Explain How Promising Was The Period Of Reconstruction For African Americans
How promising was the period of Reconstruction for African Americans?
There are varying historic interpretations of the period of Reconstruction and whether it proved promising for African Americans. Some historians such as William A. Dunning suggest that the southerners were the victims of Reconstruction and a growing population of African Americans formulated ‘Negro Rule’ whereas others contradict this with the Post-Revisionists claiming that the period was ‘non-revolutionary’ and conservative in terms of black independence.
It can be argued that Reconstruction was promising as under the 14th Amendment it was stated that all persons born or naturalised in the USA should be regarded as citizens and be guaranteed equality before the law. This was highly significant and promising for African Americans as it meant that they would have the same rights as white Americans …show more content…
which were protected equally by the law. This Amendment also reversed many of the Black Codes that had been enforced. This act was interpreted as a great success and a positive accomplishment by Revisionist historians as it was considered that blacks were now of equal citizenship. Furthermore, 700,000 African Americans registered to vote suggesting gains in the independence of black people and growth in influence due to voting opportunities. Some African Americans were even elected to local and state offices and two blacks achieved the positions of US Senators. Some historians regard this as ‘Negro Rule’ where African Americans were becoming too powerful with a population size to nearly equal the whites. However, Revisionist historians of the late 1950s-70s regard this as a ‘myth’ as white southerners were still in the majority in state legislatures and government offices. The formulation of the concept of ‘Negro Rule’ was likely to have come from Southerners in attempt to portray themselves as victims of Reconstruction.
In addition to this, African Americans grew in independence during the Reconstruction period with the freedom to own property meaning that they could earn money for themselves. The Freedmen’s Bureau was also set up by an Act of Congress in March 1865 which was a government body empowered to support the freed slaves. The body was successful in helping African American’s find homes and employment so they were able to earn their own money and to give back to the government. Between 1865 and 1866 the Bureau spent $17 million setting up 4000 schools and 100 hospitals. Furthermore the body allocated any abandoned or confiscated land to African Americans. These acts created economic benefits for black people through work opportunities and suggested a brighter future for the next generation of African Americans.
In terms of social impact, Reconstruction improved access for African American’s to education. This is supported by the Revisionist interpretation that Reconstruction brought the establishment of public school systems throughout the South. Historian W E. B. DuBois claims that money expended by the Southern governments did not go to the politicians but instead went to areas such as education and other public services that had never been funded on such a large scale before. This view suggests that Southern officials were intent on improving life for African Americans. A growth in Black churches provided a strong unifying factor for African Americans and often the minister in the church played a key role, becoming a spokesperson for the community providing the African Americans with a voice. This idea is supported by historian Leon Litwack, who claims that during Reconstruction, former slaves used their new found freedom to develop a certain independence for themselves within the Southern society, ‘Reconstruction gave blacks a certain amount of legal and political power in the South’. However, it can be considered that the period of Reconstruction was not promising for African Americans. Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes abandoned Reconstruction and allowed white supremacists into the Democratic Party. Although African Americans were granted the right to vote, many Southern states manipulated this legislation and created harsh tests that black people had to pass to gain entitlement to vote and in addition to this, a poll tax was created. However white Americans were exempt to this due to the Grandfather clause, which stated that if you could prove that your Grandfather had previously voted, you then gained the entitlement to vote. In addition, officials in Kentucky had also completely prevented African Americans from voting yet were not persecuted for their actions. In relation to this, African Americans were not allowed to give evidence in court against whites which enabled many white Americans to get away with racial crimes against black people. At the start of Reconstruction, Lincoln’s view that reforming the union of states was most important led to the creation of the 10% plan, where when 10% of a state’s electorate had taken an oath, condemning slavery, they were able to formulate a new state government. However, this enabled some Southern states to formulate racist governments and create loopholes to avoid constricts of the oath, within their constitution. An example of this is Louisiana, whose constitution banned slavery yet disallowed African Americans the right to vote. It can be argued that Lincoln’s actions allowed the South to take advantage of the system and still go unpunished. Furthermore the promises of the 14th Amendment were dashed when in 1873 in the “Slaughter House Cases” the Supreme Court declared that the Amendment did not protect the rights of African Americans.
In addition it can be argued that Reconstruction was not promising for African Americans as they were unable to buy or rent land, making it difficult for the blacks to earn their own money and gain independence. White Americans occupied 70% of land whereas African Americans only held 30%. Any land that was given to blacks was often of poor quality making it near impossible to grow crops. Post-Revisionist historians claim that there was almost no land redistribution which prevented the freedmen from achieving true autonomy. Furthermore the Freedmen’s Bureau which had provided African Americans with much financial and social support, collapsed. However Revisionists historians state that any economic upheaval was to be expected within a post-war society. This suggests that any economic suffering was experienced by white and black Americans alike, and the fact that it occurred in the first place was understandable due to the damaging effects of the Civil War.
Furthermore Reconstruction failed many of the planned social changes for African Americans.
An example of this is the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which had intended to prohibit segregation of public places but was never enforced. It appeared to be an act by Congress to control Southern politics, but by the time it was passed the Senate was no longer interested with punishing the Southern states. In addition to this, America’s new President, Ulysses S. Grant, chose to abandon the repressive policies toward the South and the act was eventually thrown out in 1883. This not only meant that segregation continued to exist but also highlights the social injustice as the Southern states were not punished for their actions against the blacks. Current historians interpret the period of Reconstruction believe that race and class were linked. African Americans were often regarded as inferior or second class citizens due to their lack of wealth and status and that racism was an addition to this. These historians also state that the southern class system had changed as labourers now had more political
power.
The Reconstruction period also saw the emergence of many racist, white supremacist groups such as the KKK. Furthermore, many African Americans were banned from schools, especially in the Southern states and inter-racial marriage was not allowed. Post-Revisionist historians state that racism persisted and flourished in Reconstruction with many hate crimes and lynchings carried out by whites. This suggests that the period of Reconstruction did not provide a promising outlook for African Americans. An example of this is in 1892 when suffragist, women's rights advocate and journalist, Ida B. Wells’ three African American friends’ shop was attacked by a mob of white Americans as and their small grocery had taken away customers from competing white businesses. The owners fought back, shooting one of the attackers. The owners were arrested, but a lynch-mob broke into the jail, dragged them away from town, and brutally murdered all three. This example highlights the complete injustice of the legal system in the way African Americans were regarded as second class citizens. Furthermore this case emphasizes the corruption of many state officials such as the police force who clearly let this happen.
Professor Dunning, a professor of history at Princeton in the early 20th century, strongly suggests that the white Southerners were the victims of Reconstruction as a result of Lincoln’s ‘generous’ policies towards the African Americans, which his successor, Andrew Johnson attempted to carry out. Dunning claims that ‘radical Republicans’ are the reason for the downfall of Johnson’s policies and that the Republicans were driven by an ‘irrational hatred of southern rebels’ and wanted to consolidate their party’s power. This interpretation has been criticised by many more contemporary historians, such as the Revisionists for appearing to condone racism.
I think that the Post-Revisionist interpretation of the late 1970s-80s, is the most accurate in portraying the period of Reconstruction in stating that it was ‘non-revolutionary and conservative’. Although this may appear cynical, when considering progress, it appears that very little was made. For example, the 14th Amendment failed to protect African Americans following a Supreme Court ruling, the Freedmen’s Bureau collapsed and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was dismissed by the Senate. This highlights the little support of African Americans by the government and emphasises the social injustice within the system as the Southern states went unpunished. To conclude, when considering how promising the period of Reconstruction was for African Americans, I believe that within the first few years, the future looked hopeful due to Lincoln’s generous policies, the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the abolishment of the Black Codes. However, these promising acts either collapsed or were replaced with larger issues, for example as the Black Codes fell, the Jim Crow Laws emerged. Furthermore with hindsight it took almost 100 years from this period in time for blacks to gain equality within the USA; therefore Reconstruction may have looked promising to some African Americans however in reality they were bound by naivety and were far from reaching their goal of equality.
There are varying historic interpretations of the period of Reconstruction and whether it proved promising for African Americans. Some historians such as William A. Dunning suggest that the southerners were the victims of Reconstruction and a growing population of African Americans formulated ‘Negro Rule’ whereas others contradict this with the Post-Revisionists claiming that the period was ‘non-revolutionary’ and conservative in terms of black independence.
It can be argued that Reconstruction was promising as under the 14th Amendment it was stated that all persons born or naturalised in the USA should be regarded as citizens and be guaranteed equality before the law. This was highly significant and promising for African Americans as it meant that they would have the same rights as white Americans …show more content…
which were protected equally by the law. This Amendment also reversed many of the Black Codes that had been enforced. This act was interpreted as a great success and a positive accomplishment by Revisionist historians as it was considered that blacks were now of equal citizenship. Furthermore, 700,000 African Americans registered to vote suggesting gains in the independence of black people and growth in influence due to voting opportunities. Some African Americans were even elected to local and state offices and two blacks achieved the positions of US Senators. Some historians regard this as ‘Negro Rule’ where African Americans were becoming too powerful with a population size to nearly equal the whites. However, Revisionist historians of the late 1950s-70s regard this as a ‘myth’ as white southerners were still in the majority in state legislatures and government offices. The formulation of the concept of ‘Negro Rule’ was likely to have come from Southerners in attempt to portray themselves as victims of Reconstruction.
In addition to this, African Americans grew in independence during the Reconstruction period with the freedom to own property meaning that they could earn money for themselves. The Freedmen’s Bureau was also set up by an Act of Congress in March 1865 which was a government body empowered to support the freed slaves. The body was successful in helping African American’s find homes and employment so they were able to earn their own money and to give back to the government. Between 1865 and 1866 the Bureau spent $17 million setting up 4000 schools and 100 hospitals. Furthermore the body allocated any abandoned or confiscated land to African Americans. These acts created economic benefits for black people through work opportunities and suggested a brighter future for the next generation of African Americans.
In terms of social impact, Reconstruction improved access for African American’s to education. This is supported by the Revisionist interpretation that Reconstruction brought the establishment of public school systems throughout the South. Historian W E. B. DuBois claims that money expended by the Southern governments did not go to the politicians but instead went to areas such as education and other public services that had never been funded on such a large scale before. This view suggests that Southern officials were intent on improving life for African Americans. A growth in Black churches provided a strong unifying factor for African Americans and often the minister in the church played a key role, becoming a spokesperson for the community providing the African Americans with a voice. This idea is supported by historian Leon Litwack, who claims that during Reconstruction, former slaves used their new found freedom to develop a certain independence for themselves within the Southern society, ‘Reconstruction gave blacks a certain amount of legal and political power in the South’. However, it can be considered that the period of Reconstruction was not promising for African Americans. Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes abandoned Reconstruction and allowed white supremacists into the Democratic Party. Although African Americans were granted the right to vote, many Southern states manipulated this legislation and created harsh tests that black people had to pass to gain entitlement to vote and in addition to this, a poll tax was created. However white Americans were exempt to this due to the Grandfather clause, which stated that if you could prove that your Grandfather had previously voted, you then gained the entitlement to vote. In addition, officials in Kentucky had also completely prevented African Americans from voting yet were not persecuted for their actions. In relation to this, African Americans were not allowed to give evidence in court against whites which enabled many white Americans to get away with racial crimes against black people. At the start of Reconstruction, Lincoln’s view that reforming the union of states was most important led to the creation of the 10% plan, where when 10% of a state’s electorate had taken an oath, condemning slavery, they were able to formulate a new state government. However, this enabled some Southern states to formulate racist governments and create loopholes to avoid constricts of the oath, within their constitution. An example of this is Louisiana, whose constitution banned slavery yet disallowed African Americans the right to vote. It can be argued that Lincoln’s actions allowed the South to take advantage of the system and still go unpunished. Furthermore the promises of the 14th Amendment were dashed when in 1873 in the “Slaughter House Cases” the Supreme Court declared that the Amendment did not protect the rights of African Americans.
In addition it can be argued that Reconstruction was not promising for African Americans as they were unable to buy or rent land, making it difficult for the blacks to earn their own money and gain independence. White Americans occupied 70% of land whereas African Americans only held 30%. Any land that was given to blacks was often of poor quality making it near impossible to grow crops. Post-Revisionist historians claim that there was almost no land redistribution which prevented the freedmen from achieving true autonomy. Furthermore the Freedmen’s Bureau which had provided African Americans with much financial and social support, collapsed. However Revisionists historians state that any economic upheaval was to be expected within a post-war society. This suggests that any economic suffering was experienced by white and black Americans alike, and the fact that it occurred in the first place was understandable due to the damaging effects of the Civil War.
Furthermore Reconstruction failed many of the planned social changes for African Americans.
An example of this is the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which had intended to prohibit segregation of public places but was never enforced. It appeared to be an act by Congress to control Southern politics, but by the time it was passed the Senate was no longer interested with punishing the Southern states. In addition to this, America’s new President, Ulysses S. Grant, chose to abandon the repressive policies toward the South and the act was eventually thrown out in 1883. This not only meant that segregation continued to exist but also highlights the social injustice as the Southern states were not punished for their actions against the blacks. Current historians interpret the period of Reconstruction believe that race and class were linked. African Americans were often regarded as inferior or second class citizens due to their lack of wealth and status and that racism was an addition to this. These historians also state that the southern class system had changed as labourers now had more political
power.
The Reconstruction period also saw the emergence of many racist, white supremacist groups such as the KKK. Furthermore, many African Americans were banned from schools, especially in the Southern states and inter-racial marriage was not allowed. Post-Revisionist historians state that racism persisted and flourished in Reconstruction with many hate crimes and lynchings carried out by whites. This suggests that the period of Reconstruction did not provide a promising outlook for African Americans. An example of this is in 1892 when suffragist, women's rights advocate and journalist, Ida B. Wells’ three African American friends’ shop was attacked by a mob of white Americans as and their small grocery had taken away customers from competing white businesses. The owners fought back, shooting one of the attackers. The owners were arrested, but a lynch-mob broke into the jail, dragged them away from town, and brutally murdered all three. This example highlights the complete injustice of the legal system in the way African Americans were regarded as second class citizens. Furthermore this case emphasizes the corruption of many state officials such as the police force who clearly let this happen.
Professor Dunning, a professor of history at Princeton in the early 20th century, strongly suggests that the white Southerners were the victims of Reconstruction as a result of Lincoln’s ‘generous’ policies towards the African Americans, which his successor, Andrew Johnson attempted to carry out. Dunning claims that ‘radical Republicans’ are the reason for the downfall of Johnson’s policies and that the Republicans were driven by an ‘irrational hatred of southern rebels’ and wanted to consolidate their party’s power. This interpretation has been criticised by many more contemporary historians, such as the Revisionists for appearing to condone racism.
I think that the Post-Revisionist interpretation of the late 1970s-80s, is the most accurate in portraying the period of Reconstruction in stating that it was ‘non-revolutionary and conservative’. Although this may appear cynical, when considering progress, it appears that very little was made. For example, the 14th Amendment failed to protect African Americans following a Supreme Court ruling, the Freedmen’s Bureau collapsed and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was dismissed by the Senate. This highlights the little support of African Americans by the government and emphasises the social injustice within the system as the Southern states went unpunished. To conclude, when considering how promising the period of Reconstruction was for African Americans, I believe that within the first few years, the future looked hopeful due to Lincoln’s generous policies, the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the abolishment of the Black Codes. However, these promising acts either collapsed or were replaced with larger issues, for example as the Black Codes fell, the Jim Crow Laws emerged. Furthermore with hindsight it took almost 100 years from this period in time for blacks to gain equality within the USA; therefore Reconstruction may have looked promising to some African Americans however in reality they were bound by naivety and were far from reaching their goal of equality.