 |
<http://cdn.calisphere.org/
data/13030/jm/hb167
n97jm/files/hb167n97jm-FID4.jpg> |
I just cracked open my “Reconstruction” PowerPoint and shook my head in disgust. The first slide starts with a lie: “Reconstruction: 1865-1877.” First off, even though my opening is from 1865 (the devastation of Charleston, SC) and the first song is “I’m a Good Ole Rebel,” (which is part of Major Problems) but some of the lecture material goes back to 1862 and 1863 (emancipation and anti-polygamy legislation). More importantly, I don’t stop in 1877 – not even close. I go to the end of the century and this was an important element in my doctoral research and first book. All of the newest and best books on Reconstruction push past 1877 (even Foner went beyond that). David Blight went to WWI in Race and Reunion and so too did Heather Cox Richardson in West from Appomattox. So why in the world did I ever claim to be bound by that parameter? Now, I don’t date it, but if I did, I would put “Reconstruction, 1863-1898.” (Hist has the same dating, “1865-1877.” Foner’s textbook does too; I’m not sure how a textbook would alter something like that; maybe Kevin can help us out). Maybe dates should be damned not just for monograph titles, but for lecture titles too.
Next, I noticed that I originally had two main points: first, how northern and southern whites reunited; and second, how African American freedoms were won and then diminished. I had nothing on the West (not even the transcontinental railroad) and Mormons, Indians, and Chinese immigrants had to wait until the Gilded Age. All of this had to change.
Now, the lecture focuses upon three main problems:
1) how would a new American nation and nationalism be built by former Confederates and Union women and men?
2) what would freedom look like for former slaves?
3) how would the West now be developed now that the slavery question has been settled?
And now I have three main points:
1. The southern states were quickly readmitted into the federal government, and northern and southern whites effectively built a shared sense of nationalism by the end of the century.
2. Former slaves received many rights, but a new form of racial oppression emerged that was built upon segregation and violence.
3. The West was further populated and offered new points of economic, cultural, and social contention for the nation.
My students will post on which primary documents from Major Problems they liked, found confusing, and hated … so look out for an enforced conversation to be happening here all week!
How are you teaching Reconstruction? What am I missing? Are there any documents not in Major Problems that you think need to be included? Are there any that you think should not be there?
You probably know of this one, but I’ve found this cartoon useful when discussing Reconstruction from the vantage of the West: http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb167n97jm/
that’s absolutely fantastic!!! Thanks Josh (and I use a bunch of your work for these new lectures)
The document I am discussing is the third document in Chapter One (Reconstruction) of Major Problems entitled “Louisiana Black Codes Reinstate Provisions of the Slave Era, 1865.”
What was especially interesting to me about this document was the fact that there were eleven separate sections that were dedicated to disclosing what freedmen were not allowed to do within the limits of the town of Opelousas. The fact that there are eleven separate sections that were put into writing to describe what freedmen could not do is hard for me to come to terms with. Being that it was described that the freedmen were not permitted within the limits of the town reminds me of the discussion that we had in class today that once slavery was abolished, segregation came to replace slavery. As you discussed, segregation came to be applicable not specifically to towns as a whole but more to public places such as libraries. One final interesting thing that I found about this document was specifically the last section. Section 11 of the document went on to explain that the previous ten sections applied to freedmen and freedwomen. The first ten sections of the document were specific to freedmen, using only the word “freedman.” Then, in the final section, the President of the Board to Police wrote the final section, including freedwomen in all of the previous sections. This was of course done to make sure that there was no open-endedness, clearly making the point that freedwomen applied to the previous sections as well.
The one question that I have about this document was what I brought up earlier in the post. This document reminded me of our discussion as to how segregation came to replace slavery. To me, this seems as a sort of segregation. However, in our discussion, you discussed that segregation was not specific to towns really, but more to public places such as libraries. Is this a loose example of segregation but just an exception to the context that we used in class? In other words, is this an example of segregation in which freedmen were not allowed within the limits of the town without special permission?
Thanks,
Devin Walker
The document I am discussing is the 8th document in Chapter one (Reconstruction) of Major Problems entitled “Lucy McMillan, a Former Slave in South Carolina, Testifies About White Violence, 1871.”
This document really stood out to me because of the extreme amount of bravery Lucy McMillan showed. During this time period the Ku-Klux seemed to be putting fear into everyone. She even said herself she was afraid of being whipped. As a result, she slept out in the woods in an attempt to hide and be safe. Secondly, to stand up and testify against the four men she saw burn her house down must have been extremely hard. It’s just mind boggling to me what this woman must have gone through on a day to day basis. Her mind must have been consumed with being whipped, having her house burnt, or dying. I don’t know how people lived like that. Lastly, I find it very interesting that she was able to testify, tell her story and the government actually listened.
I wonder if she was scared at all because she didn’t have a husband to “protect” her? Did that make things harder or easier? Also, she mentioned that John Hunter’s wife came to her house to warn her that she was going to be whipped. But she testified against John Hunter and I’m wondering, were Lucy and John Hunter’s wife good friends? Why did she warn Lucy and I’m assuming why did she go behind her husbands back to warn Lucy?
Thanks,
Dana Peacock
Great point Devin, and we’ll discuss tomorrow the “maturation” of segregation, how it changed, grew, expanded, and had holes. For instance, the code in Major Problems is from right after the war. The use of domestic labor (which I discussed in class) came later toward the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. The neat point we’ll get to – which you are identifying – is that segregation was not the same everywhere and at all times!
Dana, I’ve wondered that myself. We often think of white southerners and black southerners as enemies. But clearly it is more complicated than that and there were certainly levels of friendship even right after the war.
The document I will be discussing is Document number 2 from Chapter 1 (Reconstruction) of Major Problems, entitled “A Southern Song Opposes Reconstruction, c 1860s.”
The thing that intrigued me about this song is that it is written from the perspective of a confederate, who obviously strongly disagrees with the thought of reconstruction. The overall tone of the song makes it seem like the Union is the one that is morally at fault for attempting to create freedom for all of the states. The artist claims that he does not care at all for this “Fair Land of Freedom,” and that he only wishes that the south had won the war so that they could be in control again. I think this document is important because it shares the biased nature of the confederates during the reconstruction era. He even states that he wishes that there were 3 million northerners that fell instead of 3 hundred thousand! It seems as if the south were more concerned about the blood than they were for peace.
The thing that I questioned was the fact that southerners actually reacted to reconstruction this way. I can see the side of having pride for their land, and not changing the “way its always been,” but is that really worth the harsh treatment of the African Americans? Why did the confederates have to react so harshly and why do they not want to fight for this so called “Fair Land of Freedom?”
Thanks,
Hannah Bronson
The document I am discussing is the second document from chapter 1 of Major Problems (Reconstruction) entitled “A Southern Song Opposes Reconstruction, c. 1860s”
When I first read this article, I read it under the assumption that it was a white southern whom was singing the song, but upon rereading it again and again, I am not quite sure. I know that there weren’t many educated African Americans back in the day so I do not think it is highly conceivable that a slave wrote this. At the same time, it could have been a song sung by slaves and written down by someone who heard the words being song. But then again, the english is so broken and sloppy, that it could have been written by a white southerner whom might have had some skills in being able to write, but was not highly educated.
The phrase that got me thinking about the perspective of who could be singing this song was the following, “And I don’t want no pardon for what I was and am, I won’t be reconstructed and I don’t care a damn.” For what I was and am, could that be a reference to one being a slave, and now being a “free” slave? Granted that the Civil War gave slaves their freedom, but is that what every slave really wanted? Sure slavery wasn’t a great life, but that was the only life slaves knew. The plantation was the only “home” they knew, they were accustomed to a routine, a norm, and now everything has changed for them and they have to be on their own. Kind of scary don’t you think?
That is why I am thinking this may have been a song sung by slaves, they were scared of what was going to happen with freed slaves down in the southern states. As slaves, they would serve a purpose in working the fields for free, but now southern croppers were enraged that they were going to have to pay someone to work for them. Would white southerners really pay the African Americans they resented so much? So now as free people, African Americans were going to experience a different form of hostility and resentment.
I propose no major question here, this passage just merely made me think for a while.
Alejandro Landazuri
I will be discussing Document 5 named “Congressman Thaddeus Stevens Demands a Radical Reconstruction, 1867” from Chapter 1 of the Major Problems in American History.
Congressman Thaddeus Stevens presents his distrust to white Southerners. He sees them as rebels to the federal government. Even though they were defeated in the war, but they do not concur with what the current government is doing for black civil rights. It is very interesting to me when I first read Congressman Stevens’ idea about having a joint government for the Southern states. The loyal blacks and white men should come together and lead the authority in the South because they will make great transformations. His most important goal was to have negro suffrage in order to eliminate rebels in Congress. Congressman Stevens thinks that without the rebels in the government, everything would go more smoothly. I can see what his point is, but at the same time, the rebels actually represent for the majority of white Southerners. I wonder if the government functions without them, would the nation be pleased as a whole? Wouldn’t there still be different opinions about the issue but one side (Confederacy) is under suppression? Although their ideas are based on anti black civil rights but isn’t it better to change their views rather than wipe out the people who share similar perspectives? Of course that most of them will be stubborn because during the Civil War, they fought for what they believed in, so it is not easy now to tell them otherwise. However, it is possible (but it takes time) to slowly transform their thinking. If according to his plan, I predict that it would bring more rebellious ideas than the submissive states that Congressman Stevens wants.
To me, it is good that Congressman Stevens proposes an idea for the reconstruction of the nation. It is just his solution that makes me think a little bit. It would be interesting to see if his idea was enforced in real life.
Thanks,
Duyen Trang
The Document I am discussing is from Major Problems Chapter 1 on Reconstruction titled “A Southern Song Opposes Reconstruction, c. 1860s”
The main point I took from this song was a representation of what the southern attitude was toward the union after the civil war ended. The song talks about how “We got three hundred thousand; Before they conquered us;”. The overall feeling I get is that these people could careless about the union and any type of Reconstruction. I think it must have been incredibly hard initially to try and convince these states to listen to the government. As we discussed in class, in the long run however patriotism did return by 1900. I am sure if you were alive in 1865-1868 you would have thought that any reforming of the country to include the southern states would have been impossible.
The sad part about the southerns maintaining this attitude was that many of the southerns took there frustrations out on the newly freed African Americans. In a way I am sure that the southerns felt there rights were being taken away, (by not having a say in what and how the country was being reconstructed) while African Americans were finally receiving many rights they had not had being slaves.
In many ways the southern attitude prevented reconstruction from being more beneficial to African Americans as well as the United States of America.
Thanks
Jonathan Cummings
Though like my classmates I enjoyed reading the the southern song because of the different point of view it highlights, and the testimony of Lucy McMillian because of her strength, the article that most stood out to me was the article by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Stanton does an excellent job in this article of calling out male abolitionists on their failure to support women’s rights. She points out that women are not feared because they will not revolt. This is an excellent point. The men do not see any gain in giving women the power to vote, and therefore do not act. I like that she specifically calls out Horace Greeley who claims that the idea of giving the vote to women is “too new”. However, she points out, that the proclamation of emancipation was new, African Americans voting was new, and somehow he was able to accept these “new” ideas, but maintain a stance against women because the idea of female emancipation was too “new”. Se pretty much calls him a hypocrite in a very intelligent and sound argument.
She further smashes the argument that women don’t care to vote by giving specific examples of over 10,000 women petitioning for suffrage in Kansas and Great Britain.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton has proved herself to be a woman well before her time, and intelligent thinker, and devoted activist. It is too bad that later she resorts to racism to get her point across because she clearly has great
ideas.
Jacqueline Thornton
The Document I am discussing is “Louisiana Black Codes Reinstate Provisions of the Slave Era 1865”
This document is filled with unconstitutional codes and disrespectful conduct. What they are saying is (paraphrased) “We want black people to work for us, but we don’t want them anywhere around us”. I understand that these codes were established in the deep south, were the transition from slaves to ‘free men’ was difficult for many white southerners to get used to. However, I find this completely disrespectful to the lives lost before, during, and after the Civil War.
If the south wanted to be allowed back into the Union, then it is obvious that they had to comply with the rules that the Union established. There is no ‘halfway’ in reconstructing after a war. Simply put (from the perspective of the North: If you want back into the Union, then you need to follow all of our rules, or not be in the Union at all. By making a list of codes that restricts freedmen from living their new lives fully, is unconstitutional and weak.
The Union wasn’t just trying to forget the war. they were trying to reconstruct an entire country after years and years of fighting. Will posting codes that anger the freedmen and Union really help? The war had ended, and it was time to either accept the mentality of the Union or just keep their opinions to themselves.
Amy Alston
The document I will be discussing is the first document in Chapter one (Reconstruction) of Major Problems entitled “William Howard Day, an African American Minister, Salutes the nation and a Monument to Abraham Lincoln, 1865.”
After reading this document, i found it intriguing how fast African Americans just as William Howard Day found comfort in calling United States their nation. For example, in this document William Howard Day used the word ‘our’ to illustrate his perspective of the nation as a whole. This was significant because it underlined the dramatic change United States had endure, going from allowing slavery to freeing slaves. Another thing i found interesting about this document was how Day depicted the way slavery was conquered. He used many references of God, thunder, and ships. A reason for this could be his efforts in portraying slavery as a long journey of wrongdoings which God freed them from.
The one question that i have about this document was even though slaves were free, did every slave from the north and south feel the same as William Howard Day? I ask this question because during Reconstruction, the majority of the south opposed the federal government and didn’t want to give African Americans a fair share. Southerners treated them violently and with hatred. So for the freed slaves in the South, did they feel just as comfortable with ‘their nation’ as the ones in the north?
Thanks,
Brian Lieu
The article I decided to read was Louisiana Black Codes Reinstate Provisions of the Slave Era, 1865. This article was really interesting because it was broken down into 11 different sections, which all address rules for African Americans within Louisiana. It’s absolutely so cruel the rules that they had for African American. Section 4 says, “No negro or freedman shall reside within the limits of the town of Opelousas who is not in the regular service of some white person or former owner, who shall be held responsible for the conduct of said freedman…” I can’t imagine living in a society where there are rules like that. The questions that I have is did every state have rules like this? Also did any African Americans break these rules?
Zoe Carroll
One particular part about reconstruction was the ideology that stuck within southern society for such a long time. As an example, the document A Southern Song Opposes Reconstruction, 1860, reflects such a view. This song represents a view that sticks to the Southern ideology of their belief of supremacy. It’s amazing how divided the nation was, either being tolerant or intolerant of another man’s individuality as opposed to today. What I mean to say is that the South back then was so stuck in the mindset of being White and superior to others, that if you were not native to them, you would have nothing to do with their lives other than working their fields. The South’s resentment of a reconstructed America seemed so horrible to them that this song would be relevant for the next 150 years.
Van D.