More handpicked essays just for you.
Contradictory characteristics of the era of reconstruction
Contradictory characteristics of the era of reconstruction
Analysis of reconstruction period
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The thesis “The New View of Reconstruction”, Eric Foner reviews the constantly changing view on the subject of the Reconstruction. The postwar Reconstruction period has been viewed in many different lights throughout history but one fact remains true, that it was one of the most “violent, dramatic and controversial” times in US’s history (224). In the beginning of his thesis, Eric Foner talks about the way the Reconstruction was though as before the 1960 as a period of intense, corruption and manipulation of the freedman. After mentioning the old way of thinking before the 1960’s, Eric Foner reveals the reason for this train of thought, the ignored testimonials of the black freedman. People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs. I agree with the Eric Foner’s belief that the Reconstruction was not extreme enough to accomplish what was originally proposed by President Lincoln, complete emancipation of all slaves, complete racial equality, and forty acres and a mule.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
As an unabridged version of his other book, Eric Foner sets out to accomplish four main goals in A Short History of Reconstruction. These points enable the author to provide a smaller, but not neglectful, account of the United States during Reconstruction. By exploring the essence of the black experience, examining the ways in which Southern society evolved, the development of racial attitudes and race relations, and the complexities of race and class in the postwar South, as well as the emergence during the Civil War and Reconstruction of a national state possessing vastly expanded authority and a new set of purposes, Foner creates a narrative that encompasses some of the major issues during Reconstruction. Additionally, the author provides
The role of the Freedmen Bureau in African-American development during the Reconstruction era has been a polarizing topic since the Bureau’s inception. While most concur that the Bureau was well intended, some scholars, believe that the Freedmen’s Bureau was detrimental to African-American development. One such scholar was W.E.B. Dubois, who in his book The Souls of Black Folk, expressed his discontent with the actions of the Bureau and suggested that the Bureau did more harm than good. Upon further probing, research refutes the position that the Freedmen’s Bureau was chiefly detrimental to Black development. While far from flawless in its pursuits to assist the newly freed Negroes, the actions of the Freedmen’s Bureau did not impede African-American progress; instead, these actions facilitated African-American development.
The most critical issue raised by the North’s victory was the South acceptance of transition of freedom for former slaves. Since most of southern whites did not agree with the idea of freedmen, they created several ways to foreclose the blacks to exercise their rights. The South utilized dirty tactics to preserve the idea of slavery, such as laws as the black codes, lynching and other violent ways promoted by groups known as Ku Klux Klan.
The South killed Reconstruction. They weren’t interested in equal rights and they showed much violence towards the North and African-Americans. In conclusion, my thesis is correct because there’s various pieces of evidence I provided that show how the South is to be blamed for killing Reconstruction. Even though the North started to give up on the South, it’s not their fault that the South wasn’t showing any effort and didn’t want to be
After the Civil War ended in 1865, it was followed by an era known as Reconstruction that lasted until 1877, with the goal to rebuild the nation. Lincoln was the president at the beginning of this era, until his assassination caused his vice president, Andrew Johnson to take his place in 1865. Johnson was faced with numerous issues such as the reunification of the union and the unknown status of the ex-slaves, while compromising between the principles of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. After the Election of 1868, Ulysses S. Grant, a former war hero with no political experience, became the nation’s new president, but was involved in numerous acts of corruption. Reconstruction successfully reintegrated the southern states into the Union through Lincoln and Johnson’s Reconstruction Plans, but was mostly a failure due to the continued discriminatory policies against African Americans, such as the Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and sharecropping, as well as the widespread corruption of the elite in the North and the Panic of 1873,
The United States, a nation that has undergone many hard changes, politically, economically, and socially. The success of this great nation has relied on different plans and objectives set out by the leaders that have gone before us. One plan that helped shape our nation was Reconstruction. Though many consider Reconstruction to be a failure, Reconstruction helped pass laws that recognized African Americans as equals, restored the Union, and provided educational opportunities for former slaves. These initiatives are what made Reconstruction a success.
The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by C. Van Woodward, traces the history of race relations in the United States from the mid and late nineteenth century through the twentieth century. In doing so Woodward brings to light significant aspects of Reconstruction that remain unknown to many today. He argues that the races were not as separate many people believe until the Jim Crow laws. To set up such an argument, Woodward first outlines the relationship between Southern and Northern whites, and African Americans during the nineteenth century. He then breaks down the details of the injustice brought about by the Jim Crow laws, and outlines the transformation in American society from discrimination to Civil Rights. Woodward’s argument is very persuasive because he uses specific evidence to support his opinions and to connect his ideas. Considering the time period in which the book and its editions were written, it should be praised for its insight into and analysis of the most important social issue in American history.
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.
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.
Despite all of Reconstruction’s promises and successes, the era included many failures, too. One such failure was the formation of the Ku Klux Klan and other racially prejudiced groups in the South that promoted violence towards African Americans. Another failure involved the corruption seen during Reconstruction by both the North and South. The carpetbaggers who were Northerners helped spread corruption in the Reconstruction Era by moving from their home state in the North securing a political office or position in the South to carry out the plans of the Radical Republicans. In the South, many local governments disenfranchised or created poll taxes for African American voters enabling them to vote.
The editors Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan intend to construct, through essays from various authors, a meaningful explanation of the Lost Cause as a myth. Gallagher and Nolan build on previous literature in engaging various aspects of the white South's response to defeat, and the attempt to create a past that is suitable for the South. The book takes the views of nine historians and offers different relationships between the Civil War and the Lost Cause.
In this paper I will show that the Freedmen’s Bureau was able to affect positive transition of blacks after the civil war despite the lack of support from the federal government. I will first give you a description of the Freedmen’s Bureau. I will discuss what the Freedmen’s Bureau was created to do and the social environment they operated in. Next I will talk about some of the programs the Freedmen’s Bureau operated that positively impacted the transition from slavery for many black people. Finally I will show how those programs helped black transition.
Reconstruction has been brutally murdered! For a little over a decade after the Civil War, the victorious North launched a campaign of social, economic, and political recovery in South. Martial law was also implemented in the South. Eventually, the North hoped to admit the territory in the former Confederacy back into the United States as states. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments freed the African Americans, made them citizens, and gave them the right to vote. Despite this, Reconstruction was unfortunately cut short in 1877. The North killed Recosntruction because of racism, negligence, and distractions.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.