JeanneCrain

RECONSTRUCTION: America After the Civil War

77 posts in this topic

The popularity of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel is a little disturbing to me in that people who so avidly watch these information-outlets become all too easily convinced that they are the 'last word' in any topic. Such is the power of the television screen, seriously. The very nature of the 'visual' medium; it utterly beguiles the brain no matter what info is presented.

Quote

I'd rather deconstruct and then reconstruct this whole "genre" of historical analysis.

--TopBill'd

Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

The popularity of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel is a little disturbing to me in that people who so avidly watch these information-outlets become all too easily convinced that they are the 'last word' in any topic. Such is the power of the television screen, seriously. The very nature of the 'visual' medium; it utterly beguiles the brain no matter what info is presented.

--TopBill'd

Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.

Well, let's be careful here...to be clear, I did not say there is no history. But I do think that people have to be allowed to interpret his story and her story on their own terms. And that includes letting the post-structuralists interpret it their way too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

The popularity of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel is a little disturbing to me in that people who so avidly watch these information-outlets become all too easily convinced that they are the 'last word' in any topic. Such is the power of the television screen, seriously. The very nature of the 'visual' medium; it utterly beguiles the brain no matter what info is presented.

The same can be said for the written word. Many people assume that if it's in a book it must be true, as there must have been rigorous research and fact-checking, and the editorial process would find any and all discrepancies and deficiencies, etc. But as anyone who has read a fair share of non-fiction, text or reference books can attest, errors can be found quite often. Television is guilty as you say, and a large part may be due to its also being designed to entertain (as well as on occasion inform), but books, for all of their purported "sanctity", can be just as guilty of misinformation, bias, fallacy, distortion, and outright error.

The key to any research is critical thinking, preferably coupled with multiple sources.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.

Have no idea who these people are, but I looked up post-structuralism on Wikipedia.  The heading quoted below sums it up pretty well.

"This article may be too technical for most readers to understand."  Wikipedia

To some extent, economics, politics, sociology, history and much more is based on "opinion."  I remember the classic description of histories of wars.  It is written by the victors.  The information age and access to so much information is why truly objective studies and reporting have become so difficult.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'written by the victors' is exactly the notion which makes my skin crawl. A hideous conceit that seduces too many in the crowd these days. But otherwise yes I agree with what you and LA are saying. The information age is plaguing us with poor mental habits. Sure, not even books are immune from error but books have all sorts of oversight and error-catching. But if you consume a poorly-prepared documentary on television, the entire format skates past this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. 

 

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Have no idea who these people are, but I looked up post-structuralism on Wikipedia.  The heading quoted below sums it up pretty well.

"This article may be too technical for most readers to understand."  Wikipedia

To some extent, economics, politics, sociology, history and much more is based on "opinion."  I remember the classic description of histories of wars.  It is written by the victors.  The information age and access to so much information is why truly objective studies and reporting have become so difficult.

Don't forget the father of post-structuralism - Friedrich Nietzsche. 

quote-there-are-no-facts-only-interpreta

http://neamathisi.com/new-learning/chapter-7-knowledge-and-learning/nietzsche-on-the-impossibility-of-truth

"You are aware of my demand upon philosophers, that they should take up a stand Beyond Good and Evil … This demand is the result of a point of view which I was the first to formulate: that there are no such things as moral facts. Moral judgment has this in common with the religious one, that it believes in realities which are not real. Morality is only an interpretation of certain phenomena: or, more strictly speaking, a misinterpretation of them. … [M]oral judgment must never be taken quite literally: as such is sheer nonsense. As a sign code, however, it is invaluable: to him at least who knows, it reveals the most valuable facts concerning cultures …"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true enough as far as it goes, that all the social sciences are interpretative; that's their nature. We've spoken about it in the 'Get Smart' thread or some other place around this forum. Anyway --although at first it might seem as if social studies 'should' be on board along with hard science, as everything else seemingly is these days. But no--there's very good reason for them to remain interpretative and not engineering-like. Keep them un-pliable and un-engineered. Under no circumstance would we want human socialization to lend itself to any kind of programming (aka 'manipulation'), as happens to everything that comes into the laboratory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TopBilled said:

These programs always seem too long. And they try to act like the definitive version of history, instead of being a springboard to thought-- letting others decide what history is for themselves.

I'd rather deconstruct and then reconstruct this whole "genre" of historical analysis.

Four hours on the Reconstruction seems okay, though I'm not sure how far along the last two

hours of the program will go. I wouldn't call it a definitive version of history as one could make

 the argument that there is no such thing and that if there was a four hour program wouldn't

even come close. Before history is deconstructed it's necessary to have a pretty detailed knowledge

of the topic, whatever it is. I wouldn't want an average high school student trying to deconstruct

the Reconstruction period. I agree with the Sergeant that books are the most effective way to

go with a subject like this.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheCid said:

It is a very confusing era.  Almost as if there is the Civil War 1861-1865, the Second Civil War 1865-1876 and the Third Civil War 1876-1960's and beyond. 

I think it's pretty clear for the most part. The question is what period of time will part two cover.

Part one ended in 1876/77, which is considered the end of Reconstruction. Maybe it will cover

the years immediately after Reconstruction or go up to the 1960s. Sometimes these programs

will wrap up everything up to the present day in the last twenty minutes or so. I'm still

waiting for the first hint of some fiddle music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of times I've read philosophy professors on the net replying to folks who

talk about the idea that post-structuralists believe everything is an opinion, there are no facts,

that there is no such thing as objective reality, the profs usually say that this is a gross

exaggeration and an erroneous popularization of their views. I think the profs might have

something there. Nietzsche the father of post-structuralism. That's not a fact, just an

interpretation.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Four hours on the Reconstruction seems okay, though I'm not sure how far along the last two

hours of the program will go. I wouldn't call it a definitive version of history as one could make

 the argument that there is no such thing and that if there was a four hour program wouldn't

even come close. Before history is deconstructed it's necessary to have a pretty detailed knowledge

of the topic, whatever it is. I wouldn't want an average high school student trying to deconstruct

the Reconstruction period. I agree with the Sergeant that books are the most effective way to

go with a subject like this.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I think it's pretty clear for the most part. The question is what period of time will part two cover.

Part one ended in 1876/77, which is considered the end of Reconstruction. Maybe it will cover

the years immediately after Reconstruction or go up to the 1960s. Sometimes these programs

will wrap up everything up to the present day in the last twenty minutes or so. I'm still

waiting for the first hint of some fiddle music.

IMO, this first two hours could have been far more objective.  While longer, Ken Burns did excellent presentations on the Civil War and the Vietnam War.  Both of those events were far more complicated than Reconstruction.  My issue with "Reconstruction" is that it views it almost entirely from the stand point of the freed slaves.  Even the Northern Republicans are not covered very much in it and they created it and controlled it.

Two hours is sufficient time to present information from many facets.  If 3 or 4 hours, that is even more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

There are a number of times I've read philosophy professors on the net replying to folks who

talk about the idea that post-structuralists believe everything is an opinion, there are no facts,

that there is no such thing as objective reality, the profs usually say that this is a gross

exaggeration and an erroneous popularization of their views. I think the profs might have

something there. Nietzsche the father of post-structuralism. That's not a fact, just an

interpretation.

:)

Yeah, you do raise a good point. They don't believe there is no objective reality and anything can be true but rather no objective "truth" as in moral view of the world. Zizek explains the antisemite's postmodern view of the world in this article.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/three-variations-on-trump-chaos-europe-and-fake-news/

Problems begin with the last distinction. In some sense, there ARE “alternate facts,” though, of course, not in the sense of the debate whether the Holocaust did or did not happen. (Incidentally, all the Holocaust-revisionists whom I know, from David Irving on, argue in a strictly empirical way of verifying data; none of them evokes postmodern relativism!) “Data” are a vast and impenetrable domain, and we always approach them from what hermeneutics calls a certain horizon of understanding, privileging some data and omitting others. All our histories are precisely that – stories, a combination of (selected) data into consistent narratives, not photographic reproductions of reality. For example, an anti-Semitic historian could easily write an overview of the role of the Jews in the social life of Germany in the 1920s, pointing out how entire professions (lawyers, journalists, art) were numerically dominated by Jews – an account that is (probably more or less) true, but clearly in the service of a lie.

The most efficient lies are lies performed with truth, lies which reproduce only factual data. Take the history of a country: one can tell it from the political standpoint (focusing on the vagaries of political power), on economic development, on ideological struggles, on popular misery and protest… Each of the approaches could be factually accurate, but they are not “true” in the same emphatic sense. There is nothing “relativist” in the fact that human history is always told from a certain standpoint, sustained by certain ideological interests. The difficult thing is to show how some of these interested standpoints are not ultimately all equally true: some are more “truthful” than others. For example, if one tells the story of Nazi Germany from the standpoint of the suffering of those oppressed by it, i.e., if we are led in our telling by an interest in universal human emancipation, this is not just a matter of a different subjective standpoint. Such a retelling of history is also immanently “more true” since it describes more adequately the dynamics of the social totality which gave birth to Nazism. Not all “subjective interests” are the same, not only because some are ethically preferable to others but because “subjective interests” do not stand outside a social totality; they are themselves moments of that social totality, formed by active (or passive) participants in social processes. The title of Habermas’s early masterpiece “Knowledge and Human Interest” is perhaps more actual today than ever before.

Also Nietzsche and Heidegger are generally viewed as the forerunners to Post-structuralism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.

But, of course the move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

But, of course the move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

This sentence, taken verbatim from Judith Butler's Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time was enough to give her The Philosophy and Literature Bad Writing Award for 1998.

http://theconversation.com/redetermining-paradigmatic-norms-is-there-any-hope-for-academic-writing-62968

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheCid said:

 

IMO, this first two hours could have been far more objective.  While longer, Ken Burns did excellent presentations on the Civil War and the Vietnam War.  Both of those events were far more complicated than Reconstruction.  My issue with "Reconstruction" is that it views it almost entirely from the stand point of the freed slaves.  Even the Northern Republicans are not covered very much in it and they created it and controlled it.

Two hours is sufficient time to present information from many facets.  If 3 or 4 hours, that is even more time.

I can understand why it focused on the freed slaves. Their future was the main concern of

Reconstruction. I think the struggle between Johnson's Reconstruction "lite" and the more

stringent one of the Radical Republicans was given its share of the program as was the story

of Grant trying to get a hold on the violence of southern resisters. And the election of 1876

and how the political deal making around it put an end to Reconstruction was explained

pretty thoroughly.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Yeah, you do raise a good point. They don't believe there is no objective reality and anything can be true but rather no objective "truth" as in moral view of the world. Zizek explains the antisemite's postmodern view of the world in this article.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/three-variations-on-trump-chaos-europe-and-fake-news/

Problems begin with the last distinction. In some sense, there ARE “alternate facts,” though, of course, not in the sense of the debate whether the Holocaust did or did not happen. (Incidentally, all the Holocaust-revisionists whom I know, from David Irving on, argue in a strictly empirical way of verifying data; none of them evokes postmodern relativism!) “Data” are a vast and impenetrable domain, and we always approach them from what hermeneutics calls a certain horizon of understanding, privileging some data and omitting others. All our histories are precisely that – stories, a combination of (selected) data into consistent narratives, not photographic reproductions of reality. For example, an anti-Semitic historian could easily write an overview of the role of the Jews in the social life of Germany in the 1920s, pointing out how entire professions (lawyers, journalists, art) were numerically dominated by Jews – an account that is (probably more or less) true, but clearly in the service of a lie.

The most efficient lies are lies performed with truth, lies which reproduce only factual data. Take the history of a country: one can tell it from the political standpoint (focusing on the vagaries of political power), on economic development, on ideological struggles, on popular misery and protest… Each of the approaches could be factually accurate, but they are not “true” in the same emphatic sense. There is nothing “relativist” in the fact that human history is always told from a certain standpoint, sustained by certain ideological interests. The difficult thing is to show how some of these interested standpoints are not ultimately all equally true: some are more “truthful” than others. For example, if one tells the story of Nazi Germany from the standpoint of the suffering of those oppressed by it, i.e., if we are led in our telling by an interest in universal human emancipation, this is not just a matter of a different subjective standpoint. Such a retelling of history is also immanently “more true” since it describes more adequately the dynamics of the social totality which gave birth to Nazism. Not all “subjective interests” are the same, not only because some are ethically preferable to others but because “subjective interests” do not stand outside a social totality; they are themselves moments of that social totality, formed by active (or passive) participants in social processes. The title of Habermas’s early masterpiece “Knowledge and Human Interest” is perhaps more actual today than ever before.

Also Nietzsche and Heidegger are generally viewed as the forerunners to Post-structuralism. 

I think most people would agree that history is a selection of data and trying to use that data

to build a certain narrative as objectively as possible. While the anti-Semitic historian might

write that Jews dominated certain professions, and assuming for a minute that is borne out

by the numbers, just because his purpose is to enhance his anti-Semitic views  doesn't

make that fact, if it is a fact, any less true.

I'm not sure that one factual narrative is more or less true than another. The history of Nazism

from the standpoint of its victims is not more true than the economic, political, and social

factors that led to the rise and ultimate coming to power of the Nazi party. They are merely

different perspectives on the subject of Nazism. I place moral and ethical "truths" on a different

level than those of science and math. It's difficult to see how the former can ever be objective.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I can understand why it focused on the freed slaves. Their future was the main concern of

Reconstruction. I think the struggle between Johnson's Reconstruction "lite" and the more

stringent one of the Radical Republicans was given its share of the program as was the story

of Grant trying to get a hold on the violence of southern resisters. And the election of 1876

and how the political deal making around it put an end to Reconstruction was explained

pretty thoroughly.  

 

Were the freed slaves "the main concern of Reconstruction?"  I don't think so.  It was a concern, but "reconstructing" the defeated Confederate states was the primary objective.  After Johnson's plan was defeated, punishment of the South became the main concern of Reconstruction.  Using the freed slaves was often a tool of the Radical Republicans in the North and Congress in order to accomplish their goals of punishing and reconstructing the South.  The carpetbaggers in control of Southern state governments likewise used the freed slaves to accomplish their goals, frequently to embezzle money from Southerners and the Southern governments.

Johnson's reconstruction plan was the same as Lincoln's except for Johnson wanting to punish the rich whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheCid said:

Were the freed slaves "the main concern of Reconstruction?"  I don't think so.  It was a concern, but "reconstructing" the defeated Confederate states was the primary objective.  After Johnson's plan was defeated, punishment of the South became the main concern of Reconstruction.  Using the freed slaves was often a tool of the Radical Republicans in the North and Congress in order to accomplish their goals of punishing and reconstructing the South.  The carpetbaggers in control of Southern state governments likewise used the freed slaves to accomplish their goals, frequently to embezzle money from Southerners and the Southern governments.

Johnson's reconstruction plan was the same as Lincoln's except for Johnson wanting to punish the rich whites.

Perhaps the reintegration of the confederate states into the union was the immediate concern,

but in hindsight it was the return to the continued oppression of blacks after the war that would

be the most important factor for the future. I know there's a long-term debate among historians

about how harmful the carpetbaggers actually were. Likely still going on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Perhaps the reintegration of the confederate states into the union was the immediate concern,

but in hindsight it was the return to the continued oppression of blacks after the war that would

be the most important factor for the future. I know there's a long-term debate among historians

about how harmful the carpetbaggers actually were. Likely still going on. 

 

That is the view from today.  The oppression of blacks was tolerated by all states and the Federal government pretty much up until about 1965.  While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, schools in South and even elsewhere were not really integrated until the mid-60's.  Same for accommodations, restaurants, etc.  There was discrimination, oppression and voter suppression of blacks in North and West up until the mid-20th century, if not later.

Regardless the purpose of Reconstruction was to establish new governments in the former Confederate states acceptable to the U.S. Congress.  The resurgence of black oppression was part of the Redemption period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheCid said:

That is the view from today.  The oppression of blacks was tolerated by all states and the Federal government pretty much up until about 1965.  While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, schools in South and even elsewhere were not really integrated until the mid-60's.  Same for accommodations, restaurants, etc.  There was discrimination, oppression and voter suppression of blacks in North and West up until the mid-20th century, if not later.

Regardless the purpose of Reconstruction was to establish new governments in the former Confederate states acceptable to the U.S. Congress.  The resurgence of black oppression was part of the Redemption period.

Reconstruction was mostly a pro forma procedure that the Confederate states didn't have much

trouble in accepting. Then they mostly went back to their old way of doing things, minus actual

slavery. And while there was oppression of black people throughout the U.S., it was worst of all

in the former Confederate states. So from the viewpoint of today that is probably the most 

significant thing about Reconstruction. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Reconstruction was mostly a pro forma procedure that the Confederate states didn't have much

trouble in accepting. Then they mostly went back to their old way of doing things, minus actual

slavery. And while there was oppression of black people throughout the U.S., it was worst of all

in the former Confederate states. So from the viewpoint of today that is probably the most 

significant thing about Reconstruction. 

We could beat this death.  Officially "Reconstruction" initially had little to do with correcting oppression of blacks in the South.  The only stipulation for readmission to U.S. and Congress was to swear allegiance to the U.S. and to adopt the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.  The Southern states did and so technically were  "reconstructed."  The problem came about when the Radical Republicans in the North realized what the Southern governments were up to as far as oppression and denying blacks rights.  They then realized that their desire to severely punish the South and its war-time leaders was not going to happen.  In addition, they realized that the initially reconstructed states' Democratic representatives and senators in Congress would join with the Northern and Western Democrats and overrule the Radical Republicans' agenda.

That is why the Radical Republicans rushed to refuse to accept the duly elected representatives and senators from the South, thereby denying them their right to vote in Congress.    This gave the Radical Republicans the majority they needed to pass regulations and amendments that would punish the South and guarantee black rights.  One of these rights was to vote for Republicans in the South.  Thereby excluding the previously elected representatives and senators from the South and replacing them with Republicans.[this was covered in the program]

On the whole the Reconstruction period was not about oppression of blacks in the former Confederate states, it was about how the Federal government, the Radical Republicans in Washington and the U.S. Army came to control the Southern states and their governments.  They then implemented policies to protect the blacks up until 1876.  More significantly, Reconstruction was an attempt by the Federal government (Radical Republicans) to control the South and to punish it.  If eliminating oppression of the blacks in the South was the most significant part of Reconstruction, why were the Republicans in Washington and the North so quick to abandon it totally in 1876?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheCid said:

We could beat this death.  Officially "Reconstruction" initially had little to do with correcting oppression of blacks in the South.  The only stipulation for readmission to U.S. and Congress was to swear allegiance to the U.S. and to adopt the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.  The Southern states did and so technically were  "reconstructed."  The problem came about when the Radical Republicans in the North realized what the Southern governments were up to as far as oppression and denying blacks rights.  They then realized that their desire to severely punish the South and its war-time leaders was not going to happen.  In addition, they realized that the initially reconstructed states' Democratic representatives and senators in Congress would join with the Northern and Western Democrats and overrule the Radical Republicans' agenda.

That is why the Radical Republicans rushed to refuse to accept the duly elected representatives and senators from the South, thereby denying them their right to vote in Congress.    This gave the Radical Republicans the majority they needed to pass regulations and amendments that would punish the South and guarantee black rights.  One of these rights was to vote for Republicans in the South.  Thereby excluding the previously elected representatives and senators from the South and replacing them with Republicans.[this was covered in the program]

On the whole the Reconstruction period was not about oppression of blacks in the former Confederate states, it was about how the Federal government, the Radical Republicans in Washington and the U.S. Army came to control the Southern states and their governments.  They then implemented policies to protect the blacks up until 1876.  More significantly, Reconstruction was an attempt by the Federal government (Radical Republicans) to control the South and to punish it.  If eliminating oppression of the blacks in the South was the most significant part of Reconstruction, why were the Republicans in Washington and the North so quick to abandon it totally in 1876?

A significant part of Reconstruction, though not everything about it, was, while

admitting the former Confederate states back into the Union, an effort to help the newly

free slaves in adjusting to life after slavery and giving them political rights and trying to

limit the continued oppression of black people. No doubt it didn't work perfectly in

practice, but some good was accomplished. Who knows if things would have worked out

for the better or the worse if it was not ended in 1876. I think the reason it was

abandoned in 1876 was the political moves around the disputed presidential election.

As so often happens, politics and winning an election were more important than what

happened to people, in this case the former slaves. We'll find out tonight what the

series covers in its last two hours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation” had significant social implications upon reconstruction as the film was cited for resurrecting the Ku Klux Klan and spreading the group’s ideals across America. :o:(

 

💋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 5:21 PM, Vautrin said:

A significant part of Reconstruction, though not everything about it, was, while

admitting the former Confederate states back into the Union, an effort to help the newly

free slaves in adjusting to life after slavery and giving them political rights and trying to

limit the continued oppression of black people. No doubt it didn't work perfectly in

practice, but some good was accomplished. Who knows if things would have worked out

for the better or the worse if it was not ended in 1876. I think the reason it was

abandoned in 1876 was the political moves around the disputed presidential election.

As so often happens, politics and winning an election were more important than what

happened to people, in this case the former slaves. We'll find out tonight what the

series covers in its last two hours.

 

Reconstruction ended in 1876 when the Republicans thought it was more important to have a Republican president than continue Reconstruction.  The Electoral College votes in the South were contested by having two sets of electors elected.  If the Southern states had stood by their Dem winner, there would be a Dem president.  But, the Republicans cut a deal.  They would have the Federal troops removed from the South in exchange for Southern states recognizing the Republican electors as the official ones.  So, the Republicans got the presidency and the South got the troops out.  With the troops gone, there was no one to protect the Republicans, carpetbaggers and blacks who held offices in the South.  Nor to prevent the white Southerners from voting.  Add in no protections against the Klan and the white southerners took control of their states.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeanneCrain said:

Apparently the 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation” had significant social implications upon reconstruction as the film was cited for resurrecting the Ku Klux Klan and spreading the group’s ideals across America. :o:(

 

 

💋

In the 1920's, there were 4 million members of the Ku Klux Klan and most were outside the South.  I think Illinois had the most members at the time.

Pres. Woodrow Wilson also aided in re-segregating the nation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us