Reconstruction policies took many forms in its ten-year duration. And surely, it is important to distinguish between policies that were meant to restore political stability to the Union and those that brought rapid change (i.e. Civil Rights amendments).
What is undeniable, is that Reconstruction was an attempt to change society, even if critics argue it was a failed one. Is Reconstruction the proper term? Does the act of reconstruction imply that an institution is torn down and rebuilt from scratch? Would a better word be redemption or maybe even restoration?
Pick a handful of specific examples from tonight's reading to help illustrate your point.
The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870. They were the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire populace, including the former slaves and their descendants. Reconstruction is not a proper name because they did not fully rebuild from this. Also, no it does not mean that an institution is torn down and rebuilt from scratch. I don’t think they should give it any name because nothing really was that special to name it in history. One example of why they should not call this reconstruction is on the last page when they say, “Their dream was partially thwarted, just as America’s constitutional myth has it, through compromises worked out within the convention itself.” It was only a partial reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteAfter the reading, I believe that Reconstruction is the proper term for what they wanted to do, but it is not what they did. Reconstruction implies that the country is being re-built, from the bottom up and that is not what happened. If we were truly reconstructing, tearing the country down and starting from scratch, we would not have Sharecropping, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws. I think that a better term would be Restoration. Restoration is defined as, "the act of restoring; renewal, revival, or reestablishment," while Reconstruction is defined as, " to reconstruct or form again." An obvious effect that Reconstruction had on the South was that, "women and children abandoned the fields, and even black males cut back." Not only was the Souths income, " 40 percent below the countries average… Great Britain and other importers had shifted their purchases to India, Brazil, and Egypt." Reconstruction was about re-growth of a nation, unfortunately for the South, they were floundering. Sharecropping, exploded after Reconstruction. "The sharecropper worked small plots of twenty to fifty acres under one-year contracts that split the harvest with the landowner," I imagine that this made the landowners happy and the African Americans that now had their own land, but the poor white southern farmers, must have been livid. Reconstruction not only changed southerner's lives but Northerners as well; " the south of course would never be the same, but the transformation in the both was also profound and permanent." Not only did, "the number of civilian's in [working] [in] federal [jobs]" skyrocket, " a [once] distant administration… transformed into an overbearing bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with taxes, drafts, surveillance, subsidies, and regulations."
ReplyDeleteThe term "Reconstruction" is not a proper term to describe the truth. By contrast, "Restoration" seems more proper. "Reconstruction" was meant to rebuild the United States after the damage of Civil War, but the truth was that the "Reconstruction" didn't bring black people out of the hardnesses, "half slave and half free" was actually nothing but limiting. If "Reconstruction" is a proper term, those black people should had a better treatment. At the same time, the appear of KKK was also an example why "Reconstruction" is not proper because "Reconstruction" suppose to make things better without cause big problems. Yes, the "Reconstruction" did fix some problems caused by the Civil War (schools and the environment were improved, etc.), but if it was proper, the United States should be called "Union" instead of "nation" because "Reconstruction" is "rebuild", not changing the origin. Because the action fix some problems and helped improving people's lives, it still had a huge space to be improved without causing big problems and bring negative effects, so, instead of 'Reconstruction", "Restoration" might seem a little more proper——you cannot always ensure that "Restoration" is perfect and successful.
ReplyDeleteI think that Restoration would have been a better term to describe this time period. Reconstruction portrays an image of a better version of what was standing before. All in all I do not believe the country was in better conditions after the war. I think they were still in the same state of mind but acted differently instead of continuing a war. Restoration would be a better word. Even though they lost a lot of money during the war they had to try to restore the country differently from before. Restoration would have been a better word also because during the war the country was very much divided, in order to fix or recover that division the country had to be "restored" as one. Reconstruction only works in the literal and physical damages that the war left behind in the south.
ReplyDeleteI also believe restoration would have been a better word to describe the Reconstruction era. Restoration is implying that they are make better what was once old and outdated while Reconstruction means they are creating something entirely new by starting from scratch. Also, reconstruction leaves little room for negative affects as all are good, it being totally new while restoration has room for negativity as it keeps its same old structure and foundation; if it was totally new it would not have been built with domestic terrorist organizations like the KKK, have laws such as the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, and racial inequality.The United States desperately needed this reform with Lincoln's Attorney General saying, "The demoralizing affect of this civil war is plainly visible in every department of life. The Abuse of official powers and the thirst for dishonest gain are so common now they cease to shock."
ReplyDeleteI think the term reconstruction does suit what was occurring during this time period. In my opinion, Reconstruction means to build up what was already there and then adding some more things to try to make it better. Being built back up was the status quo of our country. The Amnesty Act of 1872 gave political rights back to the confederacy. The Wade Davis Bill and 10 % Plan were only issued to gain confederate sates back. It is as if they were reconstructing America back together and re-insertng the missing puzzle pieces. But, reconstruction also consists of adding new things. These "renovations" would be the policies toward the black population. The constitution was re-constructed with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that freed blacks from slavery, gave them the ability to vote and hold office. This cannot be described as "restoration" because restoring something implies that it was already there and these rights were not even close to what existed before the war.
ReplyDeleteI think a better word would be Restoration. It is wrong to say that the way Southerners should be changed to fit the norms of the North. Having Slaves was a wrong-doing by America, and totally goes against the Declaration of Independence; "...that all men are created equal.". I don't believe that the North had any right to change and inherit the South economy or way of life, but they did have every right to emancipate slaves. Slavery was unjust and unfair to a lot of people and was against the Declaration of Independence. That was the only thing that should have been changed about the South, therefore "reconstruction" is too harsh of a term.
ReplyDelete