What issues (both short and long term) needed to be addressed? What other issues do you assume existed?Who was capable of and responsible for addressing them? What were the priorities of reconstruction? What should they have been? Who decides on priorities? Who or what is expendable or can be sacrificed in this process? How can you measure the efficacy or success of the recovery plan?
Even just in the title, “150 years of war” the New York Times article brings up a thought provoking argument (it was in the other blog post but it relates to reconstruction): our two part system. It certainly was not the only cause of the Civil War but it definitely had an effect on the war. People in the South tended to be more for states rights and people from the North tended to lean towards federalism. This creates animosity between the two sides because one has to come out superior, as we saw. I think the same thing still goes on today. In Right America: Feeling Wronged people acted like crazy looney toons over a political campaign. It’s one thing to have an opinion and share that opinion and attempt to persuade people but what was going on in that video took it way too far. On the opposite side, Alex Pelosi also took it very far by making this documentary to show how crazy republicans can be and essentially slander them. People of one country are fighting against each other-which sounds familiar. I think this should have been the top priority in reconstruction. Finding a way to unify the country with out causing grudges that would last years later. The best way, I think, to unify the country is to compromise what the war was over. I think this could have been achieved by giving states more rights but by physically unifying the country (railroads, ports, etc.) and making the regions interdependent on each other. As painful as it is for my fiscally conservative self to say, I think parts of something like Henry Clay’s American system (which placed high takes on foreign imports) would have been beneficial, at least temporarily because it would force the two parts of the country to be interdependent. However, I think the government must also give each state more power to regulate themselves because the bottom line is that the United States is geographically a large country and different people from different area need different laws. It was after the fact so obviously people during this time period didn’t have this knowledge but take World War I and Germany. They were destroyed physically and financially. Then, around 20 years later, they start another war. So this leads to the question as to what is an appropriate post war punishment and if the South is supposed to be part of this new country, do they deserve one? Shouldn’t the country just be focusing on moving forward than reparation for the past?
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the picture posted above on the blog, I couldn’t really believe it. I knew at once it had to have been the south (and then the title “postwarsouth.jpg” on the tab affirmed by suspicions) because most of the fighting - and thus, the destruction - occurred there. The sheer amount of wreckage was not what I expected. The town resembles a broken shadow, a fragment of the bustling town it must have been. It seems as though a bomb has torn it apart, yet, due to the lack of aircrafts back then (duh), I know that this is only the result of soldiers stomping across, leaving their fiery marks behind them. And now I feel myself slipping into my Alexander Stephens personality which I have spent a little too much time as this week, so I’ll try to simply say that the north had a HUGE problem on their hands.
ReplyDeleteI mean, first their forces make a complete and utter mess of half of their country, both physically and emotionally. Many prominent southern areas were destroyed due to war, and the bravery and desire for independence on behalf of many southerners was wiped out and replaced with bitter hatred towards the north that conquered it, a problem that had not disappeared, according to the article, until “147 years later” (and I still believe that some southerners are bitter about their “Lost Cause”). The north had to, like the Obama administration in regards to Egypt, walk on glass for fear of re-breaking an already fragile country. In the short term, the north had to figure out how to immediately begin scraping up the wreckage of the south. In the long term, the government would have to figure out a way to help the southerners be happier that they’re (forced back into) the Union again. It’s strange, actually, because I think Reconstruction had to have focused less on the physical aspects and recreation of a government and more on the PRIORITY of the nation’s mentality. The citizens had to get along and respect each other, once and for all, in order for Reconstruction to have succeeded. This is exactly why I do think Reconstruction failed.
The north failed to respect the south by barring its senators and elected statesmen from congress and by forcing states to comply to the north’s orders, even by military force, before certain southern states could rejoin the Union. The south, however, disrespected the north by simply refusing to follow the instructions of government (which was basically a northern government since so many southern seats were non-existent). Perhaps reconstructing the country without essentially recreating slavery and alienated feelings might have been possible if the congress (not President Johnson since I don’t really think he had the capacity to make decisions that would benefit the country, as shown through his approval of the Black Codes…) had made the emotional reunion of the north and south its first priority in the long-run after the physical destruction had been cleaned up.
This is why I think that the Civil War did take “147 years” as the article explains. Essentially, the war began and ended at a point where the north and south each cared about their respective individual self-interest and success. When the “pursuit of the common good” became more important to the U.S. citizen than that of self-interest, the Civil War (which was basically the differences in goals and desires of the north and south at its core, in my opinion) was able to come to a close. Reconstruction did not deal adequately with these differences in ideals, and perhaps if the north OR south made an effort during that tumultuous period to deal rationally with the other side, it might have been more successful than the near-failure it turned out to be.
AHHH sorry Martha that I didn't really respond to your post! I got so into mine that I kind of tuned out everything else on the entire planet (as you can see by the freakish length of my blog post) including my dad who was standing in the doorway for a full minute before I even realized he was there...oy.
ReplyDeleteI believe the most pertinent issue is the physical reconstruction of the south. Sherman and his men left entire towns devastated.But, that's the easy part. The hard part will be not only repairing the political system, but actually making the people not hate each other. This is by far the most challenging aspect of reconstruction because no amount of money, no piece of legislation, not even time can really fix the roots of that issue. Thus, the responsibly of this part of reconstruction falls on the shoulders of respected members of society that have access to a large audience. We are talking everyone from teachers to journalists to local government. Those are the people that must stress the importance of accepting the other half of the country for the good of the union.
ReplyDeleteHaha, Sarah, I laughed at your Alexander Stephens comment. Too true.
ReplyDeleteThe issues that needed to be addressed were simply cleaning up and repairing the South's damage, and coming back together as one Nation again. The South (as shown above) was COMPLETELY torn apart, and from the picture, it looks like nothing would have been able to survive off of what remains. So, measures needed to be taken to clean up the South to stabilize the conditions for the Southerners. The North was walking on egg-shells, because they also knew that they needed to do what they could to bring the Nation back together as a whole. A country cannot operate well if it is split into two, and right now, the country needed to work together to create a better, refined place that somewhat pleased the people. Whether or not this is still accomplished today is the question. The North, I feel, should take responsibility for repairing these actions. However, a relationship takes two ends to make everything work out, so the South would need to put in some effort too. Largely though, it was on the North to fix the South and bring the country back together, as they had the most representatives in the government at this time.
I still believe that America is fighting a war today, a war of power that is. Each side: Republican and Democrats or State Government or Federal Government is power-hungry and is always on the search for more power. As we can see through the many sources we've read on the Civil War and the movie Right America: Feeling Wronged, the people of this country are extremely passionate in what they believe in, and are also constantly on the hunt for power for what side they believe in. Basically, our country has not been completely fixed still, since the Nation is still very divided. People want different things, and won't let go until they achieve what they feel they "deserve". After the Civil War, the main focus should have been reconstructing and molding the country back together, because it is very important to have a strong, cohesive system to live in, in order for a Nation to stay stable. The emotional effects of the Civil War is what has remained with the people, and this should have been the number one priority to fix.
HERE WE GO
ReplyDeleteThough there were a ton of issues that needed to be/should have been addressed during Reconstruction, I will spare you all from my excessive writing by talking about what I see to be the most important issue that was crucial to be addressed: the social issue. In fact, I have to disagree with Amanda; though physically rebuilding the South was a huge priority, it would not even be able to be achieved if the people of the North and South did not get along. Today, though America seems to still have an issue with letting go of the "natural" antipathy we have against the South/Southerners have against the North, which dates back to the Civil War (as the article "150 Years of War" says), I personally still feel connected to the South because of the technological advances we've made; I can speak with my cousin in South Carolina and my friends in Florida without thinking of them as "from the South." However, because there was no communication like this back then (like Sarah said, duh), it made it really easy for the North and South to grow apart and become much too culturally diverse. For example, according to the articles “The Plantation Ideal” and "Where the Differences Lay" from the Civil War packet that we read a bajillion years ago, the North and South grew to become polar opposites and could not help wanting different things for their country, the Union they loved. I know referencing the causes of the Civil War packet may not seem ideal, but in my eyes these same issues remained throughout the war just as much as they did right before it.
They differed from everything as minute as how magazines were run to as crucial as how the intelligence in the South, though it beat out the North in times way before the Civil War, slowly began to decrease and could not match that of the North. It didn’t just end at these two differences, however—in fact, the articles say that the differences in education ideals between the two areas, which were practically dichotomous, were both the products and the causes of severe social, political, and economic differences between the North and South. Sorry for that whole rant, but what I’m trying to communicate was how severe the differences were socially before and after the war. Like “Where the Differences Lay” says, “This schism in culture struck into the very substance of national life. Differences of thought, taste, and ideals gravely accentuated the misunderstandings caused by the basic economic and social differences […] an atmosphere was created in which emotions grew feverish; in which every episode became a crisis, every jar a shock.” Kind of like the way slavery contributed to the start of the war as a spark rather than a sole cause, the geographical and cultural differences between the two areas, both before AND after the war, caused a certain bellicosity among both areas, a willingness to find something wrong with the other half and cause trouble. It was very difficult for the North to understand the South, why they wanted slavery, why they did not have public schooling, etc. And thus, without mending these wounds in the society of the United States, Reconstruction would have been an inevitable fail.
ReplyDeleteI’m not saying it would have been easy—clearly, if the government had any intention of mending society back together, it didn’t work fully, since the war is still technically going on. But, it would have been important for the leaders of the post-war United States to find similarities between the North and South as well as reasons for them to stay together as a people that didn’t have to do with the economy or the fact that their two pieces of land were adjacent.
The first, and in my opinion most obvious, thing that needed to have been done to reunite the union was a much greater financial compensation from the north to the south; after the north had completely torched part of the south’s land and destroyed many other aspects of the land, the south must have been left bitter and in despair, and would no doubt not want to cooperate with the north until the north lent a helping hand, or until the south was at least on its feet. Secondly, in class we discussed how slavery was in the root of each cause of the civil war, although not the direct cause, and the two sides of the nation could not reunite unless they stood on the same side with regards to slaves. Although “slavery” no longer was legal after the emancipation proclamation, the discrimination towards African American’s still held true in the south, seen with the Klu Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and others. This discrimination needed to have been ‘nipped in the bud’ by the north, in order to have to the same, equal, social settings that the north had, or was on the road to having, in order to mesh to two sides back together as one. Finally the most key factor in what would have been ideal reconstruction would have been to actually incorporate the southern states back into political affairs! How was the nation supposed to be reformed when in 1865, even after “All Confederates states, with the exception of Mississippi have formally accepted presidential requirements for readmission to the Union and representation in Congress,” (Timeline) “the House simply omits the southerners from roll call, effectively denying them admittance?” (Timeline) To me this was the most bone headedly crucial error on the north’s part towards reconstruction, because without the south taking part in the nation’s democratic process they would most certainly not feel united, and was the biggest leap of the north’s away from a united nation. While I can not say I completely agree personally with the first tactic mentioned, I have come to appreciate the second two steps as both fair and just, as well as what could have been means to reunite the union. Without the representation of the south in congress the north was basically attempting to enact reconstruction blindly, which looking in retrospect, seems fairly apparent at times.
ReplyDeleteSorry I made a mistake...
ReplyDeleteIn this sentence from my first post ("I know referencing the causes of the Civil War packet may not seem ideal, but in my eyes these same issues remained throughout the war just as much as they did right before it") I also meant to include that the issues remained after the war, otherwise known as during Reconstruction... oops.
I would like to take a different perspective than most of the other blog posts. I think that the thing reconstruction needed was an physiological change and a change in attitude in the north and south. WHile physical aid and restoration of the south is important it does not touch the underlying problem that caused the issue. As we have seen in RAFW people today are still very angry about what is happening in the government. After Lincoln was elected, the southern states felt that they could not live in a country under his rule, and therefoe seceded. We are reaching a point where that is once again possible. Many people were interviewed saying that they would move if obama was elected and that it would destroy the country. In reconstruction the focus needed to be on creating a fair democracy so that people can voice their opinions but also have to accept when they lose. This way we could lower anger and make a more productive coutnry.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing is that in reconstruction the north needed to treat the south with more respect. Because the north won the war they thought they could do whatever they wanted and treat the south anyway they wanted. However they should have offered financila aid for the decimated towns and to rebuild an organized society. The goal should have been to rebuild the south but to also industrialize it and give it industry. That way the south would not be put in the same position of reliance with the north and would not fell opressed. If these steps had been taken reconstruction would have had a much better long term effect.
I think that one of the biggest problems that was not addressed during reconstruction was the tension between the North and the South. Before the war, the South felt neglected and abused by the North. They fought to become one nation in order to have a an equal government. However, they lost so their goal was not achieved. The North, after winning, abused their power to destroy the South more by making them pay reparations to Maine, which no battles took place. This increased tension because not only did the South have to rebuild most states, but needed to waste some of that money paying the North. Instead of trying to get what ever they could out of the victory, the North should have been more focused on creating a unified nation where both sides came together to rebuild a new nation; therefore, stopping the division of today which is exemplified in Right America: Feeling Wronged. I definitly think that the North should have put aside their pride and need to feel superior in order to unify the nation and ease tensions. Because the differences in opinions between the two sides was never mollified during reconstruction, the country has suffered the consequences for the past 150 years, and only now that there is a Black president have the results of the Civil War started to show. Like Alex said, reconstruction was not about the physical damage done but an opportunity to start over as one unified nation.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I think we can measure the success of the reconstruction plan in a simple way: do effects of the Civil War still linger today? I'll go ahead and answer YES.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the reconstruction plan became one of those things were somebody (like the President) did not follow through with his word, and allowed more and more leniency. Essentially, reconstruction fell apart after the war, and like the article said, it has continued for 147 years until the inequality took a major leap forward. And also, like Alex said, in RAFW, people like us on the east coast in Westport-Land really have no clue about what is going on in the midwest and south, and how those people feel. When they were exposed in the video, it seemed so blatant to me that civil war still lingered in the south and midwest.
What need to be addressed was unity for once and for all, I honestly think that even today it is present. If Johnson had returned the country to where it was before the war I honestly think the southern attitudes and even destitution in some cases would be as bad.
Finally, I'd like to relate the civil war in the fact that the North did not reach with open arms to the South after the war, is connected to the wealthy class vs poor classes today. It was the Union who caused the pain of the South to linger, the South was their poor class. And in modern day, the rich still subject the poor class to a continuing cycle of destitution and pressure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere were many issues that needed to be addressed. As a principle, like Sarah and Bailey have stated, the federal government had a responsibility to reinvest and slowly reestablish trust with the Southern states. If the North wanted to perpetuate the union and build a long term working relationship with Southern states, then it would have been in the federal government's best interest to economically aid the struggling South. This could mean the implementation of Henry Clay's American system, as Sarah stated, along with temporarily lowering Southern taxes. However, I would disagree with Sarah regarding her support for high tariffs; creating interdependence between the North and South was a long term goal, and thus the high tariffs should not have been forced upon the South in their time of economic anguish. Southerners would by no means change their cultural ways overnight- realistically, weaning these states off of an agriculturally based economy would be a long process of many years. The Federal Government should have made it clear that if Southern states were to cooperate and gravitate away from the slave holding lifestyle, then Southern states would be able to receive federal grants implementing Industrialism. Laconically, the point of reconstruction was to circumspectly readmit formerly Confederate States to the Union, while ensuring that these states would no longer support any type of slavery and would also become less economically polarized from the North. In order to allow Reconstruction to succeed on a level of scruple, American troops should have been present in the South much longer than 1877. Andrew Johnson should not have supported the removal of troops this early, despite the desires of Southern Traditionalists. Although the South may have been more intertwined on an industrial level with the North at this point, it was by no means yet willing to accept blacks as equals, nor slavery as an immoral and unacceptable facet in society. Andrew Johnson should have understood that the end of slavery would not come until black codes, lynching, and insidious ownership of human beings, regardless of race, were abolished. Ending slavery should have been a priority, and in this aspect, Reconstruction was highly unsuccessful; Southerners continued to rely on unjust forms of labor and inequality to fund their economy, rather than on the benefits of Industrialism. Thus, in many ways Reconstruction failed. Just as the article alludes to, it is no wonder that it took until 2008 for a black man to be declared the American President. Reconstruction temporarily provided hope to some blacks that things would be different and that equality would become a reality. Unfortunately, the year of 1877, when a Federal majority supported convenience over justice, represented the beginning of another long struggle among blacks to prove to Southerners that race is profoundly insignificant.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all i think that it was interesting that at the end of the "Finishing Our Work" article by Friedman states that " None of this will be easy... There is just so much work to be done. The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin." I thought this was interesting as it implies that Reconstruction after the Civil War was not effective in the sense of equalizing African American's and Whites. In response to the question "how can you measure the efficacy or success of the recovery plan?" I think that you must have no remnants of the previous problems. As Martin Luther King stated, " One hundred years later, the Negro still is not free" it proves how the success of Reconstruction was minimal and not efficient.
ReplyDeleteThe priorities for Reconstruction should have been to provide a sense of unity between the North and the South. As the "deep sense of loss...lasted in the South for over a century" and the war took so many lives it is important to attempt to appease hostility as much as possible. Additionally, it was said that "the North wouldn't let us govern ourselves... and Congress laid tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled." This answers the question that so many people have been asking: (Why did the South secede?) Therefore, another priority the government should have taken into account during Reconstruction was to ensure that the South was not alienated and given the equality it wanted. Of course, slavery played an immense part in the War and was abolished during Reconstruction. I find it interesting that the South wanted to be equal with the North, yet were not allowing different races to be equal.
For the short term, as any country is required to do after a war, both the Union and the Confederacy needed to repair the nation. Sherman’s March reduced a trail through Georgia and the Carolinas to ashes, and, given that most of the war was fought on Confederate territory, the rest of the region was beyond demolished. Half the nation was broken. If the Union was going to claim the upper hand, which, by winning a war they insisted on, they did, it needed to find a way to rebuild the Southern region that would help get the nation back on its feet. The Union had control over the federal government. The federal government had the capability to direct the nation. If, under the Union, the federal government was going to claim supreme power over the southern states for (what they claimed to be, at least) disobeying the Constitution, re-destroying the South with punitive, restrictive acts would take the nation back to square one. The federal government had the responsibility to help the South back up. Not to beat it back down.
ReplyDeleteFor the long term, both sides, the Union and Confederacy, needed to address the cause of the war. Now, before any of you accuse me of being ignorant, as, from the articles in the previous blog, we know that the states never agreed on the cause of the Civil War, hear me out. Rather than trying to figure out whose fault it was, they needed to figure out why or how the two regions were so at odds with each other. In a perfect Reconstruction era, the Union and Confederacy would not have tried to point the blame on each other. They would forget about punitive actions, and focus on goals for moving forward. Unfortunately, the Civil War was pretty much two regions fighting over which was to blame, so I realize that it would be extremely unrealistic to expect “perfect Reconstruction.”
That said, I think the priorities of Reconstruction were to get the federal government under the Union back in supreme power, to secure its position over the South. Given that the Confederate states declared secession because of hints of sovereignty though, I don’t see how trying to fortify an even stronger federal government made any logical sense. The priority should have been to build a stronger country, not government. I’ll admit that I don’t have good evidence for this, but I think there was too much confusion over what the government really represented. The government was considered to stand for the country. In many cases, people considered the security of the government to also be the security of the nation. Priorities were inside out because of that.
I agree that the most important thing after the war was for the North to lose some of its pride and rebuild the South for their (the South's) benefit. The war was basically a lose-lose situation for the North; if they lost, they lost half their nation; if they won, they either had to compromise with the South or do what they chose and face the risk of more civil/domestic hostility. I don't really think the war came to an end due to a "pursuit of the common good," but rather because the South just literally ran out of manpower, supplies, and money to fight the war. Therefore, the North came out as the victor, but when one wants to reunite with someone, he should not go about doing so by forcing anything unwanted upon the other party.
ReplyDeleteSince it was the North who wanted the "Union," and the South actually cared more for the states than the union, the North should have been the one to sacrifice. Clearly, this is not what happened. The North decided to basically implement a policy of "return to normalcy," in economic and social terms. One huge issue of course was slavery, and following the concept of pleasing the South, the North should not have touched the institution. Fortunately, slavery was abolished, but unfortunately, the nation returned to the "normal" state of racial inequality. When the South was reconstructed, the North ended up with the same economic benefits; somehow, the south kept a feudalistic social class structure that satisfied their prejudiced beliefs (in terms of race) while also ridding of slavery itself.
What really happened after the war was that the South lost, the former slaves lost, the poor lost, and the North lost but didn't realize that they were trapped between a resentful southern half of the nation and their own desire to return to normalcy, which was the situation that led to the war in the first place. There was no way to win. Personally, I value the people more than the nation because the nation is just a "political" representation of the people, and would be nothing if not for the people. To satisfy all the people of the nation, pride would have to be given up to compromise and equalize. Benefitting the “Union” is just not benefitting the people.
-TY
Some of the issues that must be addressd is the fact that they are all one union and they must work together in order to rebuild the nation. Nationalism must raise and they must turn what was once a horribel situation to a much better one. They must initially physically fix the structues and roads that were burned down and destroyed. They must fix the industries and crops that were ruined which will then increase and better the economy. The must enfore the fact that staying as one is the most critical and important part of reconstruction. The south muyst also adapt to the abolishment of slavery and they must make up for what they are now lacking. There must have been tension between the northerners and southerners. Even though there were many northerners who were opposed to the war, the southerners might generalize them as the enemy. This will not only be a social problem but it will also be an economic problem due to the partnering of busiensses. Many of the problems can be attributed to the citizens. If they would put aside there differences they would have to get along. They would also have to put aside their views and do what is better for the whole country rather than what will benifit themselves. The goverment was not responsible for their actions and views and rather it was the people that needed to make a change. What were the priorities of reconstruction? The people should have realized what was important. They should understand that it wasn't about the north vs. the south and rather it was how the UNITED states can become a better place. The people may have to sacrifice their needs for the bettering of the country. It is meassurable by the time it takes and the amount that is achieved. To tell if it was the best it could have been was if the people were able to put it behind them and not sterotype whether they were from the north or the south. It would be apparent if it was effecient if the southerns did not go around the law with black codes and rather they would accept defeat, they would accept the fact that they no longer had slaves and they moved on.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree the nation needed to have worked together during Reconstruction. As Avery Craven, from the civil war causes packet we received, says, "After four years of bloody strife, one side was beaten into submission and the other had its way in national affairs. The emergence of modern America was largely the product of that outcome" (Stampp). If one side is to get only its way, the other side will have built up resentment and get more upset for losing the war. If the North really wanted the South to be part of the union again, they should have acted like the South was. A relationship had to be immediately rebuilt between the North and South so that there wouldn't be as much built up tension as there is even today. However, even if the North made compromises with the South in national affairs, there would still be some tension, since the South still lost the war and no one side can be completely happy.
ReplyDeleteI also do wish that the South would accept that they no longer had slaves, as well. Segregation should not be legal, thanks to the fourteenth amendment, and the whole concept of "separate but equal" is just so contradictory; however, the South felt so strongly about the inequality of black people and so did Northerners. Northerners partially didn't care if they had slaves or not because they did not have an economic need for them thanks to industrialization. Taking away slavery does not renounce Northern prejudices. I agree that Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the fourteen amendment, but at the same time, these are compromises for the South since they lost their slaves. If the South wanted to be on better terms with the North, it would seem like allowing for segregation would be one solution. However, as Salmon P. Chase said, there is a way to combine politics with morals. I do think that the Jim Crow Laws should have never been passed, but rather that every white include blacks in civil and political affairs to eventually see how enlighting and intelligent blacks can be. The only issue with this idea is that it would take time, especially with the South. Even today, we ALL still have racial prejudices, just at a more implicit, unconscious level.
Everyone has touched on a bit how southerners should have been more accepting of the end of slavery and not tried to cling to it as much as they did (and some still do). I'd like to expand on this, mostly on the psychological reasons behind the south's unwillingness to move on.
ReplyDeleteI think that most Confederate soldiers were aware that they were not fighting for slavery in the Civil War. At the time, as we have learned, the fight was mostly about the issue of states' rights vs. federal rights. However, I think that after losing the war, Confederacy-loyal southerners wanted to cling to the ideals of the war, and passed that sentiment down through the generations. As the cause of the Civil War in general knowledge of U.S. history was over-simplified into being about slavery, so did descendants of the Confederate soldiers begin to over-simplify their ideals for siding with the Confederacy. Instead of focusing on the ideal of states' rights, descendants began focusing on an ideal of slavery in their intended loyalty to their ancestors that glorified the practice more than the original fighters for it pre-Civil War. This is what led to things like the man in "Right America, Feeling Wronged" claiming that black people shouldn't vote, and books like Gone With the Wind that glorify slavery.
Over time, descendants of the Confederacy have come to cling to slavery almost more than their ancestors, which has led to even more separation between the north and south, as northerners continue to feel morally and intellectually superior to southerners.
Going back to what James said, I think he is completely correct when he says that reconstruction has not succeeded. We still have many issues. George Washington included in his farewell address "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination". I do not think there is a more accurate description of the problems that caused the civil war than this. Salmon Chase, before the civil war began crafting a new political group. This later developed into he republican party. Although it was not formally established, it played a large role in the civil war. With the establishement of a second party, the south lost all control. Not only did the north control essentially the entire voting system, but now there was a second party aimed at disrupting the south's traditions and set ways. After the civil war, no one bothered with the bipartisanship that was spreading through the country. This single handedly has caused on of the biggest disagreements in American history. While in the articel it described the election of Obama as the end of the civil war it is really not. His lection was very similiar to Lincolns. If you look at this map (First on the Page) http://www.patriotnewsalert.com/ElectionMap2008.htm you will see that a majority of the space in the coutnry voted for McCain. However the wealthy, high class, coast living democrats were able to overpower the rest of the country. WE have fallen back into a state where certain areas of the country have almost complete control of the elections. Why then has another civil war not started? It is because as Zinn said, we are able to please enough people so that the rebels cannot gain enough power to make change. I think bipartisanship was something that caused the civil war yet was not even touched on during reconstruction.
ReplyDelete(FYI: I hate this because I just wrote the single best piece of writing in the history of ever, and then the website decided to delete it all when I clicked post...so I'm gonna try to recreate it to the best of my ability!)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to touch off of some of Blythe's points. First of all, I somewhat disagree with her thought that most Confederate soldiers thought they were not fighting for slavery in the Civil War. However, while I agree that they were largely fighting regarding the issue of states' and federal rights, one of the tenets of the Confederacy was the practice of slavery. In fighting for states' rights, they were, really, fighting for slavery, right?
This is kind of random, but during Around the Horn, I really became interested in Robert E. Lee. Lee, the leader of the Confederate army, said, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." It's pretty much well-established at this point that Lee did not support slavery, and the sole reason he was fighting for the Confederacy was because his home state, Virginia, was a member of it. Something I find really interesting, though, is that Lee promised the black soldiers in his army emancipation after the war. I'd like to pose a question to the class: do you think in doing so, Lee was defying his beloved Virginia? I really find myself questioning Lee, because if he is against slavery and was only fighting for his coincidentally Confederate home state, is Lee a truly honorable American? I know this is not really what we've been talking about, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and would love to hear what others think.
I think that essentially, the biggest obstacle that needed to be overcome in order for effective reconstruction for the whole country was a matter of pride. Over the course of the Civil War, the North had destroyed the South in more ways than one. Physically, as we can see in this picture, severe damage was done to Southern cities and general industry. Sherman’s March is probably the best example; his “neckties” (pieces of railroad tied around trees) show that he intentionally destroyed a large part of the railroad system. As we know, the South differed from the North in that it had more plantations and farmland, and railroads were vital in transporting their raw materials to other parts of the country. But Sherman did not just raze the landscape; he also devastated communities of people. Entire cities were wiped out, and the people living in them lost all faith in the North. How can anybody say they are fighting for unity in the country when they go and walk all over one half of the people?
ReplyDeleteThe point of this is that the North, in order to truly regain the respect and trust of the South, needed to admit that they had done wrong. Specifically, they needed to pay a certain portion of reparations for the damage they had inflicted on the southern states. Furthermore, they needed to address the wishes of the South in regards to economy and government. Although there are always conflicting ideas, the South played a key role in trade and production of natural resources for the North. Northerners needed to recognize that they could no longer just use the South as a puppet in their goal for power and success, but must work with the nation as a whole to reconstruct after the War between the States.
Reconstruction failed to complete the objective it was meant for: to take care of the problems that resulted in the Civil War. Yes, the issue of slavery was settled, it was made illegal everywhere, but that was only part of the issue. The North and South were driven to war because of their deep rooted differences, their lack of of ability to make compromises, and the way that the Northern states had more presence in the federal government and were putting unfair taxes on the South. Reconstruction's goals needed to be first and foremost to reach a reunification, a realization that all the states were ONE COUNTRY that needed to work together. To do this, there needed to be more uniform laws considering the blacks, they needed to have rights everywhere or nowhere, it did not work when these laws varied from state to state, shown by the Dred Scott case. Aside from the laws, there needed to be more of an effort for the Southern and Northern political parties to get along in Washington, or at least have reasonable discussions so that compromises could be made that worked for both parties, not just for one. These two regions could have only lived in harmony if they could communicate with one another and be able to approach each other on important issues, not just decide on their own what they wanted and not be open to discussion because that way only one side wins and the other is left on its own with nothing else to do but to scorn the other side. These discussions would be especially important with taxing, the North could not have acted like it did pre-Civil War and tax whatever they wanted in the South, they needed to work together and make agreements. Bottom line, both sides needed to accept that they were under one union and move on together by making compromises that were fair to both sides.
ReplyDelete