Are undemocratic means necessary to protect democracy? Both the United States, during Reconstruction, and Brazil, from 1964-1985, tested this question with periods of military rule instead of liberal democracy. If these military interventions were effective then they would have accomplished the goals with which they began, and had positive, lasting impacts on society. In both countries, although the use of the military provided efficiency and power that accomplished their initial goals, there were not enough lasting benefits to make the military interventions more effective than democracy.
In order to rebuild the South and reform the union, Congress created five districts run by the military with soldiers stationed in each district to maintain order. The Republicans argued that this militant authority was necessary to protect the liberties of the blacks in the South. It provided the efficiency and power that were needed to prevent the land-owning aristocracy from taking back control of the South. They also passed “three enforcement acts that expanded jurisdiction of federal courts over civil and voting rights, and authorized the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and use the army to break up the Ku Klux Klan” (McPherson, 1992, p. 143). In order to expand civil liberties for freedmen, the federal government took away the liberty of habeas corpus and limited democracy on the state level. Rather than reform the governments of the southern states and use democracy to spread liberty, the military removed the officials of state governments and Congress expanded the federal courts to act in place of state courts in matters of civil and voting rights.
The military rule in the South also did more harm than good in the area o...
... middle of paper ...
...ective than military interventions even though it may take longer for the effects to be felt.
Works Cited
Amado, J. (2003). Tent of miracles (B. S. Merello, Trans.). I. Stavans (Ed.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brown, H. B., & Harlan, J. M. (1896). Plessy v. Ferguson (Full text).
DuBois, W. E. (1903). The souls of black folk.
Foner, E. (n.d.). Reconstruction (United States history). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/493722/Reconstruction
McPherson, J. M. (1992). Abraham Lincoln and the second American Revolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roett, R. (2010). The new Brazil. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Willson, M. (2010). Dance lest we all fall down: Breaking cycles of poverty in Brazil and beyond. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
leading up to and surrounding President Abraham Lincoln’s death. The purpose of this book is to
In “The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln,” Phillip Shaw Paludan argues that even though Abraham Lincoln faced unparalleled challenges, Lincoln was America’s greatest president as he preserved the Union and freed the slaves. According to Paludan, Lincoln’s greatness exceeds that of all other American presidents as Lincoln’s presidential service was remarkable in both the obstacles he faced as well as the ways in which he overcame them. Before accepting the distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois, Springfield, Paludan was a professor of history at the University of Kansas for over 30 years. Paludan has authored several books including Victims: A True Story of the Civil War and A People’s Contest: The Union and Civil
James Oakes gave a brilliant and unique perspective to a relationship between two well known historical figures of their time. Abraham Lincoln is a well-admired president for the United States because as Americans culture teaches that he was an honest and well-respected man. He heard about a young African American man, who had high aspirations for his life and the blossoming United States. This man’s name was Frederick Douglass. James Oakes demonstrates how both Douglass and Lincoln worked towards the abolishment of slavery and effectively producing better outcomes within antislavery politics.
“The best way to predict your future is to create it” (Lincoln). President states the principal of Reconstruction, where to unite the United States, there must be an authoritative action to carry it out. The Reconstruction Era (1863-1877) is a period where Lincoln sought to restore the divided nation by uniting the confederates and the union and to involve the freedmen into the American society. The main objectives were to initially restore the union, to rebuild the South and to enact progressive legislation for the rights of the freed slaves. Thus, the executive and legislature branches had enacted a series of polices to “create the future” for the United States. Although the policies tied down to the Reconstructive motive, there was controversy
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. Print.
Gordon, T. (2010, January 1). Reconstruction. The story of us. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from https://www.nmc.edu/tgordon/storyofus/hst112/1_reconstruction/index.html
James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican narrated the relationship between two of America’s greatest leaders: Frederick Douglass, the “radical” abolitionist, and Abraham Lincoln, the “Republican” politician. He did an astonishing job of demonstrating the commonalities between the views of Douglass and Lincoln, but also their differences on their stance of anti-slavery politics and abolitionism. Despite being on the same side of the argument of slavery, Douglass and Lincoln went about their opinions separately. Lincoln held a more patient and orthodox stance on anti-slavery, while Douglass was proven to be obstinate and direct with
America has gone through many hardships and struggles since coming together as a nation involving war and changes in the political system. Many highly regarded leaders in America have come bestowing their own ideas and foundation to provide a better life for “Americans”, but no other war or political change is more infamous than the civil war and reconstruction. Reconstruction started in 1865 and ended in 1877 and still to date one of the most debated issues in American history on whether reconstruction was a failure or success as well as a contest over the memory, meaning, and ending of the war. According to, “Major Problems in American History” David W. Blight of Yale University and Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania take different stances on the meaning of reconstruction, and what caused its demise. David W. Blight argues that reconstruction was a conflict between two solely significant, but incompatible objectives that “vied” for attention both reconciliation and emancipation. On the other hand Steven Hahn argues that former slaves and confederates were willing and prepared to fight for what they believed in “reflecting a long tradition of southern violence that had previously undergirded slavery” Hahn also believes that reconstruction ended when the North grew tired of the 16 year freedom conflict. Although many people are unsure, Hahn’s arguments presents a more favorable appeal from support from his argument oppose to Blight. The inevitable end of reconstruction was the North pulling federal troops from the south allowing white rule to reign again and proving time travel exist as freed Africans in the south again had their civil, political, and economical position oppressed.
Robinson, Luther E. Abraham Lincoln as a man of letters. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: R. West, 1977. Print.
As a country, America has gone through many political changes throughout her lifetime. Leaders have come and gone, all of them having different objectives and plans for the future. As history takes its course, though, most all of these “revolutionary movements” come to an end. One such movement was Reconstruction. Reconstruction was a time period in America consisting of many leaders, goals and accomplishments. Though, like all things in life, it did come to an end, the resulting outcome has been labeled both a success and a failure. When Reconstruction began in 1865, a broken America had just finished fighting the Civil War. In all respects, Reconstruction was mainly just that. It was a time period of “putting back the pieces”, as people
Reconstruction was the time period following the Civil War, which lasted from 1865 to 1877, in which the United States began to rebuild. The term can also refer to the process the federal government used to readmit the defeated Confederate states to the Union. While all aspects of Reconstruction were not successful, the main goal of the time period was carried out, making Reconstruction over all successful. During this time, the Confederate states were readmitted to the Union, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were ratified, and African Americans were freed from slavery and able to start new lives.
As a nation, America has faced some troublesome times through her life span. As history goes on, people never forget about the Reconstruction era. Reconstruction was refers to the efforts made in the United State between 1865 and 1877. As the saying goes, ¨All good things must come to an end¨ which is exactly the case. The reputation Reconstruction has is labeled both a success and a failure.
Contrary to what I believed in the past, the United States federal government retained and expanded their power and authority during the years of the Civil war along with the period of Reconstruction. Through drafts and monitored elections, they exercised this power during the Civil War. Then, as Reconstruction began, they initiated other methods of increasing their authority over the citizens. Military was placed in Southern states, by the federal government, in order to keep control over the rebellious people. Not only that, but, the idea of putting the federal government in charge of Reconstruction and rebuilding an entire nation gave them an enormous amount of power. Finally, the creation of the 14th and 15th Amendment were two more big achievements on the part of the government.
[2] John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction After the Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994) 174.
1 (Winter 1994): 120. Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction (New York: Harper and Row, 1990), 240-42. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 186. 18. What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, The Reader’s Companion to American History (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991), 287.