Monday, January 23, 2012
On Line Seminar
We will be having an online seminar. You can start posting today and you have until Thursday morning at 8:30 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)
The Reconstruction process designed by the US government was ultimately unsuccessful. Although institutions were set up that were meant to help African Americans transition into society, such as Freedman's Bureau, and political policies such as the Thirteenth Amendment were put in place in the hopes of protecting the rights of the freed slaves, the federal government failed at preventing groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from continuing to discriminate, threaten, and kill African Americans. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass wrote, "Though slavery was abolished, the wrongs of my people were not ended. Though they were not slaves, they were not yet quite free. No man can be truly free whose liberty is dependent upon the thought, feeling, and action of others...". Policies such as the Thirteenth Amendment may have abolished the institution of slavery, but the government could do nothing to change the way many people viewed the freed slaves. The federal government could have done more to help introduce the African Americans to society, and could have been more forceful in their enforcement of policies. The problem was, the government seemed to put their own political agendas before doing what was in the best interest of the African Americans and the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Reconstruction was not successful because the U.S. government failed to protect African- Americans from discrimination. The government was not strict enough when dealing with the racism that was prevalent in the South, especially from a political stand point. The government gave in too easily to the desires of the South in order to avoid engaging in another war. For example, the Black Codes were enacted by several states in order to address the legal status of slavery in the South. Section Six of the Black Codes of Mississippi required a written labor contract for all freed slaves. However, the Codes stated that, “if the laborer shall quit the service of the employer before the expiration of his term of service, without good cause, he shall forfeit his wages for that year up to the time of quitting.” Meanwhile, Section One of the Mississippi Vagrant Law stated that freed men without a steady employment to support their families were, “considered vagrants under the provisions of this act, and upon conviction thereof shall be . . . imprisoned at the discretion of the court.” Therefore, under law approved by the government, freed men had to accept the terms of a labor contract or would be sentenced to jail on account of vagrancy. This ruling allowed for the continuation of discrimination against African-Americans and created a slightly altered form of slavery. Had Reconstruction been successful, the government would not have allowed the Southern states to implement the Black Codes, continue to discriminate against African-Americans and take control of the actions of the government.
ReplyDeleteI agree that overall Reconstruction was not a success, but many aspects did change the country for the better. Lives of blacks, in the South especially, slightly was improved by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. These amendments started with officially freeing the slaves and then sought to grant the blacks somewhat equal rights with whites. The United States government, by passing these three amendments were making slight progress toward granting equality for the blacks and making their lives better. However, they did not have as much of an impact of the lives of black as hoped for. Violence toward blacks continued, and might have even increased when these amendments were passed. As seen in the documentary shown in class, white Southerners felt threatened by the new rights of blacks. White Southerners did not want blacks to be on equal footing with them so widespread violence occurred. This was when groups like the KKK were formed. So, I believe that Reconstruction was a slight success in freeing the slaves and granting basic rights for the blacks. However, it also was not a success in enforcing those rights after the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed. To ensure a completely sucessful Reconstruction the United States government would have had to be much more involved in the South, enforcing that the blacks were getting the rights and treatment they had been granted.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the entire Reconstruction era, I agree that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were the important aspects that attempted to bring change to the nation. I think that these three laws were what brought the most change- or at least attempted change- to the way our country was run. However, these laws were not able to change people's views on slavery, or on African-Americans. If anything, these laws only enraged Southerners more, and caused more tumultuous behavior in the Southern states. In the documentary from class, it was stated that up until the election of 1868, white supremacists were killing on average, at least one black person a day. The civil war had effected the economic and social aspects of the South severely, and it took on obvious toll on the actions and mood of white Southerners. They were not willing to accept the fact that African-Americans deserved equal rights, and were not inferior or superior because of their skin color. While these three amendments aimed towards positive change in the United States, they actually caused a negative effect on the outcome of the Reconstruction, and pushed the country backwards into its old ways of violence and hatred towards one another.
DeleteI agree with Allie that the politicians having their own agendas over the freed slaves caused Reconstruction to be a failure. This was shown with the Compromise of 1877. The Republicans wanted to make sure a fellow Republican was president so badly, that they removed the troops from the South, therefore ending the period of Reconstruction. This basically abandoned the slaves, and allowed the Southern state governments to treat the freed slaves however way they wanted to. The huge violence at the time made it impossible for freed slaves to get any better treatment. The Klu Klux Klan managed to intimidate and threaten them out of voting and thousands of freed slaves were killed by white supremacists at the time. In many ways slavery was not really over, due to the Black Codes and the fear of being killed by their master, if they did not continue to work for him. The Southern governments and people did everything they could at the time to make sure slavery was almost still in existence. Reconstruction was a failure, but there were some good things that came out of it. Most importantly the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Although these amendments did not have a huge effect at the time, other than formally ending slavery, they would lead in the future for more equality for African Americans. The Fifteenth Amendment, also would end up being the amendment that women would use in the future to try to get the power to vote.
ReplyDeleteScott-
ReplyDeleteI believe Reconstruction was a failure. I agree with Melanie that the government did do some positive things such as the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments but it was the government’s lack of enforcement of those laws that made Reconstruction a failure. It was one thing to create the laws of equality, but to fully enforce them takes a lot of determination and belief that those laws are right. I believe the lack of enforcement was a result of government leaders like Andrew Johnson or most other non radical republican’s view that blacks were not equals to whites and should not be given equal rights. This was displayed by the Compromise of 1877. Northerners knew that as soon as the federal troops were taken out of the south, the blacks would get treated completely unlawfully and get beaten and killed by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Despite this knowledge, Northerners decided they would rather have Hayes as a president and have their views represented than have a leader they don’t like but ensure black equality in the south. If the politicians truly cared about creating racial equality, they would not have allowed the compromise of 1877 to happen.
Katie
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Reconstruction was not successful for a number of reasons. Although the government had abolished slavery and given freed slaves certain rights,the Reconstruction did not help the slaves to keep the rights given to them. The violence and hatred showed towards the freed slaves was overwhelming, and because many of the people in the government were racist, they did not try very hard to enforce the laws they passed. For example, the Klu Klux Klan violently tortured and murdered many freed slaves, and when they needed the attention of a doctor they found it very hard to get one. One freed slaves describes his experience trying to get a doctor after being tortured by the Klu Klux Klan, “The reason he did not answer me was that he was off on this raid. I asked the doctor where he was when I was at his house, and he said he was asleep.” This demonstrates that many of the officials who were supposed to be helping the freed slaves refused to, and some of them were even members of the Klu Klux Klan who could care less about helping the freed slaves. The violence and lack of cooperation shown by whites all over the country proves that Reconstruction did very little for African-Americans. If Reconstruction had truly been successful, the slaves would not have suffered like they did after they were supposedly “freed”.
I agree that the Reconstruction was unsuccessful in reforming the Southern states. Like Allie said, the government did set up legislation and laws such as the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments that briefly prevented the government from acting in a discriminatory manner towards people of color. They enforced such legislation by sending federal troops to the Southern states for a while, but once the Compromise of 1877 was created they agreed to remove their troops in exchange for a republican president. The federal government was quick to abandon their reconstruction efforts in the south, leaving the African American suffrage of south to fend for themselves. The southern states quickly reverted to their old ways of racial discrimination and began to deny African American citizens of their rights. The south disregarded all the legislation that the federal government had passed, and the federal government didn’t react or seem to care. The reconstruction was unsuccessful in reforming the south because the government set up legislation that would assure African American citizens of their rights, but did not enforce it, resulting in little to no change in the Southern states attitude towards black civil rights.
ReplyDeleteLily Jewell
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melanie that the reconstruction era helped free the slaves and give them some fundamental rights. But I feel that discrimination and violence that came out of the reconstruction era outweighed the pros. Especially down south, as seen in the documentary watched in class, there was extreme violence committed in the south towards freed slaves. A lot of the hate came from landowners who felt they needed the slaves to keep their plantations running. One land owner in the movie was seen whipping his old slaves and saying that they were still his property, and that no emancipation could change that. Even more extreme then this, there were violent terrorist groups called the Ku Klux Klan that would go around terrorizing the african american citizens. Another target of the ku klux klan were radical republicans because they believed that the blacks should have more rights. Some of the violence performed by the KKK is written in document E in the document packet. It says, "They shot about 20 shots into my leg and hip". This was unnecessary violence, that they performed to be simply excessive. Violence like this was seen throughout the entire reconstruction period. And this violence made the reconstruction period unsuccessful even though there were some pros to it.
As previous posts have pointed out, there were many positive results from the Reconstruction era including the Freedman's Bureau, as Allie pointed out, and the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments, as Melanie commented on, but ultimately I would have to agree with the majority that the Reconstruction era was unsuccessful. Booker T. Washington, a freed slave, said "I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my race, was in a large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and forced." Booker was referring to the federal government's forceful actions on the south during reconstruction. The government took action to help the African Americans transition into society by establishing the Freedman's Boureau and the Amendments, but these changes were forced upon the south, not accepted. The government established racial equality with the 14th Amendment, yet the Ku Klux Klan continued their violent acts of discrimination. All these efforts proved to be artificial with the Compromise of 1877. After the federal troops were withdrawn from the south, the southerners were no longer forced to oblige with Reconstruction. As a result, permanent segregation between the races in the south became evident, and the violent discrimination against blacks intensified. As Booker stated, the reconstruction was a false, and temporary foundation for racial equality, proving to be a failure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that Lily made that the cons of Reconstruction outweighed the pros, but one important factor that Reconstruction was able to do is bring the Union back together. At the end of the war the Union government was faced with the difficult task of uniting the North and the South, despite the extremely hard feelings shared between the two regions. Both regions had to compromise some of the beliefs for the good of the Union. For example, in the presidential election of 1876 the Northern Republicans wanted their candidate, Hayes to win the election but Democratic candidate Tilden received more votes. The Southern Democrats sacrificed their presidential candidate so that there was no more military forces in the South. The North compromised by giving up their power in the South and the South compromised by giving the North their preferred presidential candidate. The country needed to make such compromises in order to keep the Union together and prevent another Civil War from occurring. Overall I believe that Reconstruction was not a success and as Lily said, the cons outweighed the pros. However, Reconstruction did succeed in uniting the Confederacy and the Union after the war ended.
ReplyDeleteI disagree; I do not think that the Union even successfully reunited the Ex-Confederate States and the Union. Technically, the Southern confederate states did rejoin the Union, but they did not do so willingly or without resistance. In the movie we watched in class we watched as six ex-confederate soldiers were forced to take an oath of allegiance to the Union so they would be allowed back into their home states. These six ex-confederate soldiers were angered by the oppressive tactics of the North and ended up forming the Ku Klux Klan, an organization who’s goal was to rid American politics of the Republican Party. The Klan spread quickly throughout the Southern states, until it’s following was so large that any federal or state legislation could not be enforced because the officials were a part of the Klan. The Klan acted violently and extremely often, murdering almost anyone who was against their cause. The open defiance of the Ku Klux Klan proves that even though the ex-Confederate States and the Union technically one nation, there was a huge divide in American society. The Klan felt that it was necessary to resort to such violent tactics to display their hatred of Northern policies, which proves that the divide between confederate states and the Union had not been successfully repaired by the reconstruction era.
DeleteLily Jewell
ReplyDeleteI like where Melanie is taking this, there are many ways that the reconstruction period was successful. The main way, was as Melanie said, that it brought back the union together. Even though there were still harsh feelings between the north and the south, they were still brought together. The harsh feelings were seen in the assassination of Lincoln. This assassination showed that even though the war was over there were still a lot of feelings that were left unsettled. Even though there was still conflict the union was one again and that was significant. Another problem with the union being one again was that in the south there was no control. The north had basically abandoned the southerners and let them do as they please. They allowed this because of the Compromise of 1877, which Eliza already mentioned. They were allowed to keep treating the blacks unfairly and keep ignoring the amendments that had been put into place. They were also allowed to keep things, such as the Black Codes, in action. Because there was no one to stop them from doing it. In general, there were some pros about the Union coming back together, but there were still a lot of unsolved problems.
I agree with Lily's response to Melanie's comment. Even though Melanie is correct in saying that Reconstruction united the Confederacy and the Union and prevented another split by establishing the Compromise of 1877, I think that the compromise is ultimately a con for Reconstruction. Frederick Douglass said, "The law on the side of freedom is of great advantage where there is power to make that law respected." The Compromise of 1877 removed the federal troops and marshal law from the south, allowing state governments to rule. Although the federal government established the 13th 14th and 15th amendments to protect the freedom and rights of the African Americans, the removal of the troops eliminated the reinforcement of the amendments in the south. As Douglass stated, the south lost respect for these laws because there was no one there to enforce the laws in the south. The southerners disregarded the amendments and continued to treat African Americans unfairly and established their own laws to promote segregation. Ultimately, Reconstruction was not a success.
DeleteI agree with the above comments stating that the Reconstruction was ultimately unsuccessful, despite its few positive qualities. Starting off of Victoria's mention of the Ku Klux Klan, I wanted to comment on how the lack of control the government put into regulating violence towards blacks made the Reconstruction unsuccessful. In Henry Lowther's statement about being castrated he said regarding the doctor, "When he got there the doctors answered the first time he called him. The reason he did not answer me was that he was off on this raid." Violence was openly occurring on a daily basis in the South, and some members of the raids were those who held crucial positions in the social world, such as doctors. The government made no efforts to relief black violence and discrimination within the South. Such violence and hostility prevented further growth in the nation, and the governments lack of incentive to stop it ultimately made Reconstruction efforts weaker, and therefore unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree that the government had a lack of control over the Southerner’s and the Ku Klux Klan’s violent actions towards African Americans, I do not agree that the government did nothing to combat these discriminatory acts. The movie we watched in class told us that many republican state government officials would pass legislation in attempts to fight or possibly end the KKK’s reign of terror and to ensure that all African American’s were being allowed their rights. Bill Brownlow of Tennessee attempted to pass legislation that would make the police force break up all the Klan’s meetings, events, or attacks. But, the legislation was ineffective because a majority of the police force was either scared of the Klan or supported it, so they just disregarded it for their personal safety or because they did not agree with it. The population of the Southern states and the Klan’s blatant lack of regard and respect for federal and state legislation that protected African American civil rights made it almost impossible for the government to contain the violence towards freed slaves in the South.
DeleteElaborating on what Micaela said above me, I also do not agree that the government as a whole did nothing to combat discriminatory acts against African-Americans. It's important to differentiate the actions of the federal government and that of more local governments. One of the reasons why the Civil War initially started was because the Democratic South believed the state government should have more power than the federal government, while the republican North believed the opposite. The federal government's ruling body, congress, was made up of mostly radical republicans, who had very different political views than those of their democratic counterparts in the South. One of their most blatant differences was on the rights of African-Americans; republicans wanted to advance their rights, while the democrats didn't. The federal government passed legislation that some of the regions that were effected disliked (the South). After the Compromise of 1887, the only people left to enforce these laws in the South were people who did not want to uphold the laws. The law enforcement didn't uphold the laws because they didn't agree with them, or they were afraid of being targeted by the criminals, and therefore terror groups such as the KKK were allowed to run with little to no governmental interference, making the African-Americans suffer being prosecuted solely because of their race.
DeleteI agree with Inez and Philip's view on the KKK and its impact on the failure of Reconstruction. In the video from class, Thomas Goodrich said, "The KKK were continuing the war." The KKK carried out violent murders and attacks, extending the gory and loss of the civil war. Their violence made both African Americans and Radical Republicans feel unsafe. Reconstruction was supposed to help the emancipated slaves convert into a free society, but instead it caused the creation of white supremacist groups like the KKK. Also, blacks were no longer the sole target. Republicans were also targeted, creating a danger for whites that did not exist prior to reconstruction. Many of the KKK members were also local government officials, so the KKK got away with their raids because, but the federal government could not monitor all the raids. Reconstruction was unsuccessful because it not only failed to eliminate the racial violence from the war but it initiated the start of an even more gruesome form of violent discrimination. The violence of the KKK prevented the nation from removing racism and the start of segregation from the south.
DeleteThis is just a quote to help support what I commented on above.
DeleteBooker T. Washington, a former slave, stated "During the whole of the Reconstruction period [African-Americans] throughout the South looked to the federal government for everything" (Washington). It was mostly the federal government who was advocating for the rights of African-Americans, while more local governments under federal jurisdiction didn't agree with what their superiors was legislating, and thus didn't enforce it. The South felt somewhat that their voices weren't being heard.
I think in some ways Reconstruction was in fact a success. The whole point of Reconstruction was to rebuild the country after being torn apart by the war. Since this was the point of Reconstruction, it was a success because the South was readmitted into the Union. Also, steps were taken towards helping the blacks other than freeing the slaves. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments gave the blacks citizenship, equal protection of the law, and the right to vote. All of these things were officially put into writing by the government, not just ideas in the abolitionists’ minds. Even though they were not being enforced to the fullest extent, they were there for people to see. Everything was not going to be perfect right away; steps needed to be taken. Reconstruction was a long-term plan, not a quick fix. Therefore, the laws made to help blacks in addition to readmitting the South into the Union made Reconstruction a success.
ReplyDeleteKatie
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily that the cons of the Reconstruction outweighed the pros. I agree that the South had a lot of hard feelings towards the North, which helped to fuel the violence that the Southerners showed towards the freed slaves. I agree with Melanie that in addition to the South being violent because of they feared what would happen to their plantations once the slaves were freed, the South was also afraid of the freed slaves gaining power. This was shown many times in the Black Codes, when many of the Southern states limited the power that was given to freed slaves. The codes limited the freed slaves’ job opportunities, and also prevented marriage between African-Americans and whites. Both of these examples would ultimately give the African-Americans power, something that whites feared. However, I think that this new threat of African-Americans gaining power not only affected the Southerners, but also the North. Racism was still very prevalent in the North, and although many of the Northerners believed in abolishing slavery, many of them still feared that, if given equal opportunities, African-Americans could become just as powerful as whites were. This fear, both in the North and the South, prevented the Reconstruction from ever accomplishing its goal and giving African-Americans the equal opportunities they deserved.
Scott-
ReplyDeleteMelanie, I agree that the north and the south coming together was a good thing, but the way they did it was a failure. By simply letting the southern states back into the Union, they let the south return to its old self by creating the black codes which basically created slavery by forcing blacks to get a job and not be able to negotiate wage. The south shouldn’t have been let back into the Union in so easily, instead using a plan such as the Wade-Davis bill. You also mentioned the compromise of 1877 as being a success because the two sides came together and compromised. I see this as a failure because the north selfishly accepted the compromise knowing how bad the blacks would get treated when the federal troops left. Former slave Fredrick Douglass said “The law on the side of freedom is of great advantage only where there is power to make that law respected. With federal troop out of the south there was no one to enforce the law which made life as bad, or in some cases worse, as slavery for the blacks. Since the federal laws of equality in the 13th 14th and 15th amendments made almost no change in the south for the blacks, reconstruction was a failure.
Holly--
ReplyDeleteGeorge, I acknowledge that Reconstruction’s main purposes were to rebuild the US and to abolish slavery, and, to some extent, I recognize that the country took small steps toward accomplishing that goal. The federal government, as you said, passed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, officially granting former-slaves the rights to citizenship and to vote; however, I feel that both the federal and state governments abused their power to protect the newly freed citizens and that Reconstruction deviated away from its main purposes too quickly. Editor E. L. Godkin wrote that during the time of Reconstruction, the conditions of the South “attracted the carpetbagger as naturally as a dead ox attracts the buzzard.” Carpetbaggers and scalawags took advantage of the destroyed political and economic climate of the South, and chose to move to this section of the country for their personal gain, not to aid the freed blacks. With the fallen planter class, those from the North and those that had been dedicated to the Union during the Civil War would gain personal glory and power by partaking in the newly formed Republican state governments. These same men then abused their new power; Booker T. Washington, a slave freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, felt that “the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of the Southern whites.” Even with the rights the federal government granted the freed blacks, state governments had used the black man’s lack of education and knowledge to punish the planter class, and to show to the Southern public that white men from the North would be better suited in the new state governments than the newly freed blacks; they also seemingly taunted the former planter class about not being permitted to control their own government. Yet, the federal government was also too preoccupied in its struggle for power (the Legislative branch versus the Executive branch) to combat the corruption of the Southern state governments. Additionally, as Eliza, Scott, and several others mentioned, the Compromise of 1877 ended the Reconstruction era just over ten years after it began. Racist white men remained too focused on the fight for political power than on the fight for the black man’s rights, ultimately leading to the failure of Reconstruction.
Sarah:
ReplyDeleteIt is debatable whether or not the Reconstruction could be considered a success or a failure. A reason one could say that it was a success is because Lincoln's original goal was to preserve the Union. President Lincoln delivered his short, but famous, Gettysburg Address in 1863, in which he said, "we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," (Lincoln, 488). Lincoln wanted to respect and honor the dead by coming together as a Union so they would not have died in vain. He thought that if the Union would be preserved, the many deaths would not be for nothing, and everyone could get along and have a wonderful free existence. The Union, in Lincoln's eyes, was worth a lot, especially given the unlimited possibilities for a future free and equal society, so Lincoln did not want the Union to fall apart. Therefore, when the Union was preserved, this dream of a society was one step closer to becoming true. Of course, it took quite a long time for America to become more accepting than it was back in 1863, but at least the Union was protected so the change could be made, however long it took.
I agree with everybody so far about the concept that the Reconstruction, while it did have a few positive outcomes, was mostly unsuccessful. I wanted to build off of Inez's comment about the government not doing anything to stop the violence and discrimination in the South. One of the biggest issues of the Reconstruction in my opinion was the corruption in the government. I believe that it was President Johnson's views and actions that caused many set-backs and in turn, caused the Reconstruction to be unsuccessful. Freedman's Bureau is one of the few positive results of the Reconstruction. Even though it was short lived, this act/agency was extremely successful. The agency helped freed slaves transition into society by providing help to find jobs, homes, schooling, etc. New jobs and schools were created for freed slaves, and the country looked like it was heading in the right direction. However, Johnson vetoed the act. While he wanted slavery to be abolished, Johnson did not believe in equal rights among all people in the United States. He felt that African-Americans were inferior to white people, and thought that Freedman's Bureau was making them equal to whites. It was actions such as these that caused set-backs in the Reconstruction, and caused the positive future for the country to be altered. If Johnson had not disagreed with Congress and caused so much tension within the government and leadership of the US, the outcome of the Reconstruction could have been different, and could have been more successful.
ReplyDeleteGovernment corruption occurred not only within large positions of office, but also within smaller ones in the United States. In For the Record, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representative Howell Cobb states regarding his views on how the South was being treated after the Civil War when he says, "They have arrested the wheels of state government, paralyzed the arm of industry, endangered a spirit of bitter antagonism on the part of our negro population towards the white people with who it is in the interest of both races they should maintain kind a friendly relations." He is publicizing Southern government's views on how the South feels after the war, and it is people with mindsets like these who led to political corruption during the time of the Reconstruction. An example of lack of interference in state law is when the Black Codes were issued. Southern governmental leaders made no effort to retract the laws once they were passed due to their sympathetic feelings to the South, and bitterness towards African Americans and those in the North. Their lack of incentive to create peace with Republican leaders across the nation made even harsher divides within the US, making the Reconstruction move more slowly, and ultimately rendering it unsuccessful.
DeleteI agree with previous posts that Reconstruction ultimately proved to be unsuccessful. Although the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed, which were vital initiatives that helped the slaves establish their freedom, the effects of these laws proved to be a negative outcome not only for African Americans but for anyone in the North, such as Radical Rebulicans, who were connected with Reconstruction. In the documentary “Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War,” a man named Thomas Goodrich says, “History books declare that the American Civil War ended in April of 1865 but, did the violence end? No it did not. The violence continued at least for another decade.” African Americans were living in fear because of the Ku Klux Klan, the first terrorist organization that promoted white supremacy and aimed at suppressing the Black race through extreme violence. The government failed to protect African Americans, who were now considered equal citizens under the 14th amendment, because the Ku Klux Klan remained a part of everyday society and were not stopped. Lily mentioned the KKK’s “unnecessary violence,” which I agree was pushed to the extreme and could be debated as being worse measures than slavery abuse. The Black Codes, as Phoebe mentioned, also created violence because they were discriminatory against African Americans and gave Southern plantation owners power again over the Blacks who were in need of jobs after being freed. In the documentary, Mike Hodge says, “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.” Overall I think Reconstruction was unsuccessful because the government failed to protect the safety of African Americans after the war, who as new citizens were faced with not only with discrimination but the fear of dying.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that so far the corruption of the government has been brought up frequently as a reason for Reconstruction not achieving success. For example, Scott argued that the Compromise of 1877 was a failure because the North accepted the terms of the Compromise knowing that African-Americans would be left in the South without protection. I agree that the Compromise was a failure and made Reconstruction unsuccessful but more so because the Republicans and Democrats had grown to resent one another so much that they could not trust the legitimacy of one another’s counting of ballots in the Election of 1876. The mistrust between the two parties led to the need to form an Electoral Commission to decide upon the Presidency because the two parties were incapable. The tension between the two parties affected and divided the people of both the North and the South and yet nothing was done to keep the two parties at peace. As Howell Cobb, a prominent attorney and politician from Georgia, stated, “We regarded the close of the war as ending the relationship of enemies and the beginning of a new national brotherhood, and in light of that conviction spoke of constitutional equality.” However, these goals of brotherhood and equality for the Union that Cobb spoke of were not accomplished during Reconstruction because of the corruption in the government especially between the Republican and Democratic parties. Had Reconstruction been successful, the tension between the two parties should have been diminished and then channeled to find a compromise that benefited all of the members of the Union.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Micaela when she says Reconstruction was unsuccessful in reforming the Southern states, or at least at first. As we saw in the video we watched in class, there was increased violence from southern farmers and groups like the Ku Klux Klan as they tried to resist the governments policies. In the beginning of the video, a white southern farmer walks outside, beats one of his slaves, and then shoots him. I think this behavior escalated even after the war had ended, and got almost worse. Think of it from the Southern point of view: they had just lost the war so their morale was at a low, the Confederate soldiers had to return to their destroyed homes and cities, and then the government sent their economy into ruin by freeing the slaves. Once the freed slaves started obtaining their rights, such as the right to vote, the Southern white's hatred grew, because they were so used to viewing them as inferior. As a result, many African Americans were beaten and lynched, yet the government failed to put an end to the violence. The South may have technically been a part of the Union again, but their feelings had not changed. It could be argued that life was worse for the freed slaves than it was before emancipation, and even difficult for anyone, white or black, who associated themselves with the Republican Party. The federal government did help the Southern economy start to move away from its reliance on agriculture by providing funding as a result of the Compromise of 1877, but it ultimately could have done more to help reconstruct the South in its demolished state as a result of the war.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Allie's mention of the Compromise of 1877, I'd like to mention that it was a major reason that the Reconstruction was unsuccessful. When Hayes made the agreement to take troops out of the South soon after his election, he damaged all hopes of slowing down discrimination and racism in the South. Without the troops to regulate their actions, Southerners had more freedom to act out in violence towards African Americans and radical Republicans living throughout the South during that time. Violence was promoted through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, but it was not limited to them. Many outbreaks happened on city streets or on private plantations between racist Southerners and African Americans. If the compromise had never been created, troops would have remained on guard in Southern states, and had better control over the violent actions of Southerners, and ultimately given newly freed slaves a better chance to be able to use their equality and new rights for the betterment of the United States.
DeleteI like what Phoebe said about the tension that grew between the Republican and Democratic parties, and that political corruption was a major factor in the failure of Reconstruction. One aspect of this corruption was that Northern political leaders wanted to punish ex-Confederate officials for their involvement in the war by placing the freed blacks in positions that would grant them higher power than them. Booker T. Washington wrote in his autobiography that, "In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of Southern whites. I felt that the Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end." It seems as though the North manipulated the freed blacks in order to better their own political positions, and almost to make a mockery of the Southern people. This was extremely unfair to the freed blacks, because as a result there was increased violence towards them, and they were the recipients of more abuse and discrimination than they had been when they were still slaves. The federal government did pass laws, such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to try and help the freed slaves, but I feel that the government's internal political battle hurt the African Americans more.
ReplyDeleteMeredith
ReplyDeleteI agree with what people have said so far, that Reconstruction as a whole was a failure, although it did have some positive components. Going off of what Phoebe and Allie said, I also believe that one of the major reasons that Reconstruction failed was political corruption. This came in many forms that many people have said already, including: Black Codes, the Compromise of 1877, lack of support for the Freedman’s Bureau (which was a positive while it lasted), and general fighting between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. A strong example of the Legislative and Executive branches not getting along comes from the documentary that we have been watching in class. It said that after the midterm elections of 1876 that radical Republicans held a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This meant that Republicans could override any of Johnson’s vetoes because the decision would go the other house and be passed there. This shows disagreements between branches because instead of working together, the Republicans did what they wanted and did not listen to Johnson. I’m not saying Johnson’s decisions were the right either, rather that the lack of bipartisanship brought failure to the Reconstruction era.
In addition to the political issues surrounding the tension between the branches of government, the process of voting was completely unfair. Blacks had been given the right to vote on paper, which was a step in the right direction for Reconstruction. Still, this had to be strictly enforced in order to truly be successful. as we saw in the video today, blacks were either forced to vote a certain way, or not allowed to vote at all. At around 17:40 in the video, a political cartoon showing two men holding a voting black man at gunpoint is shown. This displayed the threats placed on blacks if they wanted to vote. Technically, they had the right to vote, but if they wanted to live they remained silent. This inability to voice their opinion set the blacks back in the political world. They were not able to have a say in the government which was an example of Reconstruction being unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteTo go along with your point about Blacks and their voting rights, although the 15th amendment was passed, which gave them the chance to vote and voice their opinions, many freed slaves were still hesitant to vote because of the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan. In the documentary, Mike Hodge states, "In Tennessee , it is believed that southern White supremacies murder an average of one person a day leading up to the elections of 1868 . Black voter turn out here drops by over 17,000 from the previous year." The violence during the Reconstruction era becomes uncontrollable, and the initiatives put in place by the government, such as the 15th amendment, were a start to successful movements, but ultimately fell short because of the fears many African Americans felt towards the Ku Klux Klan. Also, the Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1865, but drastic measures to stop their unnecessary violence were not addressed until 1869 when as Mike Hodge states, "Finally, in 1869 , Brownlow has legislation passed the gifts and the power to declare a martial law and organized a state militia against the Klan. Nathan Bedford Forrest threatens to meet Brownlow's militia with a Klan army which he claims is 40,000 strong. The people of Tennessee brace for a bloodbath." William Brownlow, the governor of Tennessee finally declares war against the KKK, but through the past five years, the Klan has grown strong and immense in numbers. The Reconstruction era was particularly unsuccessful at this point in time because the newly freed slaves could not trust the government to protect them and lived in fear, hesitating to voice their opinions, because the government failed to create equal standards for the Blacks. Another interesting point from the documentary that showed how Reconstruction was unsuccessful was how when Reconstruction ended after the Election of 1876 and Compromise of 1877, the efforts of Reconstruction had been cut off after only 12 years and the South remained in ruins, with an unstable economy and many living in poverty.
DeleteI agree with what everyone is saying: the Reconstruction of the Union was unsuccessful because the government was corrupt. Even though the Democrats were fighting to combat African American civil rights, they were not nearly as responsible for the reconstruction's failure as the Republicans. Booker T. Washington, a former-slave who experienced the reconstruction, reflected upon his experiences while voting. He said, “I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my race, was in a large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and forced. In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help the whit men into office,” (565). The Republicans seemed to have a phony reason behind passing laws that protected African American civil rights, especially their right to vote. The Republicans knew that if they gave the freed slaves the right to vote, the freedmen would vote in favor of them simply because they were allowing them civil rights, unlike the Democrats. But, as Washington reflects, he makes one wonder if the Republicans were passing these laws because they believed that all people, no matter what race, deserved to be equal, or because they wanted to manipulate the African American suffrage into keeping them in office.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think? Do you think that the Republicans truly believed that freed slaves deserved civil rights, or did they only pass legislation in order to win the African American suffrage’s allegiance?
Holly--
ReplyDeleteI agree that the process of voting was completely unfair during Reconstruction, and I would also go so far as to say that the entire political system of Reconstruction was unfair, despite the North's initial effort to protect the freed slaves' rights. The federal government had given former slaves their freedom and had attempted to control the Southern land by dividing it into five sections with the First Reconstruction Act, but the Northern government had not allocated land specifically for the freed man's use. Frederick Douglass wrote in his autobiography that "the government had left the freedmen in a worse condition... [the former slave] had neither money, property, nor friends. He was free from the old plantation, but he had nothing but the dusty road under his feet. He was free from the old quarter that once gave him shelter, but a slave to the rains of summer and the frosts of winter." Before emancipation, as long as they obeyed their masters, slaves had food and shelter, clothing, and other slaves to socialize with after their work, though some slaves were subject to cruel punishments like beatings and whippings. However, after emancipation, violence was still so prevalent throughout the South that the freedmen were still subject to cruel punishment by terrorist groups such as the KKK. Then to add insult to injury, the black people of the South were left homeless, a worse state than before their freedom. The only way to put a roof over their heads and provide food and shelter for their families was to comply with Black Codes and agree to work on the plantations under contracts with their former masters. The federal government had not given the free slaves land of their own, and the only way to obtain their "own" land was to comply with the unjust Black Codes and work for their previous masters, a completely unfair political scheme.
Sarah:
ReplyDeleteGeorge and Holly have a great point when they say that technically blacks had the right to vote, but many were too scared to use it. Even though on paper the Reconstruction may appear to be a success, the horrible murders, raids, and tortures in the South that continued after the war suggest otherwise. A former slave named Frederick Douglass said, "Though they were not slaves, they were not yet quite free... The law on the side of freedom is of great advantage only where there is power to make that law respected," (Frederick Douglass, 563). Since this was a former slave who was speaking, he must have had to endure the harshness of the South towards blacks and Union whites in the South. If a person who has the legal right to vote and be a citizen just like everyone else still feels like they are not yet free, it is almost like slavery still existed in another form, but worse, since racial tensions heightened. Therefore, the Reconstruction could not have been a success if one of the major causes (abolishing slavery) was not yet completed. To make it worse, like Holly said, the blacks were forced to work certain jobs with unfair advantages to white people just to get enough to live by. The Black Codes and the KKK were two of the main ways the blacks were taken advantage of and cruelly murdered. This disgusting treatment of blacks is even, but it is beyond evil when you add the fact that by law, blacks are equal citizens to the white people who are their torturers and killers. There is no way it is possible to look at these horrible hate crimes and think the Reconstruction was a complete success.
I agree with everyone that Reconstruction was unsuccessful because of the corrupt government, but there was a positive impact on the government during this period. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson set the standard for future action within the government. The overwhelming amount of Radical Republicans in Congress made it easy to restrict Johnson’s power. Congress and Johnson had conflicting ideas about the approach to Reconstruction. Since this was the case, Congress restricted the Presidential power by making it impossible for him to remove people from his cabinet without Congress’ approval. When Johnson defied this, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him. He escaped the Senate by one vote and remained in office. If the impeachment had been successful, it would have told future members of Congress that if they disagreed with the President’s policies, they could just impeach him. This part of Reconstruction was successful because it protected future presidents from Congress.
ReplyDeleteScott-
DeleteGeorge, I agree that the precedent created by the Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson was a positive thing, but the trial itself was an example of a major failure in the federal government. The political tensions that created the trial were a huge part of the reason reconstruction was unsuccessful. The tension between Congress and Andrew Johnson distracted the federal government from moving forward and helping the blacks in the south. Johnson vetoed the bill to renew the Freedman’s Bureau as well as the Civil Rights Act and the Tenure of Office Act simply because the Congress supported them. The Tenure of Office Act is a clear example of the legislative branch attacking the executive because it states that the President can’t fire cabinet members without the approval of the Senate. If both Congress and Andrew Johnson were more willing to compromise with each other, more focus could have gone into rebuilding the south and enforcing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, as well as continuing programs like the Freedman’s Bureau. Therefore, I think the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson was not a positive thing because it should not have gotten to that point. The stubbornness of Andrew Johnson was a major reason why reconstruction proved to be a failure.
I agree with many of the points that state that Reconstruction could have been much more successful if political corruption had not been so prevalent in society at the time. Much like before the war, all American citizens had their own opinions, values, and morals. The war did not change any of these opinions, as to be expected. All Americans wanted their opinion to be the one that was mirrored throughout the country. President Johnson and Congress were no different and were extremely focused on getting their opinions passed as legislature. Booker T. Washington stated in a reflection on Reconstruction, "Still, as I look back now over the entire period of our freeedom, I cannot help feeling that it would have been wiser if some plan could have been put in operation which would have made the possession of a certain amount of education or property, or both, a test for the exercise of the franchise, and a way provided by which this test should be made to apply honestly and squarely to both the white and black races." (566) Washington brings up a good point. The process of Reconstruction would have gone much smoother for both races if a plan was set up before dramatic actions were taken. Rather than passing amendments as issues arose, the United States government could have prevented these issues from coming up in the first place if they had previously agreed on a plan that satisfied everyone to some extent. However, no such plan was made because of the amount of political corruption in the government at the time. No plan could ever had been agreed on because President Johnson and Congress had completley seperate adgendas on how they wanted to carry out Reconstruction and neither side was open to compromise. In fact it was just the opposite, both sides were willing to go as far as it took to get their plan of action passed. The constant struggle for power and the amount of apparent political corruption made Reconstruction go much slower and more violent than it needed to be.
ReplyDeleteLily
ReplyDeleteI want to go back to Meghan when she was talking about the Freedmans Bureau. I feel that the freedmans Bureau was an agency that could have helped the country immensely. But it is also a perfect example of how the country was not capable of completing anything during the reconstruction era. In the movie we watched in class, Mike Hodge said, "the Radical Republicans create the Freedmen's Bureau. America's first major relief organization, the Freedmen's Bureau is responsible for the general welfare of newly freed slaves including creating schools and helping Blacks obtain their own land. At the end of the war, the North confiscates over 800,000 acres of land from the South. The Freedmen's Bureau's mission is to parcel out this land to newly freed slaves helping them transition from slavery to freedom. But these programs are severely underfunded and understaffed. During Reconstruction, the Freedmen's Bureau stations only 900 agents throughout the South. This lack of support comes directly from a man who has declared war against the Radical Republicans, Abraham Lincoln's successor President Andrew Johnson". This quote shows how this plan was necessary for the success of the country, but also that they were not able to follow through with it. This quote makes it seem that they were not able to complete it because Johnson was not in full support of it. This was true, but even more then just Johnson there were many people that felt that this was not a good idea. They mainly felt this way because they felt threatened by the idea of the blacks gaining power in the country. The freedmans bureau is a perfect example of how the reconstruction era had many good potential plans involved in it, but because there were so many conflicting no plans we actually able to be accomplished.
Lily, I wanted to build upon your ideas about the Freedmen's Bureau. In the documentary, as you mentioned, Mike Hodge states, "the Freedmen's Bureau stations only 900 agents throughout the South. This lack of support comes directly from a man who has declared war against the Radical Republicans, Abraham Lincoln's successor President Andrew Johnson." The Freedmen's Bureau was the first real attempt at creating opportunities for African Americans to become equal citizens in comparison to the white race. I don't think that it was the country that failed in completing tasks that would benefit the African Americans during Reconstruction, but the influence of the current President, Andrew Johnson. James M. Smallwood goes on to explain in the documentary, "In my opinion, President Johnson was nothing but a walking talking disaster. At every crucial point he seems to come up on the wrong side of history. There would be no real land distribution. Certainly, not widespread throughout the South and the Blacks would not for the majority, they would never uh, control their own land.goes on to explain. " I believe that if President Lincoln was still in power, more efforts would have been made to make the Freedmen's Bureau successful. Although Andrew Johnson supported the freedom of slaves, he did not believe they deserved equality in comparison to the "white man," which is why he vetoed bill for an increase of power of the Bureau, supported by Radical Republicans in 1866. Andrew Johnson, who was a stubborn President and in support of full "white supremacy" changed the course of Reconstruction after President Lincoln was assassinated, and I believe his efforts and unwillingness to compromise with Congress affected the outcome of Reconstruction and ultimately made it unsuccessful because of his negative views.
DeleteI agree with George on how the government was successful by falling back on their system of checks and balances by not letting any one branch of their government have more power than any of the others.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is also noteworthy to bring up the fact that Reconstruction was unsuccessful because it caused economic turmoil throughout the nation. The video on Reconstruction, "Aftershock", stated that the social order of the South was completely changed; since there were no longer slaves performing free labor, half of the South's economy was suddenly depleted. The North was somewhat selfish, and only freed the slaves for political reasons, and not for moral reasons, as Lincoln stated in his Second Inaugural Address; the slaves were only freed because it was the only method in which the Union could be saved.
Going back to Micaela's question on whether the Republicans truly wanted the blacks to be treated equally, I would say that the only reason the Republicans wanted equality for the blacks was so they could have more political power. By setting the slaves free, and advocating for their rights, the Republicans would receive the African-American vote. Also, the Republicans could put their Democratic foes into a state of confusion and uncertainty by completely altering their societies' social and political structure since in the South they "put their ablest men, and men of the highest social standing and character, in office" (Grieves, Doc. F). The South's politics were run by the rich elite slave-holding class. This slave-holding class, who were so used to having all of the political power in their society, were now given none because of the First Reconstruction Act, which took away all former-Confederate leaders' voting rights. This is probably why this class of people felt like they were being brought "under the power of negro supremacy" (Cobb, 465), since African-Americans used to have the least political power, and now they had more than the people who used to have the most, since blacks could vote while former Southern leaders couldn't.
I wanted to go back an answer Micaela Corcoran’s question, “Do you think that the Republicans truly believed that freed slaves deserved civil rights, or did they only pass legislation in order to win the African American suffrage’s allegiance?” I think this answer comes in two parts. First, I think that many of the radical Republicans were white Northerners who truly believed that enslaving people was morally wrong and that those people deserved civil rights and the protection of those civil rights. Evidence for this comes from our class discussions about how generally Northerner’s issue with slavery was that it was immoral. I also think that some of the Republicans probably did have an ulterior motive, which was to win African American suffrage’s allegiance. One explanation for this is that many Northerners had two goals during Reconstruction. The first goal being to help introduce freedmen into society and give them their civil rights, and the second goal being to punish the ex-Confederate southern traitors. One way of punishing the former Confederates would be to have African American votes that supported Republicans, which then let them hold office and make the rules without taking into consideration the South’s views or opinions. This concept also relates to our discussion of how political corruption influenced the failure of Reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteKatie
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allie that the North often tried to make fools out of the Confederacy and used the freed slaves to better their political advantage, which was completely unfair to the blacks and fueled more violence towards the freed slaves. I think that often the South resented the Northerner’s power, which created more violence in the South. For example, in certain Southern states, when ex-Confederates returned home, they were forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. As we watched in the video Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War, the second line of the Pledge of Allegiance read, “Hereby renounced all continents, support and allegiance to the so called Confederate states of America .” Historians in the video Aftershock go on to say, “For many men who were still wearing their Confederate uniforms because its all they had that was very difficult to do. One hot summer night, the six disgruntle ex-rebels get together as they had often done since returning home. With this particular night the usual stories of war, whisky and women take a dark turn that will affect the next 150 years of United States history. This fateful night, the six young rebels create a secret organization known as the Ku Klux Klan.” This demonstrates that many of the Southerners took out their anger at the North on the freed slaves. Having just lost the Civil War, the Confederacy had no choice but to agree with the North and rejoin the Union, and take the Pledge of Allegiance. As Allie pointed out, the Northerners often used the African-Americans for their own political advancement. It was the anger and resentment Southerners felt towards the North that inspired the start of the Klu Klux Klan, which greatly reduced the success of the Reconstruction. Ultimately, the Reconstruction was unsuccessful because the North did not free the slaves only for moral reasons, but for selfish ones as well, which created more violence and hatred towards African-Americans in the South.
Lily, I agree that the Freedmen's Bureau was not followed through with, because the whites felt threatened by the blacks. This was the reason that many of the terrorist groups came into existence. Groups like the Klu Klux Klan and Lee's Raiders. Lee's Raiders were a group in Texas started by Bob Lee who was a white supremacist and refused to let his slaves be freed following the end of the war. However in this state, as there was in many states at the time, there was a second civil war going on. Lee's Raiders were terrorizing the freed slaves and republicans, and Peacock and the state militia were trying to prevent the Raiders from doing this. But in doing this both sides were killing people, so basically creating a second war. In the end both Peacock and Lee were killed, yet the racist attitudes and violence did not completely stop in the South. As James Smallwood said in the movie, "You could say the north won the Civil War, but the south won the war of Reconstruction." The North had won the war, but the South got to keep things almost exactly as they were before. Although the slaves were no longer bound to work for them, the southern government made it difficult for them to work as anything but laborers. Also there was still racist attitudes and violence towards the freed slaves. Reconstruction was a victory for the South largely, because the North gave up on the cause and put their own political needs before the slaves.
ReplyDeletePhillip I agree with your answer to Micaela's question that the Republicans only wanted the blacks to be treated equally. Throughout this time period the government put themselves first, and this is just another example of this. They still themselves did not want the freed slaves to be around them, and many of them still had very racist attitudes. However, they saw that if they supported the slaves gaining more rights, that they would then get the black's support. The problem with this was even after the passing of the Fifteenth Amendment the white supremacists in the South did anything they could to prevent the blacks from voting. I also agree with you Katie that the Southerners still resented the Northerners after the war and this caused issues with Reconstruction. One of the ways the Southerners showed this resentment was John Wilkes Booth's assassination of President Lincoln. With this resentment still intact, the country could not again unite fully and this was one of the reasons that Reconstruction was not very effective or successful.
ReplyDeletePhoebe-
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I believe Reconstruction was unsuccessful resonates from the segregation that thrived in the Union because of the passing of the Jim Crow laws immediately following the Reconstruction era. Despite efforts to create equality during Reconstruction, ultimately no progress was made because the Jim Crow laws enacted similar legislation to that of the Black Codes from the Reconstruction era. The Jim Crow laws enabled segregation throughout the ex-Confederate states for public facilities and a created a “separate but equal” connotation for the public to follow. For example, in Alabama a Jim Crow law was passed on health care that stated, “No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed.” Though equality was supposedly created by the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Alabama law allowed for African-American men to not receive proper medical treatment because white nurses were not obliged to assist them. Segregation and discrimination proceeded to torment the Union because Reconstruction ended without success and the presence of racism did not diminish. The failure of Reconstruction is therefore also displayed by the racism that exists today in the United States.
Eliza, I like that you brought up the point from the documentary that the South won the Reconstruction. I thought that was an important point brought up in the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I agree. Katie pointed out that the North tried to make fools out of the Confederacy, but I feel as if that was necessary. One of the main issues the war was fought was because of slavery, and when the war was over, white Southerners were no longer allowed to own slaves. While the the law could have prevented them from owning slaves, it could not change their mind about African-Americans, and could not change Southerners' prejudices and ill-minded thoughts on African-Americans. Since you can't change people's opinions very easily, I think it was necessary for the North to "make fools of the South" by doing things such as having soldiers swear their allegiance to the Union, or creating and enforcing laws such the 10% plan/Wade-Davis Bill, and the First Reconstruction Act. While some of these laws and acts might have been considered unfair in the eyes of Southerners, they were necessary to control and punish them for their past actions, as well as their prejudiced and hateful views towards blacks after the war. It was those actions, such as the forming of the KKK and the Black Codes that caused turmoil and set-backs during the Reconstruction, and did not help the country's state in any shape or form. The actions of Southerners, and even Northerners was what caused the Reconstruction to turn into a battle of violence, hate, and crime, and caused the "second civil war."
ReplyDeleteHolly --
ReplyDeleteIn response to George's mention of Johnson's impeachment trial, I do not believe that the trial was a success of Reconstruction in itself. I believe that it was a separate success for the country that occurred during the time of Reconstruction. Though it did set the precedent for future impeachment trials, it was not part of any goal of Reconstruction; Reconstruction's purpose was to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and to restore the Union. You could claim that his acquittal upheld the checks and balances between the separate branches of government during a time that stressed the distribution of power in the federal government, but it did not assist in the protection of blacks' rights or in the restoration of the Union. If anything, it hindered the process of Reconstruction. As mentioned in the documentary "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War," Johnson both resented the planter class of the South and was a white-supremist. His only goal during Reconstruction was to restore the Union without slavery or the planter class. He had looked the other way at laws such as the Black Codes, and vetoed several bills passed by Congress which had planned to assist the freed blacks, such as the Freedman's Bureau. Only after the Radical Republicans gained the two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate were Reconstruction Acts permitted to pass into law. Johnson's and the Executive Branch's continued lack of support of Reconstruction after his acquittal in the trial added to the government's disregard for racial equality rights.
I do, however, recognize that, as Micaela brought up, the Radical Republicans became power hungry themselves, hoping to gain the political support of voting black men and to punish the planter class with the suppression of their voting rights. In this sense, I believe Johnson's acquittal was a success during the time of Reconstruction, not for Reconstruction.
Sarah:
ReplyDeleteMeredith, I agree with what you said about a main issue being political corruption. There is no doubt that the Union supporters and the Southerners did not get along, and that the South was completely devastated and former slaves were being terrorized. However, the North reacted in a way that only angered the South even more, making the problem worse. For example, when the former Confederate soldiers returned, they realized how impoverished their homeland had become and immediately had to renounce everything they believed in their whole life and fought hard for. In the documentary, Debra Goodrich is talking about the oath ex-Confederate soldiers had to take and says, "What was so offensive especially to the soldiers was the second line: 'I do solemnly swear that I hereby renounced all continents, support, and allegiance to the so called Confederate states of America.' For many men who were still wearing their Confederate uniforms because its all they had that was very difficult to do." Not to justify the South's actions, but all the people forced to say the oath of allegiance were truly raised believing that blacks were inferior and deserved to be slaves. Not just that, but these soldiers were exhausted and mentally drained after fighting (and losing) in a horrible disgusting war. And then they were just expected to immediately change all their views and become a Northerner? There were two main issues here: one, that the former Confederates were evil and terrorizing freed slaves, and two, that the North just expected them to calm down and renounce all their beliefs. More evidence that political corruption was one main cause of the failure of the Reconstruction was that six former Confederate soldiers who had to take this exact oath in Confederate uniforms actually formed the Ku Klux Klan. There is no doubt the North's pigheadedness helped cause the formation of this white supremacist group.
Slaves were suddenly freed in large quantities, and had no money, no property, no job, and no education. Like others have already mentioned, there was the Freedman's Bureau, but it was shortly lived (1865-1869), as Johnson vetoed its renewal due to his prejudice against African-Americans. The Freedman's Bureau assisted newly-freed slaves assimilate into society by training them in skills so that they could get jobs, by setting up schools in order to educate them, and helping them obtain their own property. After the Freedman's Bureau wasn't renewed, blacks were on their own. Many blacks continued to work for their former masters as sharecroppers, since many Black Codes required all blacks to have an employer at all times, "all freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes in this state...with no lawful employment or business...shall be fined in a sum not exceeding fifty dollars" (Black Codes of Mississippi). Former masters paid their former slaves very little money, and through sharecropping, the former slaves often ended up in debt because the prices for food and shelter they had to pay to stay on the plantation were often greater than the amount they were paid. Also, as mentioned in the video, "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War," some newly freed slaves starved to death because of the Black Codes requirement to have an occupation, and then being fined for not having an occupation, ultimately resulting in not having any money to pay for food, since some had trouble finding an employer where they felt they could be safe from violence. Ultimately, Reconstruction failed to deal with freed slaves successfully assimilating into the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Phoebe, who talked about racism after the Reconstruction Era. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868 order to create greater equality between whites and blacks. However, it wasn't until the 1960s that widespread movements for racial equality began again; almost 100 years after the 14th amendment was created.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to what we began to talk about in class today, why do you all think that racism exists in the first place, and why did it take 100 years for the government to finally address the racial inequality again?
Personally, I feel that because African-Americans have different physical characteristics than Caucasians, many Caucasians felt threatened by their differences, and thought that because of them, peoples of African descent were sub-human, and therefore should be treated worse than Caucasians. I think that the reason why it took about another 100 years until the next big "push" for racial equality was because the federal government didn't have enough power in the South to enforce equality, making room for segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Does anyone else have any ideas?
Philip asked the question, “why do you all think that racism exists in the first place?” I completely agree with his point about how being different caused people to be afraid. I think that the reason racism exists is fear, which works both ways. In general terms, people are afraid of anything different then them. Those differences could be skin color, gender, hair color, language or many other things. In my opinion the white people feared colored people because they were different in so many ways from physical features to language and culture. I think that the colored people feared the white people because they had treated them horribly for generations and had denied them basic rights while they were slaves. Once they became freedman they certainly feared the white people because of groups like the Ku Klux Klan who showed violence to any person involved in attempts for Reconstruction as well as the newly freed men.
ReplyDelete