ole As compared to the average dissassociated person on the street who's only knowledge of a topic may be what they've seen on T.V. or in a movie.
At least most of the people taking part in this disscusion have some basis of knowledge, biased or not.
HankC wrote: If you disliked reconstruction, what did you like about the next 100 years?
I do not dislike Reconstruction. I do not like the first historians misrepresenting it to us, like those boys form the Dunning school..or those Southern "lost Cause" boys. I think the next ten years years is gong to be tough or if Obama rolls "Box Cars" on his bets on our future then 20 years tough years ahead....
We like to say some company's are "too big to let fail". I think the world knows we are "too big to let fail" so I think that will be our saving grace in then coming years..If we fail then watch the world burn!!
5fish wrote: Reconstruction horrors are nonthing but fallacy. At the end of Reconstruction, the Southern states were all under the control of X-confederates and the Freedman labour was back under white control.
These vile names Carpetbaggers, Scalawgs and Radicals are all vile names to label the people who were trying to bring progressive change to the south but were crushed the the enbitted whites of the redeemer movement.....
I know the Reconstruction period quite well and the Reconstruction interpretation of your's come from the Dunning school which basically describes those years from 1865 to 1877 as the darkest days in our nation history. It is a false interpretation for if you read about the period you see the white southerns complained about freedman and that x confederates were not allowed to vote. You do not read about starving people in the streets but you do read that allot of once rich people were now just average.
There was this redeemer movement that rose up of white x-confederates that slowly regain power in each state accusing the progressives of corruption and promising keep the whites safe from the Freedmen. So by 1877 redeemers control every state of the old confederacy and within years of 1877 the Supreme Court rules "separate but equal" and the "Jim Crow" laws come in full force by 1890's.
By 1877 the Freedmen labor was well under the control of the whites in the x-confederate states..
How active were these 'progressives' in advancing the rights of blacks in northern states? Or were they active at all?
How active were these 'progressives' in advancing the rights of blacks in northern states? Or were they active at all?Sadly, not as active as they should have been. Or, perhaps more accurately, not as successful as they should have been.
I don't think, however, that the inability of the North to put in to practice some of the things the South was being asked to do during Reconstruction should be used to judge the merits of those ideas. Suffrage, equal rights, etc., were laudable and necessary. It would have been nice, though, if all Northern states were practicing what the government was preaching to the South.
I just found this thread, as it was on the main page, and i could talk about Reconstruction all day. So if people are interested in reviving the thread, I'm game.