allowed states to pass laws that clearly limited and forced African- Americans back into slavery. They were only offered agriculture job and as the quote states there were harsh stipulation if they quit or complained. If efforts like the Freedman's Bureau had continued and Government interest had continued in Reconstruction than the effects of Reconstruction would have been successful. However since the Government did not continue their efforts I believe that Reconstruction was unsuccessful.
DeleteI agree with Kelly in that the federal government failed to continue to protect African-Americans. As she mentioned earlier, the Black Codes of Missippi trapped freed African-Americans back into slavery through the contract labor system. The Black Codes clearly abrogated Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (taken from wiki) which stated, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I think that the federal government’s role during the Reconstruction Era started out strong by passing the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, but eventually weakened. In order for the Reconstruction Era to have been completely successful, the government would have had to successfully enforce the laws which they passed. But the government did not enforce these laws effectively (as evident in the murder of African-Americans from the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups), thus adding them in vain. Therefore, I don't think the Reconstruction Era was successful.
DeleteFirstly, I would like to agree with John that Reconstruction had many good parts to it, such as the Freedman's Bureau. However, I also believe that when one compares these good parts to the far more abundant failures of Reconstruction, they see that it was a failure.
ReplyDeleteReconstruction was the plan to unite the North and South as one country again. No one act portrayed the hatred and violence that followed the Civil War more so than Lincoln's assassination. When John Wilkes Booth jumped out of Lincoln's theatre box knife in hand he yelled "Sic semper tyrranis"(AFTER MIDNIGHT), which translates into "thus always to tyrants". This is what the South saw the North as; tyrants. No acts to rebuild the wrecked cities could change the minds of these Southerners. Not only did this imply that they hated the Northern government, but that they saw the Northern government as an invader. A conquering tyrant who had subjugated the South, and enforced unto her the laws of the North.
The goal of Reconstruction was to make North and South one again. This was a failure. The blood split by Southerners against the North proved this. Even today, I can guarantee that there are men in the South who still consider themselves independent of Northern rule.
I agree with you Nick that Reconstruction was a failure because not only did it not make the North and the South "one again" as you put it, but I think it even furthered the sectional issues between the North and the South. An example of this is the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The primary Source on Clare's wiki page is an article talking about the effects of Lincoln's death and says, "So far from exciting revolution, it only unites the whole people, more thoroughly than ever, in a common sentiment of devotion to the country and of profound grief for the great calamity that has fallen upon it. All party rancor is hushed." But as a class, we know this is not true. In "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War", there was a scene where one southern woman refused to mourn for President Lincoln and hung herself instead of being forced to mourn for him. This did not "unite the whole people" but instead showed the true stances the two sides had. The south still resented the north, especially Abraham Lincoln, and did not want anything to do with them because they freed the slaves. The north, on the other hand, failed to see, or pretended, the differences were not there and claimed Lincoln's death brought them closer together. As I said before, the North and the South might be physically back together but they were not united as a Country. Reconstruction failed to bring the North and South back together as a functioning government and therefore was unsuccessful.
DeleteI also agree with the points that both Nick and Taylor have discussed. Reconstruction failed to create unity between the North and the South. As both of you said the Assassination of Lincoln demonstrated failure of the Reconstruction. If Lincoln had not been assassinated, then I think the Reconstruction would have been much different. Lincoln would of focused on reuniting the country. He would have let states in and required black suffrage, also making them promise to be loyal to the Union. Lincoln may not have been as harsh on the southern states. If he had been less harsh, than it would have prevented the South from getting angry. But, Lincoln was assassinated and it did add to why Reconstruction could be seen as unsuccessful. In Clare's wiki space she provides a first hand account of Lincoln's assassination. The individual who wrote this stated, "Everybody is thunderstruck - Last night there was a grand illumination. The whole city almost and all the public buildings were ablaze with light. All were rejoicing - How terrible the contrast." Millions of people disliked Lincoln and didn't agree with his ways. Lincoln's death left a void in leadership. Andrew Johnson took the place of Lincoln and he was a southerner which created more arguments. Following this, the South started passing numerous laws that restricted the rights of blacks. His death intensified the hatred and the unforgiving attitudes of the North towards the South which gave reasons for the extreme Radical Republicans of Congress to push their bills that would punish the seceded States.The North and South failed to be rejoined.The amount of hate they had for one another was too strong, resulting in with a continual divide between the North and the South. The Reconstruction period could not find a way to patch together their differences. It caused them to be unable to create a working government which resulted in a unsuccessful Reconstruction.
DeleteI think a lot of great discussion has occurred over this online seminar; however I would like to go back to a couple points made by my fellow classmates. Both Sara and Nick agreed that Reconstruction was not successful for many reasons, including failure to unite a nation and the creation of the KKK. I would like to say that our country was at least partially united, although I agree we did not completely unite for some time afterward, and that Reconstruction must have been successful in giving freed slaves their rights otherwise the KKK would not have formed. This would have been because blacks would not have had equal rights. With your point Sara, I believe that we must look back to the movie “Aftershocks: Beyond the Civil War” to remember all the horrible things the KKK and other white supremacist movements did. Events such as terrorizing Radical Republicans who lived in the South, trying not to have pro freed black legislation passed or attacking freed blacks in their homes at night were just some of the things that the KKK did. Now if Reconstruction had not been successful and blacks had not been given equal rights, voting rights etc. an argument could be made that there would have been no reason to form the KKK. Therefore, the Reconstruction must have been successful in the sense that black people were given equal rights; otherwise there would be no reason to form a white supremacy group to terrorize black freedom. Regarding what Nick said about the fact that Reconstruction failed to bring together a divided country, first I applaud you on quoting an entire song as your evidence. Second, I would like to mention that in Kelly’s wiki on Lincoln’s Ten Percent Plan, we are already seeing some of the country unite. I know it can be argued that this was actually a horrible example of showing the country united because Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South more harshly than Lincoln and then there’s the whole disagreement between Lincoln and Congress about who gets to decide who gets to punish the South etc. but hear me out for argument’s sake. On the wiki it said, “Lincoln believed that the right way to gain the South’s trust was to show them leniency. He created a plan called the Ten Percent Plan….Like in the name, if ten of the population of the states swore an oath of allegiance to the United States then they would be admitted back…. Many people agreed with Lincoln’s approach and were called Moderators.” The wiki states that many people agreed with Lincoln’s approach of leniency in order to bring the Union back together. So, going all the way back to what Nick and Sara said, I believe that Reconstruction was in fact successful in some part to start bringing the Union together as opposed to dividing it further and that Reconstruction had to be successful, otherwise there would have been no reason for a white supremacy group to form and start terrorizing black voters and activists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Claire and I understand your reasoning of why the Reconstruction was successful. As you said it did successfully bring the union back together. It also produced the 13th 14th and 15th amendment that abolished slavery and promised to equal rights to African-Americans. However I feel as if one of the reason why the south was successfully brought back into the union because they were abel to create situations that made seem like slavery wasn't abolished and did not give equal rights to blacks. As stated in Sara's article on the Ku Klux Klan "The Klan’s objectives soon expanded from limiting black civil rights to attacking the black economy—because of this, black businessmen with success of any kind were often targets of the Klan, as well as any black person who attempted to form any sort of union to advance the black economy." This para-military force was able to inflict terror and bring the south back into a state where whites were socially superior to blacks. Though the Ku Klux Klan Act was passed, due to corrupt politicians and superior that sympathized with the KKK's objectives nothing was really done about the KKK for a long while. No matter what the government was able to pass it did not matter because it was not enforced. I think this shows us that the foundation of Reconstruction was successful the execution made it so that Reconstruction failed.
DeleteKelly, you summed up what I've been trying to say the whole time so thank you! I believe there were many aspects of the Reconstruction period that could have been extremely successful, but, like Kelly said, their execution is what caused the downfall. One of the examples I would like to bring up is the Freedman's Bureau. A lot of us have spoken about this already, but it completely validifies my point. The Freedman's Bureau, described by Lauren on her wiki, was created to provide recently freed blacks with education, legal help, and employment assistance. In the primary document An Act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, it states “the supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel states, or from any district of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the bureau and approved by the President.” This is the basic gist of what the bureau is supposed to do. The only problem was the execution. The War Department as it stated in that source was the group funding the bureau. Only money ran out and people eventually gave up on the Freedman’s Bureau. It wasn’t the idea that was bad but quite the opposite. The idea to have a group to help recently freed blacks get on their feet was a fantastic idea except that people gave up on it. This analogy really could represent the entirety of the Reconstruction period. There were many ideas and groups and movements that came out of the Reconstruction era that could have been extremely helpful in progressing black rights and uniting the Union as a whole. However, people never followed through on the ideas or groups so they ran out of steam and gave up. Had people continued working hard for the betterment of the country, I believe it would not have taken so long for blacks and minorities to gain the equality they were supposed to have been given right after the Civil War.
DeleteI have read the comments of my classmates and noticed that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln has not been mentioned, yet. I understand how many people might have thought that the reconstruction wasn’t successful, mainly, because of the violence and failure to unite the country completely (the New Orleans massacre and continuous fights between the North and the South), not to mention the beatings of the free blacks, considering them as slaves. However, partially, the assassination of Lincoln was one of the main reasons of violence, as the Radical Republicans started to flourish after Andrew Johnson became the president. During, Lincoln’s presidency, he was aiming for a lenient acceptance of the Southern states into the union, giving them the opportunity to slowly become used to the changes. Lincoln passed the Ten Percent Plan in order to bring back the Southern states as soon as possible by allowing them to join the union as long as the state had ten percent of support from the citizens. The reason why Lincoln was so lenient with the South was because he did not want any more lives lost because of the slavery issues or the conflicts between the North and the South. However, after the Lincoln’s death, Andrew Johnson let the Radical Republicans to take control over the reconstruction and they have passed the First Reconstruction Act over president Johnson’s veto. This act divided the Southern states into five districts and placed police officers in the Ex-Confederate States to enforce the equality of blacks. The only way the states could join the union, have representation in Congress and protect their life, liberty and possessions by law was to adopt the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that stated that all men should be treated equally. In Colby’s source on the “Impeachment of Andrew Johnson”, it said: “When Andrew Johnson became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, some of the Republicans in Congress most opposed to what they saw as the too-lenient policies of Lincoln toward reconstruction saw Johnson's ascension as a hopeful sign. One of the radical Republicans of the Senate, Benjamin Wade, expressed his support: "Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no more trouble in running the government.”” The Radical Republicans knew that they would have the dominance over all the other parties when Johnson became the president, as the Supreme Court consisted mostly of the Radicals and the only wall that was blocking their plans was president Lincoln. Therefore, after his death, the Radicals expressed extreme violence against the Southerners to punish everyone who hadn’t followed the laws, especially the fourteenth amendment, which caused the formation and terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan. The country was almost at the edge of starting another Civil War just after the previous one ended. There are many opinions whether the Reconstruction was successful, but I agree with Taylor that the term “success” can be defined in different ways. The Reconstruction was successful that it was able to reunite the country and abolish slavery, but was unsuccessful in a way that it was not able to stop the violence and did not solve the problem between the South and the North, even after a five-years long war.
ReplyDelete