The Importance Of Reconstruction Essay

William Mason Grosvenor believes that Reconstruction should be harsh. Grosvenor has two main arguments to support this belief, manifest destiny and the potential for the reoccurrence of a similar event to the war if Reconstruction was carried out in a lenient manner. Grosvenor argues that the country, pre-Civil War, was never truly a single unified country, but rather a group of peoples with vastly different values held together by a constitution which they had outgrown, saying, “[n]o chemical union had ever taken place; for that the white-hot crucible of civil war was found necessary.” Furthermore, Grosvenor believes that the succession of the South demonstrated this divide while simultaneously violating the doctrine of manifest destiny through

Melville argues that the South will repent of their transgressions in a public manner only so far as they are shamed into doing so due to the pride that is found within all of us. He continues by saying that, due to the fact that this is a fact of human nature and not a continuation of the rebellion, the Northerners should not hold a lack of public repentance against or attempt to attain such an action from their Southern counterparts. Furthermore, Melville believes that a harsh Reconstruction would put the South at an unnecessary and unjust disadvantage as it attempts to transitions thousands of black individuals from a life dependent on their masters to one of self-sufficiency. Finally, Melville proposes that the South has learned from the war and that the inherent tragedies were punishment enough. Melville stands in stark contrast to Grosvenor as he believes that the idea of “Vae Victis” has no place in this discussion as both the North and the South are one, equally treasured by the

They also seem to agree that the main goal of Reconstruction should have been to reconcile the differences between the two factions in a way that results in a unified people who were universally anti-slavery. Where the two differ is on the subject of whether the North should use Reconstruction to punish the South. Grosvenor argued that it should while Melville argued that the war had caused enough suffering for the South to learn its lesson. I feel that Grosvenor presented the stronger argument of the two. With the benefit of hindsight, along with common sense, it is clear that the issue had not been resolved at Appomattox and that there were several Southern individuals who were more than willing to revolt again, showing that the war itself was not enough to cause the South to realize the errors of their ways. Taking this into consideration it seems that it is important to send the message that Grosvenor felt a punitive Reconstruction would send. However, I would tend to agree with Melville for Biblical