Thursday, January 27, 2011
On Line Seminar
We will be holding an on line seminar. You are to discuss the questions Was reconstruction successful? Remember you need to post at least three times. Be sure to use evidence to support your ideas. The seminar will close at the end of class on Wednesday. Let me know if you have any questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeleteThe black codes were one of the major reasons for the unsuccessful reconstruction of the United States. The civil war freed the slaves and one of the goals of reconstruction was to ensure the freedom and equality of African-Americans, but the black codes did not allow that to happen. The black codes were a series of laws put together after the civil war by the confederate states. The black codes were a derivative of the slave codes, which defined and regulated slavery in the south-- therefore, the black codes were a way for the southern states to reattain the pre-civil war social structure. An example from the Louisiana black codes shows how the southern states tried to maintain slavery:
Sec. 4. . . . Every negro is required to be in the regular service of some white person, or former owner, who shall be held responsible for the conduct of said negro. But said employer or former owner may permit said negro to hire his own time by special permission in writing, which permission shall not extend over seven days at any one time. . . .
The black codes were slavery-- just worded differently. Every black person had to work for a white southerner, and even though they were being paid, the black people had to use that money to pay for the rent, so essentially they were working for free (slavery). The civil war was supposed to have ended slavery, and reconstruction should have moved forward with freedom and equality; however, the black codes impeded this from happening and were a major set back in the reconstruction process.
I agree that Reconstruction was unsuccessful, but for a different reason. One of the primary goals of Reconstruction was to integrate all the freed African Americans into society. In the South, however, many white supremacists, who despised the idea of racial equality joined the Ku Klux Klan, and proceeded to terrorize the recently freed African Americans. The Klan would invade and burn down homes, and scared many African Americans away from the polls, effectively denying them the right to vote.
ReplyDeleteKlan terrorism later became so common that Arkansas was split into four military districts in order for the Union to maintain control of the state, and control the Klan. As the movie “Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War” showed, many Klansmen and other southerners would not allow racial equality, and through subversive measures, they defied the North in its attempts to reconstruct the South.
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteI agree that both the black codes and Ku Klux Klan were examples of how reconstruction was unsuccessful. Another factor, at the start of reconstruction, that contributed to the failure was the misunderstandings and complications from both Lincoln’s 10% Plan and the Wade-Davis Bill. Each plan was a differing opinion on how to bring the seceded states back into the Union, and these differences reflected the differing viewpoints between the president and Congress. Congress refused to acknowledge Lincoln’s plan, which nullified it and started the discrepancies that manifested the political climate of the reconstruction period. Two sides emerged: Congress and the presidency. Discrepancies arose on whether the people in the South left or the actual states left, dividing Congress and the presidency further
The veto of the Wade-Davis Bill typified the struggle, which Lincoln was unable to resolve because of his assassination. In a Proclamation about the Wade-Davis veto, it says “the said bill was presented to the President of the United States for his approval less than one hour before the sine die adjournment of said ses-sion, and was not signed by him” The entirety of the country was ambivalent on how to conduct reconstruction, and since everyone was stuck on their own idea, the initial conflicts to be resolved, like black rights, rebuilding the south, and restoring the Union, were delayed greatly. Starting the reconstruction period with unanswered problems like how to readmit states resonated throughout the rest of the period, creating an atmosphere marked by violence to blacks and a failure to promote their rights.
Geoffrey Keane
ReplyDeleteWhile I consider all three of your points very worthwhile, I think from a purely economic perspective the Reconstruction was mostly a success. The South was indeed brought back from its shattered wartime condition. Cities and homes were physically rebuilt as the Confederate soldiers returned from the battlefield and the farms also started to move back into full-fledged production. However, this recovery was assisted by the morally appalling Black Codes, which kept the blacks in almost pre-war slave conditions of beaten agricultural workers. These codes benefited the plantation owners who, while now being forced to pay wages, did not have to pay for shelter, food, clothing, or other supplies for their workers. Additionally, the plantation owners could continue to treat their workers as harsh as they pleased (if not worse) and suffered a smaller monetary loss if one of their workers died. The vagrancy laws, which Conor gave an example of, improved the economic conditions of the south by forcing the blacks to have a job and in doing so allowing the plantation owners to pay ridiculously low wages, which the blacks were forced to accept. While these unjust restrictions imposed by the southern governments helped to fulfill the economic recovery of the South, it damaged and hampered the other goals of the Reconstruction in almost every other way.
However, this economic boost only helped the South in the short term by getting the farms and towns back on their feet. In the long term these codes served only to brew more conflict between economic classes by further division. Also, the increased benefits for the plantation owners kept the South’s economy agriculturally depended.
Geoffrey: I agree that from an economic standpoint Reconstruction aided the south in rising to economic power once again, despite near slave-labor that made the economic rise posible. However, do you think that the northern government could have done more to aid the economic section of the south to insure fluid integration of blacks? Do you think that if the economic and political stress had been aliviated, that integration and acceptance could have been easier, or was it a losing battle from the beginning?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the economic situation in the south was complicated by "carpetbaggers", northerners who, although they said they were moving to the south to "help rebuild", the majority ended up making money off of the south's strife, and taking advantage of the economic rise.
I also agree with Chase that white supremicists in the south made it increasingly difficult to achieve the goal during Reconstruction of black integration. Not only were these terrorist groups, such as the KKK, opposed to blacks, but many terroised and killed white radical republicans, and advocates for blacks.
This idea is vividly depicted in the movie we watched in class, "Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War". One example is the New Orleans Massacre. In this event, black Union troops marched towards a conference where Union members were discussing the issue to vote. The black troops marched for the right to vote, and then were to stand outside the conference. However, white supremist townspeople compiled large amounts of amunition and weapons, and created a makeshift police force. They jeered at the troops, and eventually, one side shot off a gun, and the fighting began. Not only did the white "police force" massacre the black troops, but they continued on into the building where the conference was being held, and killed all the diplomats (both white and black) in the conference. The event happened a year after the Civil War ended.
This example shows how angry and against black rights many white southerners were. They were not only driven to kill mass amounts of African Americans, but also people belonging to what they believed the "superior race", whites.
Extreme violence, like in the New Orleans Masacre is what fueled the downfall to the Reconstruction Era.
Geoff: While I find your perspective interesting, I respectfully disagree. While the physical and economic rebuilding of the South was an important part of Reconstruction, the African Americans, as Jenny and you said, were no better off, and it left a large part of the southern population poor and under a dominant planter class. Through the Black Codes, as you and Conor mentioned, the South effectively returned themselves to how they were before the civil war. This has, effectively defeated the purpose of the civil war in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the issues in the South did not end. They continued on until 1877, when reconstruction ended. Reconstruction did not end because the South had gotten their act together, so to speak, but because the North was forced into ending Reconstruction. The Democrats (almost entirely southern), threatened to prevent a president from being elected unless it was their candidate, or unless Reconstruction ended. The north, chose to end Reconstruction, walking away from the already mistreated African Americans there.
Sean, I agree that the division between Congress and the Presidency did play a part in the failure of reconstruction. Another point to bring up in defense of that argument is President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial. President Johnson’s potential impeachment began with the Tenure of Office Act, which forced the President to gain the approval of congress before he could fire any of his cabinet members. As an act of protest to the piece of legislation Johnson suspended his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. The act was enough for the House to vote in favor of an impeachment trial.
ReplyDeleteIn an opening statement Mr. Butler, a Representative from Massachusetts quoted several of Johnson’s speeches to the senate. For example, “‘a Congress which had done everything to prevent the union of the States;’ ‘A Congress factious and domineering.’” The conflict between the two branches of government had deteriorated to the point of petty name-calling. Each branch was trying to take control of reconstruction but they lost sight of that goal and began focusing on destroying the other branch’s image. Because of the intergovernmental fighting the south and its citizens were not getting the attention they needed. The federal government needed to be united in order to properly help the South with the process of reconstruction. Instead they focused on the politics and not the real issues.
Jenny:I really like your point about "do you think that the northern government could have done more to aid the economic section of the south to insure fluid integration of blacks? Do you think that if the economic and political stress had been alleviated, that integration and acceptance could have been easier, or was it a losing battle from the beginning?", because frankly, after researching Freedmen's Bureau, who’s intentions were good, it was simply not enough. As we saw the emancipation of slaves have an immediate and even more volatile acts on African Americans than slavery initially had, so did Freedmen's Bureau. Although it helped the slaves to transition from slavery to freedom, it also caused uproar when "Freedmen" began suing their ex-owners with the help of lawyers from the Freedmen's Bureau. Violence became more prominent and laws like the Black Codes were instilled to keep slaves from leaving and eventually suing their owners. As was stated in our “For The Record Book”, an oath in the KKK involved “..To protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless from the indignities, wrongs, and outrages of the lawless, the violent, and the brutal”. This proved that the KKK felt the lower class white people were the victims during reconstruction and were being subjected to mistreatment both economically and personally. The KKK only saw Freedmen’s Bureau as even more “Black Supremacy”, and the north did nothing to alleviate this tension, causing it only to manifest. Along with the lack of protection from the backlash Freedman's Bureau created, Freedman's Bureau was eventually dissolved entirely. The Bureau lasted only 7 years which was not nearly enough time to help the slaves become fully acclimated with their new situation and help them secure a good style of living. Freedman's Bureau was a feeble attempt to supply the African Americans with some food, a job and legal help for a limited amount of time. Nothing was done about the effects it had in creating the Black Codes, KKK outbursts, and hostility from ex-owners. Freedmen were left to fend for themselves with what little provisions they had. After 7 years they were still not back on their feet, however, they were then abandoned entirely. So to answer your question Jenny i do not believe reconstruction was successful, and, I believe the north could have done more to aid the economy in the south that would have insured a much better integration for the blacks.
ReplyDeleteI think, on a broader perspective, that Reconstruction only prospered at certain moments during its reign. However, for the long and short term, it was a failure. In the short-term during Reconstruction, the south ignored and resisted the acts of the Government. For example as many of you have mentioned, groups such as the KKK formed in direct defiance of the government. However had the government, though divided as Connor and Sean pointed out, not stepped in with enactments such as the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments and the Freedman's Bureau, conditions for blacks in the south would have been far worse than they were during the actual Reconstruction period. The problem was that eventually, the government gave up on the south. That was when the Nation saw what would have been, only then, it was reality. Thought the country passed legislation and attempted to enforce it with troops, they failed. The North took account for time and required financial and military costs they would have to pay, and deemed it too large a sacrifice. This abandonment of the south and the continuation of Reconstruction was a clear sign to me that it was unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger, I always wanted to hangout with my older brother and his friends. He would never let me, so I told my mom and she forced him to let me go off with them. Once I was actually with them though, they would just beat me up to the point where I would run home. When we talked about how equality was forced on America the other day in class, I thought back to this memory. With the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln declared that "all slaves are free in the confederacy." After the civil war, southerners were expected to forget traditions and ways of life that had been implemented for hundreds of years. So, when they were told to give up slavery, the southerners were irate and took it out on the black people. As Jenny explained, events such as the New Orleans Massacre, and countless crimes by the KKK were a way for the white southerners to release their anger and show how they thought it was unfair. There became a point when I was sick of being picked on by my brother and his friends, so I stopped trying to hang out with them. Now that I'm older and a few years have gone by since then, my brother wants to hangout with me. In contrast, racism still exists in our country today, or to stay relevant with my metaphor-- white people don't really want to hang out with black people--which is a clear example of the reconstruction process being unsuccessful. I find this to be an interesting relation because it makes me wonder: if America would stop beating the term "equality" and "racism" over everyone's heads, would we eventually come to accept one another? I stopped asking my mom to force my older brother to hang with me, and in time, he wanted to chill without being told to do so. After reading Geoffrey's post, reconstruction could be considered a short term success: "this economic boost only helped the South in the short term by getting the farms and towns back on their feet." However, reconstruction was clearly not a long-term success seeing as racism is still present today, which raises the question: In what other ways could reconstruction have been handled in order for it to have been successful in the long run?
ReplyDeleteHaving read what was posted so far, I believe that it is safe to say that Reconstruction was not successful from the perspective of the African Americans. The events mentioned by Jenny and Conor show that the South was not ready to recognize the African Americans as their equals. I ask if it was successful in other areas such as economically, as Geoffrey had mentioned, keeping the Union together, or politically?
ReplyDeleteOne example of this is the Impeachment of Johnson. While the event itself was already introduced by Connor, and while Congress and the Presidency were in a power struggle, and had even resorted to “petty name-calling” as Connor had mentioned. I, however, take a different perspective on that specific event. The impeachment failed in the Senate by one vote. That person who voted to keep the Johnson in the Presidency argued that his removal from office would set a precedent, giving Congress too much power because they could simply pass a bogus law, and impeach the President for breaking it—effectively giving Congress the ability to choose the President and remove him once he no longer suits the needs of Congress. The fact that Johnson was not removed from office kept the balance of power between Congress and the President closer to the way it was intended in the Constitution, and ultimately helped our country during the time of Reconstruction.
Geoffrey Keane
ReplyDeleteChase: On your first point I agree with you the economic progress that I mentioned was only a return to the pre-war situation of a dominant planter class and their maltreatment of all those around them. The war had degraded the southern economy and this return to the normal only seemed to help it get back on its feet and progress while in reality it only returned everyone to the situation of before.
Also, on your point about the continuation of the conflict, I agree with you in the fact that if the goals of the Reconstruction are viewed as a whole they are a failure and as the video mentioned the time period was only a continuation of the long and bloody civil war. The continued conflict destroyed the attempted unification process of the Reconstruction. Politically the Democrats and the Republicans were so fiercely opposed that no progress could really be made without the other trying to stop it and the Compromise of 1877 showed that the Republicans no longer had the heart to fight for the black’s rights and regulation of the south. Instead the Republicans preferred to keep the executive office. This was a sign that Reconstruction was a failure as the main players cared more for political clout rather than what was really the proper path for the country.
Chase: I agree with your point. If we look at the three main goals of Reconstruction, physically rebuilding the South, Bring Back the states of the south into the Union, and ensure the rights of black freedmen, we see that the only the second truly came to realization. As many pointed out, the south's economic and physical rebuilding process was a long one that was not highlighted in history, only that carpetbaggers and scalawags came into light to try and spur it. These individuals angered the south and did little to actually help.
ReplyDeleteIn "An Unreconstructed Southerner" on page 588, Howell Cobb says, Deprived of our property and ruined in our estates by the results of the war, we have accepted the situation.....Our conquerors seem to think that we should accompany our acquiescence with some exhibition of gratitude for the ruin which they have brought upon us."
The only aspect of reuniting the North and South really played out. The southern states were indeed brought back into the Union and the Country was whole again. This however came at a rather large cost for both sides.
Connor, I appreciate your analogy because i was the third of four kids so i understand your tag-along predicament. In response to your question "In what other ways could reconstruction have been handled in order for it to have been successful in the long run?", i believe it was a matter of Unity. As we stated in class, the three main components for reconstruction were physical reconstruction of the south, emancipation and equality of slaves, and how to re-admit states into the union. When it came to the stability of the union, it was in shambles. There was a disagreement on whether or not congress or the president would have jurisdiction on whether or not to re-admit states who left the union. Washington D.C. became so concentrated on over-throwing president Johnson that they did not put enough focus on integrating slaves into society. However, I believe that it came at a difficult time when there were still so many moving parts in the country and I believe of the three components, African American equality was put to the way-side and became less of a priority .To use the family analogy for America at the time of reconstruction, the parents-which were congress and the president, were trying to mend a divorce at the same time the younger child was trying to spend time with the older child. If the country wanted to better handle reconstruction in terms of slavery, they needed to first re-assemble the union. The country was still so broken that groups like the KKK were able to come together and become the dominant power in the south. If we were to look in the long term I would say that Reconstruction was successful when it came to the unifying of the union, because as we see today we are a well functioning government compared to 1863. However, there needed to be more focus on integrating African Americans back into society, or not have done it at all because it was done simply to haphazardly.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that for any type of social change to last the instigators need to be ready to spend a long time trying to enact it. Also, the implementation of this change needs to be the top priority or it will be neglected. The Compromise of 1877 showed that neither of these were applicable to the Federal Government and the North in general. IN the Presidential election leading up to the Compromise, Samuel J. Tilden, the democratic candidate won the popular vote over the republican Rutherford B. Hayes, however, he was only one electoral vote away from the minimum 185 and Hayes had 165. There were several southern states whose votes were in dispute. The Republicans unable to deal with the possibility of loss, attacked the South claiming that white supremacists had intimidated black people to prevent them from voting. An electoral commission was created and from that Hayes won by one vote. The tensions between the North and the South were liable to break again not even fourteen years after the official end of the Civil War. Then the Compromise of 1877 was passed stating that the republican Hayes could be president if federal troops left the South. The republicans were more concerned with having the political power than how they would use it. Even though they had the presidential office they no longer had any type of large enforcement in the south which would affect the social change they were looking for. However, if they had fought to keep the presidency and the troops in the south then the union, which was another part of reconstruction, would have been destroyed. There was no way for everything to work out perfectly.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think that perhaps reconstruction as a whole was too big of a goal for the nation, and that the people of the reconstruction era set themselves up for failure trying to reach that goal?
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteConor: "After reading your post, the question, ”if America would stop beating the term "equality" and "racism" over everyone's heads, would we eventually come to accept one another?” really struck me. We talked about this a little bit in class when we discussed whether it would have been better to forcefully change the South or let them do it on their own. The South’s way of life was defined by slavery, so they wouldn’t be quickly ready to just drop their lifestyle to pursue a new slave-free life. The problem with trying to fix this issue without force was that the South wasn’t going to realize that slavery was truly an issue. A certain amount of initial force was necessary to get the whole movement to abolish slavery and promote blacks rights going. Unfortunately, during reconstruction, the government, which as previously stated, was severely divided between the President and Congress. Once the president created one plan, Congress would nullify it and set up their new provision, which was then subsequently vetoed by the president. This endless cycle of confusion in the government made them appear indecisive. The South was certainly not willing to give up the only life they knew to a government defined by confusion.
The Emancipation Proclamation, the three amendments, and other provisions on creating black rights were outright ignored by the South. Simply stating that the blacks were free wasn’t going to change anything in the mindset of the South. Instead, upon seeing these laws passed, violence rose like the New Orleans Massacre that Jenny mentioned. The rise of the KKK, however, eventually brought about the Enforcement Acts passed by President Grant. These Acts helped enforce the amendments so that blacks could vote without corruption and experience a sense of freedom. By applying force to the issue, the KKK was less influential. Problems still remained, but a little force did help to restrict the violence. The Southerner’s mindset, however, remained pro-slavery as before.
So to get back to the initial question, forcing equality doesn’t really spark true equality. The South needed to be told that slavery was indeed a problem, but until the South could fully realize they had to do something, nothing productive could happen. Reconstruction ended with the problems still manifesting the Nation and today lingering problems remain. Was Reconstruction necessary for the Southerners, so that they could eventually realize that slavery was a problem or, because racism stills exists today, has that realization not happened yet?
Sean, you touched on some important points regarding Lincoln's 10% plan and the Wade-Davis Bill, and I'd like to continue on that train of thought with respect to what happened because of Lincoln's death. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln with the intention of firing up the Confederacy to keep them fighting. Lincoln's plans for reconstruction (the 10% Plan, for example) were ignored by his presidential successor, Andrew Johnson. Johnson was not well educated and not well suited for the position. His actions and opinions went against congress. Radical Republicans emerged from the frustration of Johnson's actions. They were motivated by revenge on the South (some believed they were responsible for the start of the war), concern for the freedmen and their transition from slavery to freedom, and the desire to keep the Republican Party in power in both the North and South.
ReplyDeletePresident Johnson was too concerned with his power against congress, instead of solving the reconstruction problems. His horrible leadership skills hindered the reconstruction process. Had Lincoln not been shot, reconstruction would have had a much better chance of being successful.
Connor:
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe that Reconstruction as a whole was too large of a goal for the Nation to pull of at that time. For starters, the Civil war had just ended and the country lost many lives, much land, and a lot of spirit and support. The country had no more steam to put towards such a large goal. They overstretched them selves on the fact that they had so many goals to accomplish in one period. Secondly as many of you have stated, the broken government that was trying to accomplish this goal was divided within itself. Regardless of north and south, the "Union" government was in conflict. Thirdly, the United States as whole did not believe that the Blacks were equal. Although they pushed for equal rights under the government and they tried to enforce legislation to do so, personally they did not se them as their equals. This internal feeling f many whites throughout the nation spelled disaster and failure of the entire goal. If one doesn't see another as equal, that person will never be truly on the same level no matter how hard the two try.
All of these factors combined into one goal, for one nation to accomplish, in one period, after fighting a huge internal war, made that goal simply impossible.
Nate: I agree that the Reconstruction was an ambitious goal that ended up being impossible to fully achieve. This impossibility is most likely because of the lack of motivation to actually accomplish the goals. The split government between the Presidency and Congress cared more about promoting their individual power than solving the problems. Once the KKK and Black Codes began to rise in the South, the hope to complete the three goals was virtually lost forever. However, Emily mentioned before about Lincoln’s 10% plan being ignored after his assassination. In our textbook it said that many historians believed that with Lincoln’s intelligence a compromise between the Wade-Davis Bill and 10% plan could have been made. With Lincoln as president, the Congress and presidency were on a path to unity and a common means to reaching the many goals for the country. So was Reconstruction impossible or did it just appear impossible because Lincoln was assassinated and the uneducated Johnson became president, destroying all of Lincoln’s hard work? It’s difficult to say though, because like you said if you don’t see someone as your equal, they’ll never really be your equals. I think that America’s goals were great goals to accomplish, but to realistically complete them in a short period of time would take great devotion from everyone in the country, and unfortunately the only man in power to show true devotion was assassinated.
ReplyDeleteConnor, I believe the Reconstruction was a big goal for the country to undertake, but it was necessary for the times. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he gave the Union army and people an ideal to fight the war for. It rallied up more support for the war, especially from the Blacks, and gave the Union a push towards victory. However, it was the original stated goal to bring the Confederate States back into the Union. The government in the Reconstruction was honoring its proclamations to the people. Even with the broken country and fragmented opinions on Black rights it was the government keeping its word and trying to make things better and whole again.
ReplyDeleteAs Nate mentioned, the country wasn’t united in its opinion on Black rights. However, the Blacks were fighting for their freedom and rights and dying for their freedom in the war. It was the government’s duty to repay the Black soldiers who were fighting for them and give the Black people their rights. The other soldiers were fighting for the reunification of the states and the government was repaying them for their services too.
With the end of the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln, the figurehead and drive had been taken and the leading proponent killed. While it was a daunting goal for the country to undertake it was a promise they were keeping and a memory that they were honoring.
Both Nathan and Connor I believe you both brought up a very good point that I inferred a little in my last post that the US bit off a lot more than they could chew in trying to remodel the whole country physically, socially and economically at once. If they couldn’t fix all three of the components of Reconstruction then they shouldn’t have done it at all. My only question is, if they had put in more strict time-tables as well as acts would the reconstruction have been more successful? Although that’s a question we may never be able to answer, look at the case of D.P. Upham. The KKK was running ramped throughout Arkansas and digressing the south away from ratifying the 14th amendment. While the federal government had implemented some laws in order to control Arkansas better by dividing it up into four different sections, there wasn’t a very strong resistance against the KKK. Upham refused to take them sitting down, however, and met “fire with fire” which seemed to be the only way to contain them at the time. He had a small group of militia followers, much smaller than that of the some 400 KKK members in the upper east corner of Arkansas, yet he was still able to defeat the KKK and bring them to extinction for the rest of his term. If the U.S. government had met the south with the same mentality as D.P. Upham, although violent, would the assertiveness caused the south to be forced to ratify the 14th and 15th amendments further? Neither congress nor the president who were both vying for the spot of power had much effect on the south causing there to be a division in equality as well as a sense of north vs. south. Could there have been more room for a bigger push by the north upon the south to ratify the amendments and regain a sense of nationalism?
ReplyDeleteBridget: To answer your question of whether the federal government had met the South with the force that D.P. Upham would have been more successful, I would say no.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the Union had already fought the South on a large scale during the Civil War. Despite effectively beating the South into submission, the Southerners still held their beliefs about slavery and white supremacy. I have no reason to believe that a second large scale armed conflict would have a greater result than the first. It goes back to the point that Conor made: while he was allowed to go with his brother, he wasn't exactly accepted while it was forced upon his brother. The North could have forced the South to follow their laws while they were there, but as soon as the North looked away, groups like the KKK and Southerners in general would (and did) rise up and defy the laws, sometimes violently.
Most of the south looked down on and tried to suppress the African Americans through many means such as the Black Codes. They had a reason for making these laws: to keep the freedman inferior. To me, simply removing these laws will not remove the goals and incentives behind those laws.
I agree with what Conor, and then Sean said about forcing equality. As Sean said, "forcing equality doesn't really spark true equality". I think that what both Conor and Sean were saying went back to what we spoke about in class, with the idea of organic integration versus laws on integration. There is a point where the power of passing laws, and forcing people to agree or comply actually stops working, and starts being aniproductive. Nate touched upon the point where laws stop being good enough when he spoke about the fact that no body can truely achieve equality if they do not believe in it. Conner posed the question whether Reconstuction was too large a goal. I think that yes, there was no way that laws could force everyone in the country to comply. No body can force anyone to do something against what they have been doing for thousands of years. The south could no simply quit slavery. It's like how you hear about people who want to quit an addiction, like smoking. They cannot simply stop. However, the introduction of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment called for all slavery to simply cease. So, as a result, the south found a way around these laws, to keep slavery going: the black codes. I am not saying that slavery should not have been ended. I just feel that a slower, more gradual plan may have been, looking back, the more appropriate call of action. On the other hand, change had to happen. It could not simply "organically" sink in. If the north and government did not take a strong hold on the south, nothing would have ever gotten done. That's how change is made. As Nate said, you cannot change someone's beliefs, and that is the point between laws and organic integration. There comes a point where if change is to happen, the people against change either need to be persuaded in the benefits, or given little choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Emily spoke about the fact that reconstuction would have been more sucessful under Lincoln, I agree. I feel Lincoln had the insight and vison of how to work with the people to achieve a common goal.
Jenny, you did a great job bringing together many of the ideas about natural vs. forced equality. I have points on a similar note.
ReplyDeleteIn the long run, reconstruction failed in terms of social equality of Blacks and Whites. After the Compromise of 1877, Hayes became president in exchange for reconstruction being put in the hands of the southern states. Of course, with the South still bitter about the Civil War and losing economically from the 13th Amendment, the southerners could care less about the Blacks. In "For the Record", a former slave from South Carolina named Lee Guidon spoke of life in the South even after the 14th Amendment, "It's hard for colored folks to keep anything. Somebody gets it from 'em if they don't mind."
Therefore, many African Americans moved North in search for jobs. The jobs were so low-paying, however, that most were forced to end up living in slums. Today in the "North" there are no longer any real slums, but there are still low-class, dangerous neighborhoods. For example, around Boston, there are areas such as Roxbury and Dorchester that continue to be the home of many African Americans. This migration led to a vicious cycle, since living in a bad neighborhood with a low-paying job can be nearly impossible to get out of. Chances of your children making any more of themselves in that kind of environment is unlikely. Living there brings little respect to your name, and I know many Caucasian people that refuse to go to those kind of neighborhoods out of fear.
While there are many successful and wealthy African Americans, unfortunately in our society continues to breed racists who continue to make life difficult for Blacks. In my opinion skin color means absolutely nothing and the whole hatred is ridiculous. However, until there are no longer poor neighborhoods and there is equality among races, reconstruction will never truly have been a success.
Emily I agree with you that the reconstruction was unsuccessful in the long term, mostly because of the unresolved issues with the freed slaves. The reconstruction didn’t change much for African Americans. Many decades after the Reconstruction in the mid 1900's blacks went through The Civil Rights Movement in the southern states because they were still treated unequally in America. If the reconstruction worked then the Civil Rights Movement would have never needed to happen. The basic rights that blacks gained during the reconstruction like the 14th and 15th Amendments were not federally enforced or monitored in the following century. After the Reconstruction, Blacks continued to be racially persecuted and their rights were not protected. Almost every building or public facility in the south was forcefully segregated and the reconstruction failed to eliminate any white racist, some could argue the Reconstruction triggered whites to become even more violent and prejudice against Blacks. In terms of incorporating freed blacks into the country as equals, the Reconstruction failed because Blacks are still treated unequally and many years after the reconstruction they still did not truly have equal rights.
ReplyDeleteBoyd
ReplyDeleteI want to re-emphasize Conor’s and Chase’s first points that reconstruction was not successful because of social inequality for the “freed” African-Americans. Conor stated that the Blacks were basically slaves because of the black codes and cheap wages. I’d argue that the financial situation for the Blacks was even worse during Reconstruction than before the civil war. At least during slavery, the African-Americans had a guaranteed living space and food, regardless of how meager it may have been. Once they were freed, they had to pay for both of those things and with little income, they were losing money. In most cases, the living situations were worse than before the civil war. I am guessing the Blacks would have rather been free when taking into account honor and dignity, but on purely a financial level, the African-Americans were better off when enslaved. Also, because the slaves were valued as property, they were somewhat protected by their owners. The plantation owners needed strong, able workers and valued their own slaves because buying new ones through the slave trade was expensive. This changed during reconstruction. Whites were more willing to abuse their workers because they knew there would be many able unemployed Blacks to fill their places. Also, as someone else pointed out, there was no fear of repercussions because of the KKK. Either the police were members of the KKK or they refused to enforce the laws for fear of a late night visit from the terrorist group. Not only were the Blacks less financially secure, but they also were abused and persecuted more. As Chase said, Civil War did not accomplish anything.
To continue Boyd's great point about life for the African-Americans during reconstruction and add some evidence, in addition to the Black Codes that were already touched upon, there were also the Mississippi Vagrant Law, the Penal Laws of Mississippi, and the Jim Crow laws. All of these made life for African-Americans practically worse than slavery even after it was abolished. The only difference between life for Blacks before the Civil War and during reconstruction was that they were then "free". The Black Codes, Mississippi Vagrant Law, and Penal Laws all severely limited the rights of Blacks even though they were free and considered full citizens. The Jim Crow Laws were enacted to segregate the population. Therefore in the short term as well both racial equality and the rebuilding of the Union were unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteBridget, I think if the government had been more assertive they would have not have found effective assertiveness but rather unwanted forced equality which many people have already talked about. As Chase had mentioned earlier The Ku Klux Klan was one of the reasons why Reconstruction was unsuccessful. KKK members often talked about how the civil war had never really ended. For these people they were fighting a war over a belief. If the federal government had tried to be more assertive over the issue of racial equality they would have met more resistance than they already had. As we talked about in class the government would become dangerously close to overriding the first amendment. The KKK would have been able to use that as propaganda to recruit more people to their cause. Assertiveness is not a way to change peoples’ beliefs. While it may have caused less incidents in the short term, the resentment that it would cause, would have eventually lead to another civil war. This is mostly speculation but based on the resistance members of the South had already shown, I believe that it would be impossible for the federal government to accomplish anything for reconstruction just by being more assertive.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Reconstruction was politically unsuccessful because it divided congress and the president and caused them to work against eachother instead of together. In no way was that good for reconstruction or effective in progressing as a country. However, I can take a positive away from that ordeal. Congress attempted to impeach president Johnson, claiming that he broke the law when he fired a member of his cabinet. IF Johnson had been impeached, it would have made the Legislative Branch far more powerful than the executive, ruining the power triangle of Judicial, Executive, and Legislative that runs our country. No longer would the president be as prominent and congress would be able to bully the executive branch as they pleased. This is a scary thought, but a single vote denied the impeachment of Johnson. This voter reasoned that an impeachment would undermine the presidential power and lead to future and probably unecesary impeachments. So while the divide between congress and the president was hurtful during the reconstruction process and caused conflict within our own government, it also taught us a valuable lesson on the balance of power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Boyd that politically speaking, Reconstruction was, in some ways successful. After the election of 1876, the Democrats and Republicans were effectively arguing with each other. Republicans accused the Democrats in the South of preventing the African Americans from voting. After the Electoral Commission awarded Hayes the Presidency, the Democrats were angry and threatened to prevent a president from being elected at all. The picture on the wiki in the Compromise of 1877 section shows that both sides were angry at each other.
ReplyDeleteHowever, both sides finally agreed to work together to further both of their goals. The Southern Democrats got reconstruction to end, which allowed their way of life to resume uninterrupted by the North, and the Republicans got their party's candidate to be the President. This compromise between the parties helped the country work together, instead of having two separate parties fighting about their separate positions at the countries expense.
Reconstruction may have been unsuccessful politically and socially, but there were a few good things to come out of it. One of these was the addition of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The fourteenth established that people born or naturalized in the U.S. are automatically citizens of the U.S. This gave Blacks “equal” rights as Whites. While there were clear social differences, the fourteenth was a long term positive. It is vital to our current issues with Immigrants and illegal aliens. I’m sure people can argue against the fourteenth citing current problems, but as a whole the fourteenth gives those who deserve it equal rights as citizens of the United States. The fifteenth states that everyone has the right to vote, no matter color or life style, as stated in our wiki. This is essentially an extension of the fourteenth and while it wasn’t necessarily enforced in the south during reconstruction, it still has positive impact. It is a law striving for quality of rights (specifically voting) for all citizens. Again, this seems relevant for the current process if an immigrant wants to become a citizen. No matter what race you are, all citizens in America are allowed to vote for their leaders. That is an important aspect of American Culture and both amendments were vital. The next step to voting equality would be the women’s rights movements, and I’m assuming that the fifteenth was used as an argument for them. Both amendments as substantial long term impact and represent examples of the small successes reconstruction brought.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I think the reconstruction was unsuccesful was because people in the south did not want treat blacks equal and give them rights. You cant change someone that doesn't want to be changed. Southern officials ignore laws that were created to help the African Americans and continued to treat them as they pleased to. i agrre with the many people from class that said that forceing someone to think a certain way will not work. Especially since the south has been dependent on slavery and the idea of white supremacy was instilled into white southerns at a very young age. The Enforcement acts during the reconstruction were designed to get white supremacists, like members of the Ku Klux Klan, to stop the violence towards Blacks and to let them have equal rights. After this act was passed the Ku Klux Klan still attacked many black families and almost ignored these acts. After the Reconstruction ended, the KKK was still active and they continued to treat non whites as their inferiors. Therefore the reconstructions goal of give African Americans equal lives and rights was unaccomplished.
ReplyDeleteThere was not much the country could do make Reconstruction successful except possibly act more slowly in its action for reunification and black equality. The dominant white planter class resisted change of any kind regarding black rights. Even the poorer white farmers sought to keep the blacks suppressed and keep the shreds of dignity that they had left. As many people mentioned the KKK was a dominant force in favor of keeping life the way it was before.
ReplyDeleteOne possible solution is a short period of segregation followed by a lengthy and slow process of reintegration on equal terms. I think this would be necessary because the southern whites needed time to get their feet under them and adapt to the change that was coming with the freedom of the blacks. In this way the north could separately help both the Blacks and southern whites get accustomed to their new lives all the while. The Black could be given improved education and skills that would put them on the level of the whites still living there so when the inevitable reintegration came the process would proceed more smoothly.
However, there is always the possibility that the whites would not use the separated time to come to grips with black equality and instead use the time to polish their plans for resistance and how to overthrow the attempt at equal integration. This plan requires faith in the people to do what is best for the country and their community and not be stuck in their old ways.
I agree Chase, however I find it difficult to believe that the Compromise of 1877 actually brought the sides together. In reality, it really only seperated them even more. What they compromised (Hayes would be president in return for the South taking over Reconstruction)assured that the sides could go about doing their own business without being bothered by the other. While I agree, it did take teamwork to come through with the compromise, it was only made in the interest of their own side, not the Union as a whole. Also, according to the "America Past and Present" book, exactly what was agreed to and who made the Compromise isn't actually known. Its informality makes it even less honorable. Even in the short term, the compromise caused the sides of the Union to barely tolerate each other.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main reasons why the reconstruction was unsuccesful and why it ended early with its goal incomplete was because of the Compromise of 1877. In this compromise the southern states recieved the responsibility to deal with Reconstruction. The only huge aspect of Reconstruction that still remained when the south took control, was how to include The African Americans into The nation equaly. The South truely didnt care about makeing the black equal and nobody wanted to spend the money and effort to enforce the protection of Blacks rights and to progress toward equality. Therefore The Reconstruction ended shortly after the South was responsible for it. If the North was still in control of Reconstruction do you think that it would eventually be completely successful and if so what would the north have to do? How could of Reconstruction been successful in all aspects of it?
ReplyDeleteAs written before, the Compromise of 1877 represented a failure in itself. The North may have bitten off more than they could chew by attempted to change the culture in the south, but that does not give them an excuse to bail when the going got tough. The north ran away from their problems, not willing to spend anymore money, time, or energy on the South and newly freed Blacks. This is similar to our actions in Vietnam, which I personally find repulsive. It portrays our country as weak. Not only did the north give up on a project they had invested on for a significant time period (civil war, reconstruction), but they also left the Blacks unprotected and new targets for the hatred of the Southerners and KKK. The north bailed, leaving their responsibilities to rebuild and reintroduce the south, and they left their responsibilities to help the Blacks that they freed. The COmpromise of 1877 essentially wasted all the lives lost and destruction from the war.It is a weaker moment in our history.
ReplyDeleteLooking back on Reconstruction, the division in government was a major factor for its failure. Congress and the President needed to work together to rejoin the union, and unfortunately their ideas were opposing. If the government demonstrated indecisive and contradictory behavior, then the South and North would surely continue this pattern. The country tried to accomplish nearly unattainable goals while they were still very much in conflict. The government needed unity in order to bring unity to the country. They needed to focus on the real problems like blacks rights and how to bring the states back peacefully instead of their own individual power. As seen in the Wade-Davis Bill and Lincoln’s 10% Plan the government couldn’t form a single solution and stick to it. The government needed to focus on the problems at hand and form, with collaboration, an effective solution. The country went from tension from the Civil War to violent outbreaks and poor conditions for blacks instead of stopping violence and promoting black rights. The government may have set out to reconstruct the union theoretically, but when it came to actually doing it, they failed to physically act or show any sense of purpose or motivation.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that bothers me most about Reconstruction is how long racism had been going on in our country, despite the ideas in place that it was wrong. If you go back to our study of the formation of the United States of America, and our mock Constitutional Convention, you will remember the issue of slavery. The Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal", but our country did not actually follow through with this idea until the Civil War, and even after the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were made the phrase was still not fulfilled.
ReplyDeleteIn order for the Constitution to be ratified, the northern states made a compromise on slavery. They deferred the issue until 1808, or twenty years. This meant that the government could not regulate slavery at all until 1808. The USA should have prevented slavery earlier. Personally, i think that if anti-slavery ideas had been instilled in people when the country was born, that slavery and racism would not have been as violent an issue for as long as it was.
Boyd, I like how you called the divide between Johnson and Congress a valuable lesson on the balance of power. I believe our country does a good job with this balance of power today, but there are other things that took place during reconstruction that we seemingly didn't learn anything from. If "all men are created equal", why aren't all men equal today, and why weren't they equal during reconstruction? The term "history repeats itself" is a cliche, but it holds some truth-- cliches become cliche because they are, for the most part, universally true. I believe that sometimes the government becomes too wrapped up with pop culture and strays away from basic concepts. The founding fathers of our country said that all humans are equal-- the framework of America-- yet racism is still ever-present. In our primary source book, the reading "Klan Terrorism in South Carolina" tells the story of Harriet Postle, who's family was assaulted by the KKK. It is stories like this that our country should be learning from.
ReplyDeleteSean, to answer your question: Was Reconstruction necessary for the Southerners, so that they could eventually realize that slavery was a problem or, because racism stills exists today, has that realization not happened yet? I don't think the realization has fully happened yet. I think everyone just thinks racism is not a part of their reality and assumes it is happening somewhere else. Families need to take accountability and address the problem so it can be completely resolved for future generations.
ReplyDelete