Blog #164 – Reconstruction Historiography
As a refresher on historiography, in essence, it’s the history of the history of a topic or time period. Historiography analyzes how history has been written in the past and how different interpretations of events. For instance, historians in the 1850s would look at the events of the American Revolution differently than historians in the 1950s and differently than those living in 2024. Each historian is shaped by their own biases and time period – for instance, if a historian wrote during a time period where there was economic turmoil and depression, those current events might likely shape how that historian views older events. Also, the study of American history before the 1950s had been predominantly a white male enterprise which only focused primarily on political, economic, and diplomatic topics, but since the 1950s and the Civil Rights Movement, more and more female historians and historians of color entered the field who showed a light on peoples’ stories that hadn’t been told before by white male historians. They also expanded the field of history to include social, cultural, and women’s histories. Here is a quote on the importance of historiography:
“Historiography allows us to understand the wide range of historical interpretations and how differing perspectives have shaped the representations of historical fact. It helps us adopt a more critical lens in understanding history as relative, as a subject that has been manipulated by those telling it and reclaimed by those who have participated in it. It encourages to seek out the biases in historical accounts and understand the subjective nature of historical writing.” (citation).
So, the period of Reconstruction is one that had been dominated by a racist view of the leading historians of the time period until the 1950s. Essentially, it was written from a white Southerner point of view, and Reconstruction was seen as a tragic era where Southern whites were the victims of incompetent Blacks and corrupt white Republicans. Early Black historians like William Wells Brown and George Washington Williams writing in the 1870s and 1880s saw the period as tragic because the freedmen had been elevated beyond their previous status without proper preparation: “The government gave him [the freedmen] the statute-book when he ought to have had the spelling book; placed him in the Legislature when he ought to have been in the school-house.” (Williams). They thought that the establishment of public schools in the South was one of the only good things to come out of Reconstruction.
One fictional work that influenced the upcoming Dunning School of Reconstruction (see video below) was the popular novel, The Clansman, by Thomas Dixon in 1905. It was an “unabashed celebration of the Ku Klux Klan” that saved the South from Radical Republicans’ attempt to “Africanize” the South. This novel served as the basis for the hugely popular film, Birth of a Nation, released in 1915 to wide acclaim and massive audiences.
In the old school or William Dunning interpretation, Reconstruction was a miserable failure that blundered in giving freedmen their rights (which they weren’t ready for for a variety of reasons, but usually racist theories about intelligence and human nature), but Andrew Johnson and the Klan were portrayed as the heroes of the era because they tried to ease the country back together painlessly (Johnson) and pushed for restoration of home rule (Klan). Reconstruction governments were filled with scalawags and carpetbaggers who corrupted the states and raised taxes. The true victims here during this period were Southern whites. In this old school, we see a major critique of the federal government’s expansion and exercise of federal power over the states. Behind much of this interpretation is the opinion that was popular at the turn of the 20th Century that white people of Anglo-Saxon (English) or Northern European descent were superior to the rest of the world. We see a lot of this nonsense in the previously mentioned silent blockbuster from 1915, Birth of a Nation and the epic Gone With the Wind in 1939. Part of the reason that this Dunning School of Reconstruction had such a lasting impact was that there was a huge push towards reconciliation in the late 19th Century, and William Dunning’s book on Reconstruction was full of heavily researched details which set the standard for Reconstruction histories going forward.
In the 20th Century, Black historians like W.E.B. DuBois depicted Reconstruction as a tragedy because of its failure to secure civil rights for African Americans throughout the country in his 1935 book, Black Reconstruction (link to the audio book on YouTube here). While he stated that there were minor successes like education for Black Americans, he lamented the violence that racist whites inflicted upon Black Americans – lynching had reached peak numbers in the 1890s, and white society attributed this to inherent Black criminality (but we all know the real story).
Later on in the mid to late 20th Century, under some of the new interpretations, especially the Progressive and Neo-Progressive / New Left historians in the 20th Century, the Dunning interpretation is flipped on its head. Andrew Johnson was a racist who stood in the way of the idealist Radical Republicans who wanted to give freedmen their full and equal rights. The Klan was not the protector of the South but a haphazard terrorist organization that kept blacks from voting and intimidated both whites and blacks in the South. And the Southern state governments, Republican by nature, may or may not have helped out the freedmen. One thing is certain: the governments, from the local (Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall) and state all the way up to the federal level (see the Grant administration) were corrupt. Moral standards were low during this time period and many people (as we’ll see in one of our next units) are in it to make a quick million or two. Here is an extended interview with historian Eric Foner on Reconstruction who wrote the most influential book on Reconstruction in the past 40 years (also one of my favorite living historians).
Please watch the following Crash Course on Black American history to use as additional evidence for your opinions on Reconstruction:
Your job: Briefly discuss the importance of historiography, and explain which historians’ interpretation of Reconstruction you either agree or disagree with the most and why. Use your notes, readings of primary sources and the textbook, articles and videos (Amend, episode 2 among others) to back up your thoughts on this topic.
Historiography analyzes how history has been written and the different interpretations of it. This is important because it educates people on what happened at the time period they focused on and people’s different perspectives on it. Which is vital to ensure that not only one side of a story is being heard. For example when the topic of slavery is being discussed it’s important to hear the slaves’ voices rather than just privileged whites at the time. As some whites at the time would say that slavery “wasn’t that bad” or that they were treated fine. While of course listening to slaves’ horrific stories unveils the truth at that time. Viewing everything with an open mind allows people to see the positives and negatives at that time much like Dubois did with his interpretation on reconstruction. I agree with his perspective the most as it doesn’t “sugarcoat” the failures of reconstruction. Dubois recognizes the few accomplishments that did occur during this time like education for black americans. However reconstruction was a horrific time for many blacks. While they were “freed” they weren’t treated like equals, they were resented for their newly acquired freedom. Many faced discrimination and endured beatings when trying to apply their human right to vote. And while blacks technically could vote, and apply for higher up jobs it was highly unrealistic. Thousands of lynchings had occured around the country, including the northern states where blacks also faced heavy racism. These lynchings were brutal but for the whites it was another day, dressing in their sunday best to view these horrific acts. The federal government was no assistance to these freed blacks. The federal government even passed laws that stated they cannot interfere with discrimination in private businesses. So when blacks and whites began to be seperated, for example in trains, there was nothing to be done. I align with DuBois’s view rather than Dunning’s as his is racist and outdated. While Dunning states that reconstruction was a “miserable failure” his viewpoints include the fact that the newly freed blacks were not ready for these rights because of their “lack of intelligence” or other racist theories. Dunning’s stance also victimizes southern whites which is anything but the truth as these were the people in control. Overall Dubois’s interpretation serves as most accurate by acknowledging improvements at the time but also the severely disappointing progress made on racial equality at the time.
Historiography is important so that historians can analyze historical events through many perspective. Learning about history through different viewpoints helps us be at the most educated position to wholistically interpret it and understand the motives/effects of events. Usually, a single perspective can exaggerate certain features of history, and gloss over other parts in order to fit their narrative. Moreover, learning about the process of historiography can help us be more aware of how our biases affect the way we view our history. For reconstruction, it’s especially important to study different attitudes because it’s an often misunderstood part of history, and there are a vast variety of interpretations based on your perspective. The old Dunning interpretation (from the late 1800s) painted Reconstruction as a failure because it gave rights to freedmen, and painted the KKK and Andrew Johnson as noble heroes for trying to preserve southern culture/slavery. This perspective was underpinned by ideas of white supremacy and saw African Americans as an inferior race. On the other side of the spectrum, 20th century interpretations by Black historians and Progressives portrayed Johnson as racist and the KKK as a brutal terrorist organization, preventing freedmen from exercising rights and reaching equality. I agree with the Progressive view of reconstruction, because I believe that the only way the Dunning interpretation can be accepted is if you believe in race superiority, which I obviously don’t. Since the late 1800s, white supremacy has been disproven by science and experiences, and so I think the New Left school of thinking is most prevalent. Up until the civil rights movement, however, it seems like the old school interpretation influenced politics and public opinion. The Amend episode highlighted the Dunning interpretation may have contributed to/been influenced by court rulings that disenfranchised Black people. For example, the slaughterhouse cases curtailed the 14th amendment by strengthening state control. Also, the 1883 Civil Rights cases stated that African Americans would only be protected by the government from discrimination/violence inflicted by public actors. This gave a legal shield to private harassment and violence. Later, the old school interpretation may have supported the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, which glamorized the ‘old south,’ and was popularized through movies like ‘The Birth of a Nation’ and ‘Gone With the Wind.’
Historiography is important because it allows the person trying to learn about a topic to get multiple views on something, making their information more reliable. Things that align in all sources will be more reliable than things that don’t align because it is possible that some historians may have a bias on certain topics. For example, the southern racist view which was the only main viewpoint written up until the 1950’s, was biased against African Americans. Historiography allows access to all viewpoints, so if a person is looking for a biased view, or a non-biased one, they should have the opportunity to find something. The interpretation that I most agree with was W.E.B DuBois’ idea that reconstruction was not successful because it did not provide equal rights for all citizens. During reconstruction, African Americans were lynched, harmed, and killed all because the government tried to give them more rights and protection. Although reconstruction helped bring the southern states back into the union, it still failed to fully address the real issue at hand. White southerners and even some northerners refused to abide by the 14th amendment stating that the African Americans had equal rights. They did not want to accept that they were a part of society, and instead chose to harm them to try to keep them from doing anything that may threaten the white man even in the slightest. I most disagree with the racist white southerner view which occurred up until about the 1950’s. They were extremely biased and still bitter about losing the war and what that meant for their society, so their views were affected by their anger. They also spent all of their lives growing up with hatred towards African Americans which we can see being expressed through all their writing, ideas, and actions. I disagree with this idea both because it goes against my own views and I believe that it is the most biased of all interpretations. The white southerners refused to acknowledge the African Americans as citizens of their community, so they disregarded them and continued to see them as unequal despite laws that had been passed. The white southerners also felt that it was not okay what the government was doing to them, but also did not take into account the fact that they seceded from the union and tried to start a war.
Historiography is important because it analyses the history of the past and offers various different interpretations of historical events. This allows a nuanced understanding of history and the various possible interpretations of past historical events rather than a linear singular interpretation of past historical events. The personal interpretation of reconstruction that I think I agree with the most is the New Left interpretation of history. I believe that Johnson was a very racist person who didn’t want equal rights for black people and went out of his way to try and prevent many pieces of legislation that would have given black people more rights. All his vetoes are an example of this. More specifically, an example is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have given all people born in the US, regardless of race, citizenship, and it also acted as a shield toward US Black Codes in the South. I would also agree with their interpretation that idealist Radical Republicans wanted to give equal rights to black people but were prevented from doing so because Johnson acted as a sort of barrier. The vetoes are once again an example of Johnson being a sort of barrier. The Ku Klux Klan being a terrorist organization instead of a protector of the South is another point of agreement that I have with New Left historians. The Ku Klux Klan was a white supremacist organization that intimidated and, in many instances, even murdered black people. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, intimidated black people from voting, which is just one example of them trying to suppress the rights of black people. I guess the only thing I may disagree with the New Left historians on is Southern Republican governments not helping out black people. These Southern Republican governments did things like liberalize state constitutions and implement universal male suffrage, which included black people and allowed them to vote. I guess you can argue that they did not do enough? But arguing that they did absolutely nothing for freedmen seems like a huge stretch to me. For Example, I don’t understand how you can argue universal male suffrage as a nothing burger. To conclude, I feel like I agree with the New Left perspective the most, but we still may have disagreements on matters such as how much Southern Republican governments did for freedmen.
Historiography is very important, as it shows how the perception of history affected the history itself. The narrative of the Civil War in the late 1800s caused whites at that time to believe that the South was the victim of the war, and that black men were unable or incapable of participating in society. This resulted in terrorism and segregation in the U.S. As the story changed, so did the history. Racism evolved with the story and outright lynching and violence went away with it. The interpretation I disagree with most was the Dunning interpretation. Reconstruction wasn’t a complete failure but it definitely wasn’t what it needed to be at the time. Giving freed black people their rights was not a “blunder” in the way Dunning would put it, but it was not handled the way it should’ve been. African Americans were not animals nor less sophisticated than whites, however, they did have no money, and no way to make themselves money. This is what led to sharecropping and tenure farming. A few different things could’ve realistically been tried. Many former slaves only knew how to farm, of course, there were those who worked with horses or as black smiths, but they were scarce compared to the number of field hands. So, they needed to be given land to farm, which didn’t work very well (thanks Johnson), or they needed to be taught how to do something new. This meant schooling, but schooling was expensive so I would have proposed tuition money from the gov’t, allowing them to learn new skills and get new jobs. Rather than be trapped farming for the same master they were enslaved to before. Dunning also said that Johnson and the KKK were the saviors of the nation because they were trying to piece the nation back together. No, the KKK was trying to rip it apart by lynching, attacking, or brutally murdering African Americans in the South. There was no peacefulness. There was no unity, they wanted segregation and white supremacy. Johnson was trying to let the South do what it wanted and almost stay out of it completely, which would have resulted in slavery again. He directly conflicted with Congress and made it harder for African Americans when he pardoned ex-confederates and gave them their land back. This then took the land away from the African Americans who were farming it due to the Freedmen’s Bureau.
Histography is important because we get to see the various views of an event in different time periods and each person from the time periods has a different view. This way we can see how different events were interpreted depending on the bias or influence of the time period. I agree the most with W.E.B. Du Bois because he viewed the Reconstruction as a failure to obtain civil rights for African Americans. I also agree when he says it was a minor success because it secured education for African Americans. Overall, I agree with W.E.B. Du Bois because of the way he viewed Reconstruction and how it actually affected the United States. I also agree with the 20th-century historian’s interpretation because he mentioned how Johnson was a racist who stood in the way of Reconstruction. He also mentions how the Klan was a terrorist group that didn’t protect the South but intimidated blacks and some whites from exercising their civil rights, that were given to them by birth. The 20th-century historian also mentions how the Southern government may or may not have helped African Americans, I also believe this is true because the government didn’t stop the KKK from terrorizing African Americans, especially when they were trying to vote or express their opinions. I disagree with William Dunning’s interpretation of the Reconstruction Era because he thinks that Reconstruction was a blunder and shouldn’t have given African Americans their rights. He saw Andrew Johnson and the Klan as heroes of the South, trying to bring the country back together. Dunning also viewed the Reconstruction governments as full of scalawags and carpetbaggers trying to raise taxes and corrupt the states. He saw white southerners as the victims of this era because everything that they believed was being changed for the “worse” and wasn’t right which is the opposite of what was actually happening. All in all, there are various interpretations of historical events depending on what time period the problem is viewed in and who the writer is and what their beliefs are, for example, Dunning, who was white, saw reconstruction as something that was bad because southern whites were losing their power and African Americans were gaining rights while W.E.B. Du Bois, who was black, saw reconstruction as something that failed because African Americans didn’t obtain the civil rights they deserved and the only benefit of Reconstruction was the education system.
I think the most agreeable and realistic interpretation is the interpretation given by DuBois in the 1930s. He sees the Reconstruction era as a tragedy for not guaranteeing rights for black americans. He also highlights some of the good doing of the era, but without talking about how the blacks of the time were not fully guaranteed and seemingly given up on towards the end. Towards the end of the reconstruction era, most republicans gave up on the reconstruction of the south, and in the Compromise of 1877, at demand of the Democrats, president Hayes removed all remaining Union soldiers from the southern states. This left black people vulnarable to white mobs, lynchings, injustices, and many more wrongdoings done to them by the prejudice whites of the south. This was not the only way that the black were given up on, in the years following, specifically the 1880s and 90s, the Supreme Court seemed to strike down almost every law during the reconstruction that protected black Americans rights. This not only ended the Reconstruction era, but also Republican support of blacks. I think DuBois’ interpretation is very agreeable because he sees the injustices caused by not guaranteeing the black their rights. He also talks about how the reconstruction era created some positives for black. Some include schooling of over 300,000 blacks and the number of children being enrolled increasing and new churches, independent from the white dominated churches. These new churches created a community for blacks to be a part of. It also helped the leaders of many black communities emerge, which were the black ministers of these churches. Another positive is the short lived emergence of black in different government positions which was looked down upon by southerners. The southerners believed that the black were inferior to them and that they should be learning the basics of the whites rather than being in a leadership position. I however believe this helped the black gain their recognition in the north, and would eventually help push for the civil rights movements in the 1920-90s. That is why I believe DuBois has the most agreeable and realistic interpretation of the Reconstruction Era.
I believe that the William Dunning theory on reconstruction is immoral and blatantly false. We can start with the hypocrisy shown in this theory by white southerners that shocked me which was that now that black men are free, they will be too lustful and rape white women. This rule was not applicable to white slave owners who raped black women. They believed that equality was detrimental to white people. How does someone having the same rights as you personally inflict on yours? Examples include the Ku Klux Klan in which they used a lot of racist ideas of white supremacy to rationalize threatening black men with violence in order to scare them into not voting. Just because of the color of their skin, they believed they weren’t intelligent enough to vote and often infantilized them as clueless. The government lacked in protecting black people’s rights that were now embedded into the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. The only thing post-emancipation that the government really protected was reuniting families that were broken apart by slavery. They took records and missing posters of lost siblings, wives, and any other family members and attempted to relocate them to their families. Once those families were reunited, many of them struggled financially and certainly didn’t have enough to buy their own land. This resulted in a resort to sharecropping which is when someone who already has land (white men) allows a family to work on his land and provides supplies to farm the land. The tenant pays rent in the form of part of their crop. If they wanted to spend money, they often had to borrow money which lead to a continuous cycle of crippling debt. Although they weren’t enslaved, their lives were still dependent on a white man. I do think that it was wise that they opened more public schools. Now that black men were now granted the right to vote, they should be literate and versed on social issues. Not all black men had access to education while enslaved so it was important that they became properly educated before voting.
Historiography plays a large role in how people learn about history and what viewpoints they have on pivotal points from our past. For instance, historians pushing that African American people were well built for work and could do the work better than a majority of white people led incoming Americans to believe they should resort to slavery if it assisted them. These false truths that were shared as though they were a realistic history led to immense amounts of slavery in the south and concurred in a civil war that lasted 4 years, killing thousands, and finally liberating millions from their fates of unfair treatment and abuse. But, with this, the U.S. experienced a period of time where they worked on reconstructing, leading to more biased historiography that reacted to the overall not very helpful attempts at reconstruction. Leading to the topic of this blog, I believe that the most damaging and disagreeable historiography that was shared was the viewpoint of people who lived in the 1870s and 1880s. To begin with, this viewpoint encouraged the KKK to continue their acts of violence and the idiocy that Johnson pushed was praised. They believed that Johnson was correct for trying to ‘ease the country back together painlessly’ and that the KKK (a.k.a. Terrorists) was correct for pushing the ‘restoration of home rule’, as Mr. Wickersham so elegantly phrased it, while Jackson’s decisions from his presidency were coated in racism and idiocy and the KKK was a group of violent people that destroyed African American people’s property, as well as brutally murdering and maiming them. These actions being called ‘good work’ and ‘helpful methods of putting the country back together’ are incredibly stupid, to the point where you think that they are made up. Saying that violent acts towards people who are a different race than you are is okay is bizarre and incredibly incorrect and damaging to what people think. I find people who still agree with these viewpoints nowadays hilarious and laughable on more than one account and have made it known to them on more than one occasion that they are morons for believing it, so knowing that this was people’s realities for hundreds to thousands of years is not only disturbing, but highly upsetting, showing why the historiography these time periods is not only incorrect, but shows how time moving on has really advanced us as a society and corrected our history, thankfully.
When examining a particular historical event, taking a look at the various different historians who chose to interpret it can be a very valuable tool. Inspecting closely the circumstances, backgrounds, and perspectives that shaped certain historians’ views on a time period in American history and exploring each individual stance on the matter is crucial to gaining a fuller understanding of it. When investigating the various interpretations of Reconstruction specifically, the prominent types of historians around at the time and the emerging attitudes on racism and civil rights all play a part in the side each writer chooses to take. Beginning in the 1900s with the Dunning School, which commenced with the works of William Dunning, John W. Burgess, and their students, many historians adopted the point of view of white Southerners, who felt wronged at the “destructive” actions of radical Republican “carpetbaggers” and the advancement of “incompetent” African Americans. Those who subscribed to this school of thought believed in the idea that Reconstruction was a failure, and Black people should not have been allowed on the same level as white people, gaining too many rights too fast. In their eyes, white Republicans and African Americans were “Africanizing” and threatening the Southern way of life, and only organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan could regain control. Decades later, prompted by the Civil Rights Movement, often referred to as the Second Reconstruction, historians began to reevaluate this widely accepted way of thinking. Writers such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Kenneth Stampp emphasized the civil rights legislation passed by Radical Republicans, as well as the Northern reformers’ humanitarian work in the South. Even further down the line, modern historians have taken the complete opposite view from those in the Dunning School, stating that Reconstruction was nowhere near radical enough, and the rights of newly freed African Americans were not protected as they should have been. This is the way of thinking I personally align with, and I find the positions of the Dunning School members to be completely twisted. Even during the time of Reconstruction, when their freshly earned rights were being eroded left and right, Black Americans reached a level of success overlooked and diminished by those seeking to promote white supremacist ideals. Not only were there many Black politicians elected into office, as well as an increase in Black voters, but many HBCUs were founded that still exist today. Additionally, the fostering of communities across the country was a beautiful display of Black Americans’ strength and togetherness. White Southerners weren’t the terrified victims of Republican targeting either. As seen with Tulsa, Rosewood, and Wilmington, white Southerners hoping to intimidate their enemies destroyed carefully built communities without a second thought. Yet, when Black families struggled, they were met with the phrase “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps”. However, this can prove immensely difficult when white people have been given hundreds of years of a head start and continue to erase every step forward. Not only was every amendment and act created to help give Black Americans a starting push necessary, but the legislation did not go nearly as far as it should’ve. From the wording of the 14th Amendment to the constant weakening of it by the Supreme Court, Congressmen had the duty to make their stances firmer and stand by what was right. They failed to fully commit, but the achievements and groundwork laid by Black people during Reconstruction have lasted until the modern day, making the era necessary.
Reading about historiography and its application on Reconstruction after the Civil War, I think it plays a big role in people’s beliefs, especially when it comes to subjects like racism and such things. The known historiographers of that time were usually authors who wrote about these issues as a positive. These pro racism authors usually stood by their belief that the North was trying to “Africanize” the South by giving African Americans their rights and freedoms under the Constitution. These radical southern authors were also usually a part of racist associations such as the Ku Klux Klan and supported events that became casual in the South, such as lynching. On the other radical side of these authors are the ones that wrote for black rights and against slavery. Among these, a lot were ex slaves themselves and were now writing to open peoples views on slavery and racism. In fact, one of the most famous of these authors was WEB Du Bois, a black author who became famous writing about black history after the Civil War in his book Black Reconstruction, in which he described the Reconstruction as a complete failure to one of its goals of guaranteeing equal rights and protections for Africans Americans. I myself, agree more with Du Bois’ position, because of the quantities of evidence supporting him, like the numbers of lynchings that happened in the South at the time and the separations that still existed between races in public spaces. On top of these separations, the federal government was not doing much or at least not enough to solve these issues. There was in fact a Supreme Court ruling in that time that disallowed the federal government to protect people from discrimination if it was done by a “private person”, or in a “private location”. Although the South was still a danger zone for blacks and was still a horrible place to be in, I do think, like Du Bois, that Reconstruction had some positives like the more than 3 thousand public schools created to educate African Americans. Overall, I think that Reconstruction was a major failure, a big part of it being the bad political leadership after the war, but I also think it did accomplish its overall aims of reintegrating the ex Confederate states into the Union.
I believe historiography is an important field of research and study. By studying the circumstances of past historians we can get a more objective understanding of history because we are able to identify and remove any biases that may have been present. It helps historians realize that historical perspectives are constantly evolving and changing because of the conditions in the world and opens them up to exploring new ideas, or re-exploring old ones. It is also important because it recognizes that differences in technology and information are a factor when it comes to history. As new information presents itself, history needs to be adjusted to remain accurate and historiography helps identify and acknowledge the differences between then and now. In regards to interpretations of Reconstruction, there wasn’t one perspective that I felt was adequate to describe the period, but the one I agree with most was the perspective of African American historians such as W. E. B. Du Bois and John Hope Franklin. I think it’s important to highlight the positive changes in the era because they laid the foundation for later civil rights movements. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were monumental changes in the lives of black Americans and should be regarded as such. I also think it’s important to appreciate the emergence of African American leaders in politics like Blanche Bruce and Hiram Revels because it was a huge step up from slavery. However, in regards to this perspective, I also think that we cannot just ignore the wrong done in this time period. It’s important to acknowledge our mistakes and shortcomings so we can learn from them and grow as a country. So, solely focusing on the positive side of reconstruction would be superficial and inadequate. To have a full understanding of the Reconstruction time period, we should also recognize the 1980’s historical perspective of the government not doing enough during reconstruction. There were numerous failures of congress and the government in many aspects such as in preventing Klan violence and ensuring voting. A good historical evaluation of the time period needs to include and acknowledge not only these shortcomings, but some of the reasons behind them. Obviously there was hesitancy on the part of the government to anger the south and restart the war. Historians should acknowledge and include that in their analysis of the time. Overall, I think that the best perspective of Reconstruction would be a combination of multiple perspectives from different time periods .
Historiography is of great importance. Historiography provides the reader with various, multifaceted views that reflect the culture and sentiments of that period. Discussing historiography assists historians in understanding the truth and can aid people in finding the truth. For instance, The Lost Cause is a Southern myth surrounding the civil war that argues that slavery was a positive good and that it romanticized the Old South, citing it as a place of happiness and painting the southern Confederate soldiers as honorable soldiers. This interpretation is dishonest, and a historiography of this interpretation helps demonstrate the bias of people who support the Lost Cause myth and helps not only with disproving the falsities of some interpretations, such as the Lost Cause, but in addition, they reflect the sentiments of the people who write them and their beliefs. Such as Edward A. Pollard, a journalist who believed that slavery was good and glorified the South in his book The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. The historian I agree with the most is Web Du Bois. Contrary to the 20th-century southern white historian interpretation of reconstruction that depicted the Ku-Klux Klan and southerners as heroes and the Republicans as the villains interpretations of history akin to this are blatantly wrong, as they ignore the main cause of the Civil War, slavery, and ignore the morality of what the civil war strived to end near its finish. Meanwhile, Web Du Bois’ interpretation highlights the failure of reconstruction as a combination of widespread lynching and failure to protect the rights of African Americans from widespread prejudice and groups like the White League and the Ku Klux Klan. Web Du Bois’ interpretation of the Civil War is much more objective, as instead of trying to persuade readers of the glorified and romanticized old South, Web Du Bois’ instead focuses on the issues of reconstruction while acknowledging some of the good things that came out of it, such as improved education in the south and for African Americans. Ultimately, Web Du Bois’ interpretation of reconstruction holds the least apparent bias compared to other interpretations viewed from a Eurocentric or racially biased perspective. Web Du Bois’ relies more on facts than interpretations like the Lost Cause, as his judgment isn’t nearly as clouded as interpretations like the Lost Cause. Unlike an extremely biased interpretation, Du Bois utilizes objective facts like the number of lynchings and the increase in schools.
I disagree with the old interpretation of Reconstruction. Older historians say it was harmful to white people in the South, or jeopardized their rights, among other blatantly racist beliefs. In actuality, like The Dunning School video stated, many Democrats were being lousy or biased historians. Only showing people what they wanted to believe about the Reconstruction Era.
These “historians” had said that Northerners and the Republicans as a political party were illiterate and generally did not know how to deal with black people. They also created terribly harmful stereotypes, saying that black men were raping Southern women. While this may be true, these historians failed, or purposely did not recognize the fact that for hundreds of years white masters were raping their female black slaves, forcing them to give birth, and then denying the fact that those were their children.
They also believed that black people were not smart enough to be apart of politics, ultimately leading to the creation of the 15th amendment, which had the intentions of giving Black people the right to vote, but was not very effective because instead of granting people protections, it gave people immunities, which gave white people the ability to unfairly discriminate and deny black people voting rights. They did this by forcing tests for voting rights, making the tests for white people to vote significantly easier than the ones given to black people. The cost of voting was also around 30 dollars in today’s economy, and when making around only 200 dollars in a year, that is a lot of money.
All of the reasons construction was phased out before it could ultimately be accomplished contribute to the harmful and untrue stereotypes that are still pushed around about black people today. The idea that black men and women are violent by nature came from year and years of abuse by their masters, along with the idea that it was only black men raping southern white women. When you oppress and abuse a group of people for hundreds of years, of course they will use violence as a way to try to gain recognition, even more so when you ignore all of the attempts the group has used to gain equity in non-violent ways.
I agree with progressive and neo-progressive historians the most. The Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century brought about a reevaluation of Reconstruction. The historians in this period began to challenge the traditional narratives and highlight the African Americans’ pursuit to secure civil and political rights during Reconstruction. This shift in perspective reshaped public understanding of this era and illustrated the idea that “Andrew Johnson was a racist who stood in the way of the idealist Radical Republicans who wanted to give freedmen their full and equal rights.” People also began to critique the failure of the nation to fully live up to the promises of equality and civil rights. I agree with this statement because as shown right before the emancipation proclamation slaves ran to the North not for revenge on their masters but for the promise of a better life in which they were free. This idea portrays Johnson as a dictator because as the president of the United States, his goal is ensuring everyone’s rights and simple liberties, protected under the 14th amendment. Instead, he was a white supremacist and denied many rights to groups of people mainly African Americans. Some of these rights were when he tried to veto the 14th Amendment or when he tried to veto the Civil Rights Act. Similar to Johnson, Southern state governments passed many laws to try to intimidate African Americans and prevent them from voting. Such examples were immense violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan who used fear and violence to scare black voters, preventing them from coming to the polls. To try to exclude a group from not only voting but overall society is insane and weak-minded. White Southerners became threatened by blacks’ success and tried to further oppress them instead of welcoming them to our recovering nation. I find it ironic that the White Southerners oppressed, and even killed African Americans but somehow felt threatened at the same time. One major thing that I felt illustrated the white’s dominance was sharecropping. Instead of teaching African Americans to read and write, White Southerners resulted to sharecropping, which made poor farmers, mostly blacks (because for the most part, they weren’t taught any applicable skills for other professions) live and farm on plantations in exchange for a percentage of their crop. Sharecropping farmers in turn got deeper and deeper in debt because of the poor contracts they received from their land owner. This created a Black lower class that continued to work for someone else. The overall moral standards in Southern Governments and Southern people were very low, therefore causing me to believe the modern interpretation that Johnson and his fellow Southerners were corrupt and negated freedom to African Americans.
History, by nature, is supposed to be unbiased. In actuality, this is almost never the case, and assuming this to be true can have dangerous consequences. Historians of all ages only wrote as liberally as their time permitted, often out of fear for their well being or for their life. Naturally, a book written about civil rights in 1824 is going to be far less accepting than a book written in 2024, so it is important to understand the difference in biases. Historiography allows sources to be examined for biases of their age, and to be exposed for their inaccuracies. This is important because it allows first hand sources to be utilized, but taken with a grain of salt, as to ensure both justice and accuracy in modern arguments. The history of how the story of reconstruction has been told over the near 150 years since its ending follows a linear path of liberal progression, with historians valuing the African Americans in the South during reconstruction at the same level of their value in society (to a moderate white person) at the time of writing. The stance on Reconstruction that I agree with most is the most modern one, Neoliberalism. The stance taken on issues by historians of this period hold white and black people as equals, and negate the Lost Cause myth. For vetoing many bills to allow equal protection under the law, Andrew Johnson was a racist. For slaughtering innocent African Americans by the thousands, the Ku Klux Klan was anything but “protectors of the South”, they were terrorists who severely damaged many black communities to a point which has not been recovered from. Governments across the county were corrupt, as morals were low following a mass treasoning, with surprisingly low consequences. People claiming that Republican governments in the South were corrupt, or that black people committed more crimes than whites, were simply racist. Looking at these old sources from a modern perspective, the severity of how racism was ingrained into American culture is revealed. Studying not just history, but also historiography, reveals information about culture as a whole during that time period.
One of the main reasons I think history and the study of history is important is to be able to understand what occurred in the past and how to learn from it. Especially to develop the future and to learn from mistakes people have made, to “prevent history repeating itself” as some people say. There are also many different interpretations of history which are also important to view because it can provide various perspectives on events that occurred and give different understandings. The different interpretations also give an insight to the time period the historian is from because the opinions often differ due to the era and other ideas influencing how one historian interprets the past.
In regards to Reconstruction I would most agree with the New Left/Neo-progressive Era of interpretation because of its negative views toward the Ku Klux Klan and generally southern whites or in other words those who prevented African Americans from exercising their civil rights. I would most agree with this perspective because we learned about the horrors the Klan and other secret societies enacted such as lynching. This school of thought is most similar to my own personal ideas because of the way it supports African Americans and has similarities to the Black Lives Matter movement that has been happening in our country today. In the 1860s the enslaved were emancipated but were not given enough support, if any. This interpretation says that the government was supposed to protect African American rights but failed to do so; African Americans are similarly struggling in society today, especially when considering police brutality. I would also agree with historians such as William Wells Brown and George Washington Williams because they saw reconstruction as a tragedy but still recognized some improvements, one of which was in education and development of schools. I disagree with The Dunning School because of their white supremacy bias against radical republicans and African American freedmen. Southern whites were seen as victims during reconstructions. This idea goes along with the story of “The Lost Cause” which was a myth about the Confederate states that seceded to create an idea that they were heroes and to attribute honor to the southern states. This school of thought was against radical republicans and republican rule in the south because it could be seen as punishment. But what they did was treason and Lincoln was lenient with the 10% plan, Johnson was their hero and radical republicans were in his way. Overall Historiography is important to exhibit different opinions on events throughout history, reconstruction is just one example. Historiography also shows the development of society through the years.
I think historiography is important because with each passing year and different era’s stumbling across different historical topics, it is important to know what each generation or time period thinks of a certain event or development. Each generation will have a different thought process on different aspects so it’s important to know the different views there are, it helps to dig deeper into an event or development that we hadn’t seen before. I agree the most with Eric Foner’s interpretation of Reconstruction, where he saw it as Republicans not being radical enough, and neglecting to provide land for African Americans, which would enable them to achieve their own economic independence. He also thought that the federal troops and military occupation in the Deep South should have lasted longer to protect the freedmen’s political rights. He acknowledged the limitations of Reconstruction in terms of reforms, but also pointed out that in the post-Civil War years, the freedmen established many of the intuitions and schools in the African American community. Although he thought that Reconstruction was not liberal and radical enough, he said that it took a “second Reconstruction” after World War 2, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, to achieve the promise, or goal, of the first reconstruction.
I agree with most of Eric Foner’s philosophies of the Reconstruction era, but I also want to add some more information and possibly modify some of his thoughts. About his thoughts about the “Radical” Republicans neglecting land, I think that African Americans should have been given land or land grants, because although these republicans were seen as “radicals” they seemed a bit prejudice as well, because other victims or people that took part or were included in previous American wars were given land or land grants, but this seemed not the case for African Americans, proving that reform still had a way to go. I also agree with his opinion on federal troops in the South, but not just for the freedmen’s political rights, but also for their general safety, as well as all African Americans in the South. The now free African Americans were still in the place where slavery thrived the most, and probably the most racist parts of the United States during that time, so I feel like they needed protection from Southerners who were angry about the new rules and amendments protecting them, as we can see from the lynchings and killings of African Americans after the federal troops were removed.
Historiography is important to understand the reasons why historians may have founded a basis on a certain opinion. I agree with the interpretation that the Reconstruction period was a step towards equality, but the values pre Civil-War hadn’t vanished. These values had massive consequences towards the implementation and success of Reconstruction. Different historians bring diverse perspectives and biases to their conclusions, influencing the narratives they construct. The interpretation of Reconstruction has evolved over time, reflecting changes in societal attitudes, scholarly methodologies, and the inclusion of marginalized voices.
The early white Southern perspective dominated the narrative of Reconstruction, portraying it as a tragic era for Southern whites victimized by incompetent Blacks and corrupt white Republicans. This viewpoint downplayed the challenges faced by freedmen during this period. Scholars began to challenge the prevailing white-centric viewpoints, shedding light on the struggles and aspirations of newly freed African Americans. The traditional narrative had obscured the profound impact of systemic racism, discriminatory laws like the Black Codes, and violence against Black communities during Reconstruction.
Reinterpreting Reconstruction also involved recognizing the agency of African Americans in shaping their destinies amid adversity. The Reconstruction Amendments—the 13th, 14th, and 15th—represented monumental strides towards equality. However, the persistence of racist ideologies and the emergence of Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction South demonstrated that the battle for civil rights was far from over.
Moreover, the economic aspects of Reconstruction played a crucial role in shaping its outcomes. The reluctance of the federal government to address economic disparities and provide reparations for formerly enslaved individuals hindered genuine progress. The South faced economic devastation after the Civil War, and the Reconstruction policies aimed to rebuild the region’s economy. However, the focus on physical reconstruction often overshadowed addressing the economic inequities stemming from slavery. The absence of comprehensive land redistribution or reparations for freed slaves to perpetuate a cycle of poverty for many African Americans.
Furthermore, the resistance from white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, posed a severe threat to the implementation of Reconstruction policies. Acts of terror, intimidation, and violence targeted African Americans and sympathetic whites, undermining the potential for a more egalitarian society. The federal government’s inability or unwillingness to effectively combat these forces allowed them to continue influencing Southern society, hindering the full realization of Reconstruction’s goals.
Historiography is important because it shows how, over time, society has developed due to changes in beliefs, ideas, and laws. All of these have also influenced or altered historians’ views, making it possible to find answers to more important questions and to learn about the dark aspects of history that haven’t been discussed or where the truth wasn’t told. Additionally, historiography helps us understand and recognize that time periods and where people lived affected their opinions. It can also help us reflect and avoid making the same mistakes, and it encourages new discussions, leading to the development of new arguments and, therefore, different perspectives on historical events.
I strongly disagree with many historians from earlier times, especially Southern whites, because they are usually racist and ignorant. One example of a historian I strongly disagree with is William Dunning, since he believed that African Americans and Northerners who came to the South were thieves who violated the rights of the Southern whites. Plus, his school promoted segregation, saying that it was beneficial, and advocated for white supremacy. I completely disagree with his opinion, as the vast majority of African Americans didn’t want revenge, and the only thing they truly wanted was freedom. Additionally, his views promoted violence and discrimination, which had severe consequences, like the formation of hate groups such as the KKK. As his and many white southerners’ beliefs were spread, they continued on, which still leads to thousands of innocent black people being harmed or killed just by the color of their skin, which is completely ridiculous.
However, a historian that I do agree with is W.E.B. Du Bois, because he said, “The slave went free; stood for a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.” I agree with this because, at first, when the government passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, enslaved individuals gained freedom, citizenship, and rights such as the right to vote and due process. However, after a series of court decisions, the amendments ended up losing their significance and power. For example, the Cruikshank v. U.S. Court ruling declared that the 14th Amendment did not protect individuals from violence by private citizens. Afterward, during the Civil Rights cases, segregation in private places was authorized, saying that this did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Then, in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the court upheld state laws allowing segregation as long as it was “separate but equal.” These decisions completely contradicted the amendments’ and led to racists not having any consequences for discriminating, which also meant they were free to lynch, kill, and segregate African Americans. This is just like since, once again, African Americans were still treated horrendously, didn’t have rights, and couldn’t get justice, which is like slavery.
I disagree with the old-school/ William Dunning interpretation of Reconstruction. I disagree with this interpretation because of the way the South highlighted the KKK and Andrew Johnson as trying to ease the country back to the way it was with Slavery and have African Americans not viewed as citizens and white people would not have to work. These “Historians” said that Reconstruction was a failure that was fueled by racist theories about African American intelligence and nature. The “Historians” also said that the actual victims of Reconstruction were Southern Whites and not the African Americans who were afraid of getting lynched and being discriminated against because these historians said that African Americans were not as intelligent as white people. Southern Whites hated Reconstruction because they still believed African Americans were not human beings and they were better than African Americans. A novel written by Thomas Dixon in 1905 named “The Clansman”, helped influence the Dunning interpretation. The book celebrated the Klan and said how it saved the South from Radical Republicans who were attempting to “Africanize” the South and put a spotlight on the Klan in a good way when it should have been the opposite. This is why I disagree with the Old-school/William Dunning Interpretation of Reconstruction.
I agree with the African American Historians (ex. W.E.B. DuBois). These Historians viewed Reconstruction as a tragedy because the government failed to secure rights for freed African Americans. The historians highlighted lynching and how the government would not help stop the violence because it was the state’s problem and the government couldn’t do anything. They also expressed the mini-successes that happened like African American education. I also agree with Progressive and Neo-Progressive/New Left historians. The Dunning interpretation was then flipped around completely. They expressed how Andrew Johnson was racist and the Klan was not the protector of the South but a terrorist organization. As well as how the Klan was responsible for the lynchings that were happening in that time period and how nobody was trying to stop the murder. This is why I agree with the African American Historians and the Progressive and Neo-Progressive/New Left historians on their interpretation of Reconstruction.
Historiography is important because it helps us get a greater understanding of what was happening during time periods and how it was affecting the people of that time. If we know how people reacted to important events throughout history we can understand their beliefs, as well as the common beliefs of the time by comparing with other records of the time. Historiography essentially lets us understand history on a deeper level. The historical interpretation that I most agree with is W.E.B DuBois’s, US Congress didn’t do enough to secure the rights of African Americans. For a few years Congress passed laws like the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments securing rights for African Americans, but as time went on Supreme Court decisions undermined these amendments reversing the protections for African Americans. Congress also met resistance from the South. Violence grew in the South with the creation of the Klan. They also started claiming the South was perfect until the North ruined it. Congress grew tired of fighting for African American rights so as time passed, the drive for equality fizzled out in Congress. It was at this point that The Lost Cause of the Confederacy became a popular belief. This is where historiography comes into play. Since The Lost Cause became such a popular belief it changed the way the story of the Civil War was told. The Old South became a romanticized society that the North destroyed with the war. Many people in the United States started to believe in the supremacy of the South and with it the beliefs of the South. This is the interpretation that I disagree with most. This interpretation was that of the early 1900s and can be found in literature and cinema like Gone With The Wind. It made the Old South nostalgic so people started to long for those times back. These beliefs didn’t only come out in literature and cinema but in the way people acted. This time period, the early 1900s, was the peak time for segregation. Historiography is what shows current day historians that the beliefs of the times mirrored the beliefs of the 1860s.
Historiography can help us gain a deeper understanding of our current and past worldviews by looking at our perception of the past during specific periods. This allows us to gain a deeper knowledge of the general feelings of both the past and the present. On the topic of Reconstruction America, various viewpoints throughout history investigate it, most agreeing it failed in some way. However, the area in which it failed varies greatly based on the historians’ time period. Initially, early white historians like William Dunning thought that Reconstruction failed because Congress was too radical. They believed that African Americans were given their rights too quickly and the South was in the right when trying to slowly give African Americans rights. This interpretation often relies on racism as a justification for their argument, though very little if any real evidence for this conclusion. This perspective just reflects the racist feelings of the pre-civil rights movement era and has no basis. I think this view is just racist white men creating history and shouldn’t be taken too seriously for anything other than understanding the era in which the history was written. The view changed drastically in the mid to late 20th century however when more progressive historians began to emerge with a new perspective of Reconstruction. They took the exact opposite approach to the earlier historians and argued that Congress wasn’t radical enough in giving African Americans rights. They also believed that President Johnson was just a racist and the Klan was just an American terrorist group trying to scare African Americans from voting. This view has more or less spread and continued to our modern world and has become the most prominent perspective when looking at Reconstruction. This is also the viewpoint that I most agree with. Although I understand the difficulty of trying to balance giving African Americans rights and appeasing Southern racists, I think a longer-term plan should have been created. This way, African Americans would be promised their rights but white supremacists wouldn’t have had as many issues as if they had gained all their rights immediately. Instead, congress gave up and African Americans would have to suffer decades more of oppression until the civil rights movement.
Historiography is important to understand the truth of history. Without, many events in history would be spewed to the interpretation of the past. Such interpretations could have negative effects on those the historic events affected in the past. An example of this would be reconstruction in America following the Civil War. Immediately since the beginning there have been drastically different interpretations. Whether believing the South was not in the wrong or believing our government did not do enough, many historians of the past and present cannot agree on a specific interpretation. Therefore, it is tremendously important to listen to many historians opinions from varying time frames and form an opinion from there. In relation to reconstruction, views become more “radical” as time goes on. The earliest opinions tend to lean in a pro-confederate way. Historians like William Wells Brown believe that the only good thing to come out of reconstruction is the institution of public schools, not the freedoms for African Americans. Listening to views like these completely highlight the racist beliefs that many historians in the past had. Now, many more historians whom are classified as Neo-Progressive believe that the government was racist and corrupt, never giving African Americans a shot at the American life. Though, I agree with the Neo-Progressive view, I also agree with W.E.B Dubois view of reconstruction. Dubois points out the terrors that came with reconstruction. Dubois points out the violence caused by the South including lynchings and burnings of entire communities. I strongly believe that it is very important to mention the horrors inflicted upon the African American community in our country at this time. Though, Dubois also mentions there were positives such as public schooling for African Americans, yet it was heavily shadowed by the wrongs. Another example of this is the 13th–15th amendments; all granting freedoms to African Americans. Though these amendments are very important and were seen as progressive, they were outshined by tragedies. Many SCOTUS cases such as the slaughterhouse cases–ruling that “privileges” of the 14th amendment only apply to federal citizenship, not state–completely undermined the 13th–15th amendments. This case is one of many that allowed for the discrimination of African Americans everywhere. Other violent measures taken by white citizens include the KKK, a white, southern terrorist group. They made it their mission to completely terrorize Southern black people. They scared/terrorized Southern African Americans into loosing their rights such as voting. I believe that Dubois makes a very important point with the lamentation of violences inflicted upon African Americans. So, if one were to only listen to the opinions of racist southern historians from the late 1800’s, massively important historic events would be completely disregarded.
Historiography is important because it helps us learn and know why certain things in the past happened, like the civil war. It is important to know the truth about causes of historical events so we learn from them and make sure the bad ones aren’t repeated. However, these writings can become very biased. Because the historiographer writing about the events lived in that time period, they have likely been influenced by it and therefore, Their writing has too, especially about the civil war. When looking at different historiographers and their opinions about reconstruction, there were many I disagreed with. For example, in the William Dunning interpretation it is said that that reconstruction was a failure because it gave freed slaves their rights. They were not ready for these rights because they had less intelligence. In addition, it said that the KKK were the heroes. They would put the country back together and restore power to the south. This interpretation is highly affected by the time period in which he is writing it (post reconstruction era). It is clear many of the things he says are biased and straight up wrong. On the other hand, there are some interpretations of the reconstruction that I both agree with and disagree with. In 1935, W. E. B. DuBois said reconstruction was a tragedy because it didn’t secure rights for all African Americans around the country. I completely agree with this. Although it did try to secure rights for freed African Americans, It did not do this very effectively or in any meaningful way. There was still a “better race” that considered themselves to be of a higher social status. He goes on to say that there were a few minor successes. I think this is somewhat accurate because although reconstruction did not result in every African American person having equal rights, progressive movements like freedmen’s bureau were a huge step forward for African Americans because they allowed new opportunities for jobs and education. Yes there was still a long way to go but I wouldn’t say reconstruction was an all out failure. It didn’t accomplish all it wanted to in terms of black rights but it certainly did more than nothing.
Histography is the way we view the past and can have major consequences for shaping our future. History is written from the perspective of the winner. The one who survives is the one who tells the story. History and the lessons we learn from them are interpreted based on the winner. We often rely too much on the logic that if it worked, it would work again. This rationale lulls us into a false sense of precedents where because someone did this and survived in the past, we should do what they did and we will survive in the present. I say it’s false because there are many alternate causes and reasons that history shaped the way it is and we shouldn’t bank on the fact that something worked to put all of our hopes in it again. There is also the whole issue of perspectives. If there are two clashing interpretations of history, which should we strive to replicate? That question becomes especially complicated in examining the legacy of reconstruction after the Civil War. I align myself with the interpretation briefly mentioned in the historical perspectives in the review book that Congress was not radical enough and should have been much more radical to have promoted sooner change. Keep in mind that I’m saying that living 150 years after the fact so I realize how long true change took. In debate, we argue we should reform the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or TANF because TANF has work requirements, and eligibility exclusions, among other things that are grounded in racist and sexist narratives that people of color are “lazy”. We have a specific piece of evidence from Anthony Cook who is a Professor of Law at Georgetown and Yale and it basically says that we have often chosen the path of silence and whenever we have had the opportunity to, we sacrificed equality for political convenience. I believe that it applies to this and how long it has taken for true progress that we somewhat see today at times. The Republican majority Congress that had a majority to make true change engrained in society didn’t because it was easier to cower to the Southern resistance and that is why we face and have the problems we do today. They avoided the progress toward true change and should have been more radical because there was a greater number of continuities compared to the number of changes during and after the Civil War.
Historiography is important because it shows how different sides of a story can change the way we view history. We can learn more about the history of our country when we study accounts of it written by a diverse group of historians. It is important to listen and learn about certain topics from marginalized groups of people because it can give a different perspective than the one that is historically or commonly viewed and can identify mistakes in the way that our country traditionally accepted history.
William A. Dunning and other early historians of the Dunning School of Reconstruction based all their works around their extremely racist ideals. They could not handle the idea that people of a race of which they were previously allowed to own could now have similar rights to them, control their government, or be allowed to vote. John W. Burgess, another historian from Columbia, in 1902 wrote an early, influential book on Reconstruction: Reconstruction and the Constitution: 1866-1876. In which he wrote “To put such a race of men in possession of a ‘state’ government in a system of federal government is to trust them with the development of political and legal civilization upon the most important subjects of human life, and to do this in communities with a large white population is simply to establish barbarism in power over civilization.” These ideas shaped the way Americans viewed Reconstruction, through the lense of a racist, white, southern Democrat. It was not until later when black historians began to publish their views on reconstruction. One of these historians was W. E. B. Du Bois who rightfully criticized these early views: “In the books on Reconstruction written by graduates of these universities and others, the studies of Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Louisiana are thoroughly bad, giving no complete picture of what happened during Reconstruction, written for the most part by men and women without broad historical or social background, and all designed not to seek the truth but to prove a thesis.” I agree with how Du Bois views the potential of reconstruction, I agree that it could have provided former slaves with many more opportunities and needs. Instead white supremacy began a cycle which misinformed Americans on reconstruction and glorified the “old South” and life with slavery.
There are many different interpretations of how successful the Reconstruction after the Civil War really was. A lot of these interpretations have to do with historiography which is basically the idea that the time period you are in impacts the way you look at history. I have found that a lot of pre- civil rights movement historians say little to nothing about the negative effects of Reconstruction on the freedman population. I disagree with the William Dunning interpretation because of how romanticized they described the reconstruction and how they made it seem like white people in the south were the victims. This is also why Gone With The Wind (movie was filmed in 1939) is so problematic because it portrays the narrative that the south were the ones that were the victims and that Andrew Johnson and Klan were heroes. In my opinion, this is a completely wrong narrative and makes it seem like the Klan was doing good for the people of the south. In reality, the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) was a terrorist group organization and made many people, black and white, scared for their lives in the south. The KKK is portrayed in such a positive light that it is actually outrageous knowing that the KKK in reality was a terrorist group and would terrorize people, black and white, who lived in the south. I agree with the Neo- Progressive view of Reconstruction because it does a better job of including how everyone was impacted by the Reconstruction, not just white males. The Neo- Progressive view includes black women felt, how freedmen and their families felt, and how not all the white people in the south were for the plans of Reconstruction. I feel that the Neo- Progressive view takes on a very important topic of the the Reconstruction which is how black people immigrated into society after slavery. Other historians in earlier years, especially before the civil rights movement, might have not asked themselves this question which I believe is crucial for understanding how successful Reconstruction was and how it got handled by the government and Congress.
Histography is about how any given historical event can appear different when looked at through by different people in different time periods and different views of religion, economics, politics, etc. One example of this is when people today look back on the causes of the civil war, most people will say slavery as the main cause but others say that it was states rights. Most people agree that the union was right for fighting against slavery, others fly the confederate flag in suport of states rights and claim that it is a part of their heritage. Knowing about hisotgraphy is very import that when learning about the past because the only way to get information is through others. If your sources are all from the same viewpoint, then you do not get a full picture of the event. It is also important to get more than just the basic facts, for example when learning about a battle, you could just learn who attacked when and how many people died but it does not show any of the neuance of the situation, like how did pople feel about the outcome, how did people react, even if one side won, they may have lost confidence because it was harder than they thought or if the other side lost they may still be proud of how they fought. In terms of reconstruction, I believe that the most trustworthy source is from formerly enslaved people. I think that information written by ex-confederates are the least trustworthy because they were still very racist with the creation of black codes and they promoted the Old South idea (Amend ep. 2) that slavery was not as bad as people said, trying to change the factual narrative to make themselves look better. In addition, eventaully many northerners did not care about black poeople, saying that they should just take care of themselves now that they technically had equal rights with the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments even though many of these people were aware that these rights were not being followed. I also think that keeping the time period in mind is important for this example, such was information written immediately after the war vs. during/after reconstuction vs. during the civil rights movement vs. now. Seeing the world through many different lenses is key to truly understanding any historical event.
Historiography or the historical study of history is important as it explains why history was written a certain way due to the circumstances that the historian was living in. Events such as economic depressions or social movements of the time can greatly affect the historians viewpoint. For example, we can see this changing viewpoint through how Reconstruction after the Civil War changed throughout the late 19th and through the 20th century as well as how historians’ own biases affected their telling of historical events. Firstly, before the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s, the overwhelming majority of historians were white men. This means that they never took into account minorities such as people of color or women. Due to this, historians before the 1950s such as William Dunning viewed Andrew Johnson and the KKK as heroes trying to put the US together when in reality Johnson blocked the way for equal rights and the KKK was a terrorist organization that intimidated both black and white people in the south. Older historians also believed that Reconstruction was a failure because African Americans were not ready for their rights due to many racist reasons about Anglo-Saxon descendents being the superior race/ethnic group which is quite untrue. Later on when historians of different backgrounds were introduced, such as W.E.B. DuBois who was a black historian in the early 20th century, Reconstruction was portrayed as a failure to provide newly freed African Americans with the right resources and rights to become successful. DuBois also hated the violence that white supremacists inflicted on African Americans. According to Crash Course, “By the end of the 19th century, 2500 Black people would be lynched throughout the South, more than a hundred Black men and women per year”. This statistic puts into perspective just how many African Americans were effected by lynchings alone not even including other forms of violence. Overall, I do not agree with the William Dunning or old interpretation as it is a racist interpretation that side lines the viewpoints of minorities especially African Americans whom Reconstruction majorly affected. I do; however, agree with W.E.B. DuBois’ interpretation as it does address the viewpoint of African Americans and the struggles they had to overcome in order to become successful after becoming free.
Historiography is the study of historical writing, which is one of the most if not the most, important factor when it comes to learning about the past. Without writing from a primary source of that time, we have fewer things to go off of if we want to know what happened during this time. An example of when historiography was absent was the indigenous people and how they did not have a distinct language for writing. This turned into hundreds of years of their history, and American history at that, that we don’t know what truly happened. This caused the indigenous community to be overlooked because there were no historical paper records of them, which affected the whole debate about whether Columbus was here first or the Indigenous people (we know it wasn’t Columbus, but it’s due to knowing the indigenous people’s perspective, which is another major factor in why historiography is so important, is knowing both sides of history). Furthermore, the topic of reconstruction has been misconstrued for a long time. There are multiple opinions on how reconstruction happened, which can be viewed as right or wrong. I believe that the Amend, episode two, that we watched in class is one of the explanations of reconstruction I agree with the most. One reason is that it gave multiple perspectives during this time in American history, like the South, North, black people, white Southerners, and so on. The episode discusses why Southerners and Northerners resisted the Fourteenth Amendment, which opened up the discussion of other amendments protecting African Americans’ rights in America and allowing them to live their lives as free people. However, in both the North and South African Americans were beaten, lynched, threatened, drowned, and more, just because of the right to vote. Overall, with all the court cases, historical figures, and stories shared during this time and shown throughout this episode, it begs the question of whether these historians view reconstruction as a failure or a success. This episode seems to show that reconstruction was not a failure, but more a small success, like with public education for everyone. However, it ends with the important and relevant message that America has a long way to go when it comes to fighting for equal rights and treatment for everyone. Lastly, W.E.B. DuBois shared similar opinions within this text, illustrating how there can be common opinions among historians, even on such a controversial topic as reconstruction in America.
The importance of historiography is evident throughout history. It shows us the different perspectives on a part of the history of different people in different times and places. This is important to the world because without historiography we could have an outdated, white supremacist-based outlook on Reconstruction, or we would be seeing the story of Reconstruction from only the side that historian wants us to see. Historiography gives us the whole story, it gives us different biases, for us to make our decision on what we believe is the cause for Reconstruction or other issues in history.
I completely disagree with the historian William Dunning’s interpretation of the Reconstruction period. First off, Dunnings believed that Reconstruction was a complete failure, even though there were many failures and aspects of continuity during the Reconstruction, there were also many accomplishments made. Examples of such would be rights that black people never had before such as the right to vote, own property, receive an education, legally marry and sign contracts, file lawsuits, and even hold political office. All of these different rights given to African Americans were not a thing before Reconstruction. Dunnings backed many white supremacist ideologies. Part of his interpretation was his victimizing southern whites during the Reconstruction period. He believed that the Southern whites were being oppressed by the radical Republicans. Dunnings said that Andrew Jhonson and the Klan were heroes who tried to unite the country back together carefully and painlessly. Our review book and the PowerPoints that we studied, both make it clear that the Klan used violent terrorism against black people to stop them from exercising their given rights. Both also expand on the way Jhonson was going against Lincoln’s plan of Reconstruction and how he was trying to put power back into the ex-confederate leader’s hands. The Klan and Jhonson were not trying to bring the country back together but were trying to split it apart.
In conclusion, historiography is very vital to our understanding of historical events, as it gives us different historical perspectives for us to analyze and come up with a conclusion about what we believe to be true. William Dunning’s historical interpretation of the Reconstruction period is fueled by racist white supremacist ideologies and the complete opposite of the truth.
Historiography is an essential part of examining history, because while accounts may detail the life and times of a certain era, the writer’s perspective and personal opinions can also give a detailed account of the time period that the author lived in. These papers give the relative ideas reflecting changing time periods and biases of eras, but as time goes on, these opinions can change, the general public can become open to new viewpoints, and new information can surface and completely switch the side of the main argument.
William Dunning’s interpretation is a classic example of traditionally racist attitudes imposed on rhetoric. The interpretation is not only my least favorite, but morally and generally wrong, and in part caused the creation of a completely fictitious version of historical events. His opinion is based on white supremacy and the developed idea of a crystallized Southern way of life shattered by Northerners with their liberally radical attitudes. A side that encouraged the Klu Klux Klan and Andrew Johnson, he boldly defended the South’s rights, stating that any reforms imposed to strengthen equality were not to be tolerated. Both our US History AMSCO Textbook and in-class notes mention D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915), a movie depicting the KKK as saviors, riding bravely through the South “rescuing” Southerners from Northern radicals. In the next fifty years, historians and historiography reached a new conclusion: the KKK was NOT accurately depicted. They were a terrorist group whose message focused on destruction and the separation of cultures, and are in no way the heroes of the South. The Columbia video with Eric Foner as speaker mentions that for years historians and society accepted the accounts of historiographers who wrote certain skewed accounts (as mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph) as fact. “…this interpretation…actually originated in Reconstruction…these historians were not only total racists, but lousy historians, because they took…the accusations of Democratic Party propaganda without ever actually trying to check whether their charges were true,” (Foner 4:22-4:55). To add to this, Alan Brinkley’s American History calls it “the first major historical reinterpretation of Reconstruction”. Simply because it was the first, or one of the first opinions, it meant that no one else had a chance to defend the other argument before it was accepted as the standard for how Reconstruction was interpreted. It wasn’t until historians like W. E. B. Du Bois offered new perspectives on how Reconstruction was America’s real attempt to unify a nation under the common goal of rights for all, and until other scholars stepped forth questioning the research behind Dunning’s argument were his claims about a good, old-fashioned South refuted. When using this example as a whole, historiographer’s perspectives can only be examined as the piece of a puzzle, not the final product. Every perspective differs on the facts the author knows, or choses to put forth in order to make their position seem more credible. Dunning’s interpretation was full of major stereotypes, and it wasn’t questioned. It led to major problems in the US government and increased the racist platform used to justify horrific actions.
In the end, historiographers are less accurate than facts. Facts aren’t based on opinions, while if you chose to read a historiographic piece of media, you are immediately subjecting yourself to the lens the author has given you, while ignoring the benefits you could receive by taking in the information in total.
Historiography is important because it helps to see many viewpoints of a historical event. Without historiography, history textbooks and the information on history might not be accurate. One sided stories are not good for explaining the full picture of an event. If all we learned from slavery were the views of the slave owners, then we would be pretty clueless about what really happened. The diversity of sources is always better because the more information you have, the more knowledgeable you will be. This explains why our understanding of history is better now than it was 100 years ago. Historiography is also important because to enhance our knowledge of a historical event, we have to view how it has been viewed in the past. Looking to the past is a great way to learn from mistakes. Historiography deals with looking back at how history was portrayed in the past and learning from it. As long as historiography exists, our understanding of historical events will continue to be enriched.
I agree with W.E.B Dubois’ view of reconstruction. His view expresses reconstruction as a tragedy because it was not able to secure civil rights for African Americans. Additionally, he blames the lynchings of African Americans to stop them from using their rights and other racism inflicted by white Americans for the failure of reconstruction. W.E.B Dubois wasn’t totally critical of reconstruction. One of his successes was the creation of education for blacks. I can easily support his view of reconstruction because I agree that without blacks fully getting rights, it couldn’t be a success. Blacks did receive some rights after the Civil War. Most importantly, they were freed from the chains of slavery. This was good for blacks, but without secured rights from the government, they were still vulnerable. This shows in the violence of racist whites. White people did everything they could to stop blacks from exercising their rights. They bent the laws, used court cases to support their actions, and even killed blacks so they couldn’t have rights. Part of this was because of the failure of the federal government to protect the rights of black people. The extent of laws and rulings were not really enforced, leading to segregation that was supposedly separate but equal. They were right about the separate part, but they weren’t right about the equal part. It seemed that black people always got the lesser version of an accommodation, while white people got the better accommodation. I also agree with Dubois because he did acknowledge that something good that came out of reconstruction was education for blacks. The education of blacks was a step in the right direction. Part of the reason why whites were able to take advantage of blacks was because most black people were not educated. I agree with the way W.E.B Dubois portrayed the reconstruction period. It was mostly unsuccessful because it was unable to secure all civil rights for black people. However, a step in the right direction came from the education of black people.
The study of the writing of history, historiography, is incredibly influential in helping us decipher the deeper meaning in our history. It doesn’t just allow us to discuss the acts and presidents of the time, but allows us to understand the impact of them and how societies’ thinking processes have changed over time. It can help us understand what actually happened in our world in the past. I especially agree with the quote at the start of the blog that discusses how much history has been warped and twisted depending on the historians own beliefs. This relates to the fact that historiography has many effects and can help us gain a more unbiased idea of what happened in our history. We see that censorship is running wild these days especially in cases like that of Florida’s history programs which have extensive censorship on the teaching of slavery. I agree with W.E.B. DuBois’s interpretation of reconstruction being unsuccessful because of the fact the government did not cement rights for African Americans. The violence that occurred from internal terrorist organizations like the Klan was devastating with pictures of lynching being put on postcards. Reconstruction and giving people their deserved rights could have been much more successful if the government had first focused on their citizens being treated like citizens and having their rights protected. Education does nothing if the people you aim to educate are being unjustly murdered. I think there are similarities in the interpretations of those such as William Wells Brown and George Washington Williams compared to William Dunning. Both sides believed that newly freedmen were rushed too quickly into reunification without the accommodations they needed to adjust to society. I obviously agree more with William Wells Brown and George Washington Williams’ interpretation given it leaves out the blatant idealization of Andrew Johnson and the racism surrounding the phrasing of the belief. However I feel Black people needed to take drastic steps such as becoming congressmen, so that their reconstruction efforts could not be limited while they were ‘preparing’ for a new life. I think the most accurate interpretation of reconstruction however, is the more recent interpretations which acknowledge Andrew Jackson preventing Black citizens from their own human rights, and the KKK being an internal terrorist organization that did horrific things to the newly ‘freed and protected people’.
I think that historiography is the study of historical pieces of writing and how the act of comparing and contrasting different views of the same historical event. This is important because if you look at an array of different perspectives on a period of time in history, then you are more likely to get the views of people who have different biases, backgrounds, and connections to the events being studied. This can allow you, or whoever is studying the history, to compare the similarities and differences about the events to eventually draw their own conclusions. When it comes to the Reconstruction era from 1863-1877 there are a lot of misconceptions and conflicting opinions/views of what took place, who was affected, and how. I think that the views of historians of color are the most believable. Firstly, in Amend episode 2, they spoke of the many people of the South’s view on what impact reconstruction, and the Civil War as a whole had on the South. They explained a romanticized version of the Old South, where they claimed that everyone lived happy and structured lives, even African Americans. This view is known as the Lost Cause. This idea caught on and was portrayed in films such as Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind. This all led to the general view of the South on reconstruction to be that they, the South, were being destroyed economically and socially, and that the North was trying to “fix” a system that was working harmoniously prior. For this reason I do not believe most white Southern historians view on Reconstruction. Secondly, most historians who are white Northerners claimed to be fighting for the rights of freed slaves in the United States. But, court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson were making segregation legal as long as the different spaces were equal. This shows, in my opinion, that the idea that the North was fully fighting for freed slaves and African Americans to get the same rights as everyone else is incorrect in some ways. For this reason, I believe in the perspective of a historian of color. This is because they have shown to depict the events that had taken place accurately. Although this perspective may have some bias against the people of the South, they do seem to write a more accurate depiction of what bills and events were taking place during this time. For all of the reasons stated above I believe that the most accurate and believable perspective on Reconstruction.
The importance of historiography is that it provides the writings of history and its endeavors but it also explains the different viewpoints of multiple figures in history. These viewpoints also come with historians that have different interpretations of the past. One of these events includes the very controversial Reconstruction Era. There are a few different interpretations that came with this ever so changing period in history. One being the interpretation that the Reconstruction Era was a complete failure. According to the Review Book the alliteration of African American and corrupt Northern carpetbaggers were key roles in the failure of Reconstruction. The carpetbaggers took over southern state governments and abused and restricted rights of Southern whites. The Radical Republicans in these governments wanted to punish the south and in turn gave former slaves too many rights too soon. One of the next interpretations was that of highlighting the positive sides that came from the reconstruction Era. According to the Review Book and the Amend episode some positive goods that were interpreted and that came out of this era were the laws passed that involved civil rights for all citizens and black leaders that came about, spoke out and created their own communities. During this time positive and affirming laws for civil rights were passed by Radical Republicans. Urging more and more for the equality of African Americans. Reconstruction also began a big part of African American communities and their start of speaking out for proper equality. One of these people being Ida B. Wells. A journalist from the south who spoke out about what was going on down in the south. She was a proper activist who raised awareness everywhere her work surfaced. It also began the building of Black American communities, as they established their own towns and churches across the south. Personally I am not either radically anti or pro reconstruction. I think each side had its pros and cons but I agree more towards John Franklins positive sides of reconstruction. As it was the beginning of many new reforms and movements for the equality of African Americans. I believe that the Reconstruction Era was a kickstarter for many people to speak out and fight more for equal opportunities as the next person. Without reconstruction I don’t think these movements would have progressed at quickly or not at all.
Isabela Vazquez
Historiography is crucial because it helps people understand how events of a time period shaped views of events from a previous time period, and how social events during the current time period shape views of past events. Historiography is basically the study of history, which gives historians the ability to compare and contrast how opinions towards a certain historical event changed over time. I agree most strongly with the late twentieth century Progressive view of Reconstruction, which mainly focuses on the fact that Congress and political leaders of the time did not do enough to help African Americans after they were freed. While the Freedmen’s Bureau was created to help African Americans get settled and made about 3,000 schools, it was ended in the early 1870s, since it did not align with the interests of some Southern Democrats, who were coming back into political power during this time after their states rejoined the Union. Additionally, “40 acres and a mule,” was a phrase used to describe what General Sherman promised formerly enslaved people. Sherman seized land from former enslavers in South Carolina and Georgia, which some African Americans may have received for a short amount of time, but it was given back to white plantation owners as they were pardoned and ultimately allowed to return back to their property. The desire for a new cheap source of labor made sharecropping and tenant farming common, which were practices that used African Americans and poor whites as farmers, but they only received a small portion of the crops they produced. This led most farmers into debt with either the plantation owner or local store owners, as farmers could only make profits during the harvest season, yet still had to pay their rent and other expenses year-round. Sharecropping was incredibly similar to slavery in that it was a way for plantation owners to have an inexpensive source of labor, while leaving the workers at a loss. Sharecropping was a way for white supremacists to ensure that African Americans did not own the land they worked on and were unable to have their own financial gain. Even though the 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote, limitations like Black Codes were still in effect, which restricted the rights of African Americans. Black Codes made it so that African Americans could not testify against whites in court, among other things. While the Reconstruction era allowed African Americans to have increased political participation, which is demonstrated by the fact that an African American man, Hiram Revels, was elected to the Senate in 1870, white supremacists used violence to restrict African American political participation. An example of this is the Colfax Massacre in 1873, which displayed how violence was used to intimidate African American voters, ultimately decreasing their political involvement. Meanwhile, court decisions, like Plessy v. Ferguson and Civil Rights Cases in 1883 ruled that segregation and discrimination were allowed as long as accommodations were equal. Overall, leaders of the Reconstruction did not do enough to ensure the rights and safety of African Americans, since permanent change was not made. The late 1900s Progressive interpretation of Reconstruction is most correct because it stresses the fact that Congress did not make significant changes.
Historiography is very important because history can be analyzed in many different ways and sometimes it takes tens, hundreds or thousands of years to be able to analyze a certain event or time period. Also, in the past, a majority of historians were white men and they usually had a heavy bias on different events. In recent decades women and people of color have become a lot more present in researching history and sharing their discoveries.This way past events can be revisited through new eyes and new ideas. I agree with the interpretations from the Progressive and Neo-Progressive / New Left historians in the 20th Century. Johnson was a white supremacist who did not actively advocate for the Rights of African Americans. All 11 states managed to qualify under Johnson’s Reconstruction plans after 8 months which consisted of abolishing slavery, paying off their war debts and swearing loyalty to the Union. Despite this “Black Codes” came to exist in Southern States which prohibited African Americans from either renting or borrowing money to buy land, placed freedmen into a form of semibondage by forcing them, as “vagras” and “apprentices” to sign work contracts and prohibited African Americans from testifying against whites in court. Furthermore, Johnson vetoed a bill increasing the services and protections offered by the Freedmen’s Bureau and a civil rights bill that nullified Black codes and granted full citizenship and equal rights to African Americans. This shows that Johnson was a racist who stood in the way of Radical Republicans from trying to give freedmen their rights. I also believe that the Government at the times was very corrupt. Despite Johnson being a bad fit for president and making unfavorable decisions, Congress tried using the Tenure of Office Act which prevented a president from removing a federal official or military commander without approval from the Senate against him. This Act was implemented to protect Radical Republicans such as Edwin Stanton who was the Secretary of War from being removed by Johnson but was later deemed Unconstitutional. Johnson also believed it was Unconstitutional and as a result defied it and removed Stanton from office. Due to this The House impeached Johnson and charged him with “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Johnson was only one vote away from being removed as President. Other scandals and examples of the Government being corrupt during this era can be exemplified through the case of The Whiskey Ring, William Tweed, Crédit Mobilier and others.
Historiography is important because it looks at how history is examined and written. Historiography helps us understand how different historical events have been interpreted and understood through different lenses, and how opinions and ideas have changed over time. A historian that I agree with is W.E.B. DuBois. He published a book titled “Black Reconstruction in America”. He believed that reconstruction could have been successful if it weren’t for the white supremacists and terrorists like the Klu Klux Klan, and if the free black people had been given more land and opportunities. His book gives an accurate and unbiased account of reconstruction. I agree with him because in his book, he seems to be asking where America would be if reconstruction was done right and not ruined by white supremacists, and I also wonder what effects reconstruction would have had on America if it had lasted longer. A historian I heavily disagree with is Thomas Dixon. He wrote a trilogy about his perspective of reconstruction. The books “The Leopard’s Spots”, “The Clansman”, and “The Traitor” all romanticize the South before the war and portrayed white people as superior. He believed in theories that had no science behind them about how he saw black people as inferior. His novel, “The Clansman”, was adapted into a film titled “The Birth of a Nation”. This film has been titled the most racist movie in Hollywood history. Both the film and book portrayed black people as violent and murderous. The Klu Klux Klan is shown as heroes who saved America and preserved white supremacist views.
Histography is important, as it helps to understand why historical events have been interpreted differently depending on when they were analyzed. This is different than just regular historical studies, yet still important because it shines a light on how people’s environments and time periods alter how they perceive history and relate it to their present day. This importance is seen in historiography from early after the reconstruction period. As many sources state, the Southerners twisted reality, claiming that the Klan saved the South from “Black supremacy,” as mentioned in the Crash Course video. There were also many lynchings of African Americans in the southern states, which in time became a form of entertainment to a growing crowd, as the dates of these lynchings were published in the newspapers. White historians at that time most likely did not see a major problem with this activity, if any problem at all. This caused their writing and historical work to be biased on their environment and opinions instead of by fact, or regards to how African Americans there had a greatly different perspective. For this reason, writings like The Birth of a New Nation, and Gone with the Wind are interpretations of history I disagree the most with, among other pieces of both writing and screen adaptations.
Other historians, longer or around the same time as mentioned above after reconstruction was stopped, had an interpretation of the history I agreed the most with because it was more accurate, and took into account more than simply the author’s fear of losing power where they live, as well as bias and unsupported popular beliefs on the topic of civil rights and African Americans. An example of such writer and activist at the time is Ida B. Wells, who instead of glossing over many injustices at the time, took it upon herself to document the number of lynchings and beatings going on. This is a stark contrast to other historians and or writers at this time and place, And she was able to make a drastic impact on society. Historians who research her today can not rearrange the truth or erase her contributions as easily, as Wells has made such an impact.
Historiography, being the study of historical texts, is very important when researching a topic because one can observe how the general opinion on an issue changes as time goes on. For example the views on Reconstruction become more progressive as time goes on (even though they remain racist for a while) and shows how many historians will look upon other issues. Furthermore, one makes a better opinion on something when they see it from several different angles as one’s views become solidified. I agree mostly with the most recent view that Johnson blocked reconstruction with his vetoing of the reinstatement of the freedmen’s bureau, which was overturned, and his other attempted uses of the veto to prevent laws which would aid African Americans.Furthermore, the view that The Ku Klux Klan was merely a series of individual haphazard violent racists and not some great protecting force is simply a no brainer. The fact that the Klan was not a singular organization, but a bunch of chapters shows the disorganization of the “group”, really the only thing unifying them was the goofy white robes and hate for all that were different. It goes without saying that the KKK wasnt protecting anyone, but quite the opposite as we saw all of the innocent corpses in Amend, that symbolized the success of the power hungry white supremacists. I also agree that overall the local government both local and federal could have done much more. For example, the entire government could possibly have just not entirely given up on reconstruction or allowed for Black codes to exist for so long. And while the 14th and 15th amendments are truly great advancements, the fact that the supreme court dismantled them, and in doing so the rights of the people. The actions of the government were disappointing to say the least and that goes without mentioning the widespread corruption. Corruption was everywhere, whether the whiskey ring defrauding the government or the tweed circle who fraudulently abused government subsidization, not to mention grant who while never directly being corrupt, he was associated with many corrupt people, such as his own brother in law who was involved in a scandal. Grant also was guilty of using the spoils system and appointing people who he was friends with.
Throughout history, Historiography is incredibly important. It shows the change in views and time periods throughout when articles about certain times were written. Important details from the past are viewed and related to differently by the historian researching the event and their background. Now that it has been over 100 years since the civil war, without textbooks and information written during the time, we would not know critical information about the events. We rely on the writers writing to tell the truth about the event, but it will always be portrayed differently with each writer. Regarding Reconstruction after the civil war, I agree with William Wells Brown and George Washington Williams who were mentioned in your blog entry. They believed that the Reconstruction as a whole and its process was not beneficial to African American citizens. Even though the North won the civil war, and were emancipating slavery which was strongly directed towards the south because of their history and continuation with slavery. Throughout the notes, the second episode from Among on Netflix that we watched in class, and discussions held in class, these all help defend my statement that the reconstruction in the south especially did not benefit the newly freed slaves as much as it rightfully should have. I will say that there is in fact one thing that did become beneficial to former slaves and African Americans because of reconstruction and that would be the education aspect. When the reconstruction allowed African Americans to now participate in schooling this was a huge new deal. This allowed former slaves to learn and have an education just like the others around them. Yes, there was still segregation but it was a very important start to the process of equality even though we know that it is still a huge problem especially in the United States. Referring back to the historiography that I mentioned at the beginning, movies like “Gone with the Wind” shine the reconstruction and the civil war in a light it should not be shined in. This movie was produced in the early twentieth century which expands the idea that media and writings in different time periods portray events in the past in such different ways.
I agree with the historians’ 20th-century progressive view of reconstruction. Radical Republicans were trying to give freedmen all of their deserved civil rights and Andrew Johnson was a racist. You can see this because in my chapter 15 notes from the review book Republicans were doing what they could at the time to grant freedmen these rights. An example of this could be the Freedmen’s Bureau of 1865. This bureau of people gave food, shelter, and medical aid to victims of the Civil War. They also granted land from ex-confederates to freedmen which was later taken away but the effort was made. They also revolutionized education by providing schooling for black people. As many as 200,000 black people learned how to read before funding was given to these schools. Now on the opinion that Andrew Johnson was racist, I give you this evidence. He vetoed multiple bills that would’ve bettered the lives of black people like one bill proposed by the bureau. This bill would have increased services and protection against black codes as well as full citizenship for black people. Some would mention Johnson’s reconstruction policy to rebuddle this. His reconstruction policy consisted of mainly two things. One is that all former confederacy leaders be disenfranchised, and two is that confederares with more than 20,000 be taxed with property. Here are some counter-evidence to prove Johnson was racist. Regarding his reconstruction policy, Johnson’s policy can be regarded as “not enough” to address the systemic racism and inequality that was ongoing and had been part of America’s history since the beginning. Johnson was the type of person who was racist but was convinced that he truly did care about black people which is not true. He claimed that he had a genuine commitment to the racial equality of black people. Although he emancipated the people of Tennessee, he never really made any true effort to uplift black people and give them their rightful place in society as free men. The way he “cared” about the lives of black people was conditional and wasn’t genuine unlike what he claimed.
Historiography is defined as studying historical writing. Historiography is essential to progressing as a society and learning about different events from the past as well as getting differing perspectives on these events. For example, people in one time period are more biased towards a certain topic than another time period. This shows how much modern historians can learn from historiography. The historian whose interpretation of Reconstruction I disagree with the most is the William Dunning interpretation. This interpretation paints Reconstruction in a negative light. They sympathized with white Southerners saying that freedmen shouldn’t have been given their rights because of racist reasons. They have no actual reasoning to back this up, just beliefs that stem from racial prejudices. They illustrated Andrew Johnson and the Ku Klux Klan as if they were heroes of the time period, while we all know that they were people whose racist ideologies led them to do horrible things. For example, Andrew Johnson didn’t help the Reconstruction cause after a certain point. He made speeches appealing to white supremacists and argued that equal rights for black people meant an “Africanized” society which shows a racist belief that isn’t backed by fact. He was a major factor standing in the way of freedmen being given equal rights. As for the Ku Klux Klan, they tried to intimidate black and white reformers and committed mass crimes on black people and black-owned property. They attacked black people sometimes for the sole purpose of not letting them vote. The Dunning School liked to paint the Southern white people as victims of Reconstruction, not taking into account the injustices that black people went through such as flogging and the Jim Crow laws that severely discriminated against black individuals. Dunning advocated false, white supremacist propaganda which was probably done to gain sympathy from others as they saw that Southern whites were the “victims” of the Reconstruction time period. Dunning also mentions that the governments at the time were corrupt. However, this argument doesn’t hold much weight when talking about the Reconstruction time period as all governments were corrupt during this time period because of society’s standards at the time as shown by scandals such as the Credit Mobilier Affair, Tweed Ring, and Whiskey Ring.
Historiography is a key component of having a properly educated society. It allows us to get a broader view of the characteristics that shape the recording of history itself. It plays a vital role in understanding the past by looking at the different interpretations and narratives made by historians across different eras and cultural contexts. It can also be used as a critical lens to analyze historical literature and find biases, perspectives, and possible agendas that shape historical narratives. Historiography helps understand how historical thinking has evolved and the ways past interpretations are influenced by societal norms, power dynamics, and more. I agree with Eric Foner’s interpretation of reconstruction the most. I agree with Foner and think reconstruction was a period of promises and progression despite its eventual failure. Reconstruction had tons of potential, and there were gains in civil rights, political participation, land ownership, and education for former slaves. Some examples of the achievements of African Americans can be seen in the second episode of Amend. There were HBCUs like Howard, black males were legislators, governors, congressmen, and senators (ex. Revels). There were free public schools and some business opportunities for African Americans as well. However, reconstruction wasn’t really a success. A lot of suffrage for African Americans was delayed by violence and white supremacy. White southerners would do anything to take back their power. In response to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, there was the rise of the K.K.K. to incite black voters with guns and threats. Also, there were black codes, which, as stated in the review book, “prohibited blacks from either renting land or borrowing money to buy land; (2) placed freedmen into a form of semi bondage by forcing them, as “vagrants” and “apprentices,” to sign work contracts; and (3) prohibited blacks from testifying against whites in court” (294). I would barely call the contract-labor system progress because it was so similar to slavery except they worked for deferred wages. The system gave free black people a huge disadvantage because they were likely going to be in debt for a while. Also, although they owned their own land, they weren’t even able to keep all their profit from crop sales and production. Also, the Slaughterhouse Case said the states had to protect black people’s rights and not the federal government, which hurt black people even more because the states didn’t protect them from violence most of the time. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) also set black people back, giving them different accommodations and separating them from future wealth and education. The progression of black office holders also drastically regressed after the violence against black people and the Colfax Massacre (1873). By about the 1900s, there wasn’t even a single black person holding national office in the South, and many blacks stopped voting out of fear. So, like Foner said in the review book, “it took a ‘second reconstruction’ after World War II (the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s) to achieve the promise of the ‘first Reconstruction’” (304). Overall, I think reconstruction was a step in the right direction, but I think there wasn’t enough radical change and commitment to really speed up things, so reconstruction was a failure in terms of immediate change, but it led to real change in the future.
Historiography is important because it influences how we perceive the past. It displays changing viewpoints, prejudices and approaches to historical interpretation. It helps academics to separate fact from interpretation by critically analyzing historical writing, which promotes an advanced comprehension of historical events, societies, and cultures. Reconstruction is studied and analyzed in many objecting ways by different historians as it was looked at as a reconstruction of varying topics like the “reconstruction of the African American race” or the “reconstruction of the South”. However, there is one opinion that I side with as it is reasonable and represents a new era of history. W.E.B Dubois, a black historian in the 20th century describes reconstruction as a national tragedy as it failed to secure African Americans Civil Rights. He says that, excluding Education for African Americans, there was no progress in establishing justice and equality for the African-American race. With the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist group filled with ex-confederate soldiers and revengeful Southerners, African Americans did not see any more justice than they saw during slavery. Lynchings, which were popularized in the late 1800s, were the public hangings of criminalized African Americans who did nothing wrong. They were held as public events inviting entire families including children of all ages. They were encouraged to berate and dehumanize the victims which really showed the level of change that had happened since the civil war. In total, there were around 2000 lynchings with around 4000 victims registered in the late 1800s. Another instance which showed no justice was the Colfax Massacre of 1873. During Reconstruction, on April 13, 1873, the Colfax Massacre took place in Colfax, Louisiana. At least sixty Black men were killed when white supremacists attacked the Republican militia, which was primarily made up of African Americans, and they were defending the Colfax courthouse. The victims were brutally killed due to the White supremacists being triggered by the election of the Louisiana governor. This event demonstrated what kind of horrors African Americans were still facing during the Reconstruction. What W.E.B Dubois is concluding is that reconstruction was focused only on the reconstruction of the South and economy but not the most important one, the reconstruction of African lives as they were ripped apart during slavery. With false hope, African Americans had been trying to reconstruct their lives but white supremacy was just a wrecking ball.
Historiography is important because it helps us to understand history better and without it we might not be able to tell false information from the correct ones and we probably wouldn’t question lies that we are told. I agree with the new interpretations slightly and I agree with the Dubois because unlike the older Dunning interpretation the newer one and the Dubois do not lie about what reconstruction accomplished and what the Southerners did to try and get rid of it. Reconstruction allowed black people to participate in all levels of government, allowed them to make schools and churches, and allowed them to have legally recognized marriages. However reconstruction did not give African Americans full civil rights until the civil rights movement almost 100 years later, courts still discriminated against them and states were allowed to not guarantee them protection after the slaughterhouse case ruling, which led to tons of violence towards them. That’s why I think although the newer interpretations show that reconstruction did some good, the Dubois interpretation shows that it didn’t finish what it was supposed to finish and didn’t help against the uproar of violence towards Black people which included all time numbers of lynching in 1890, it showed it as a tragedy instead of a big achievement by the North and i agree with that the most. The violence towards black people wasn’t even limited to the South as people in the North would attack them in fear of their old society being ‘replaced.’ The Southern/Older interpretation tries to act like KKK and Johnson were saviors but in reality the KKK were terrorists and Johnson was a racist, this is just one of the many lies told by the lost cause which acted like reconstruction was a massive failure and the North was oppressing the people of the South, it also tried to say that Black people were better off being enslaved which is insane. In conclusion i agree with the Dubois interpretation the most because reconstruction although it did some good things it also failed to give black people full civil rights and didn’t stop the violence towards them at all, i slightly agree with the newer interpretation because reconstruction did give people education, and i completely disagree with the older/Southern interpretation as it is just blatant lies and whitewashed.
Historiography is the history of the history of a time period which studies how it was written back then. This provides the different interpretations of events by historians in that time period as well as documenting the discovery of America over time. Different periods influence the many views of events that can eventually lead to create more biases throughout historians. Knowing this, it can allow us to understand more wide ranges of perspectives which creates a more diverse history.
Out of all the historical interpretations of Reconstruction, the one I mostly disagree with is the William Dunning interpretation. He believes Reconstruction was a miserable failure that gave freedmen their rights. As well as thinking that Andrew Johnson and the KKK were heroic because they were trying to bring America back together. Dunning also states that white Southerners were the real victims of that period. There are many reasons for why I disagree with his interpretation but I want to start off with his racist beliefs that are implanted into his perspective. When people carry the Confederate flag around, they say it is to symbolize their heritage but that really is just the KKK, slavery, The Lost Cause, and oppression overall. The Lost Cause transformed the way people viewed the South and completely excluded slavery in the process. Later on, the Northerns got tired of passing laws that uplift African Americans and started to focus more on their wealth. The 14th amendment was written to protect African Americans but if one was getting attacked violently or even murdered, they wouldn’t have protected them. Black codes were also reinstated by white Southerners which meant that you had to be employed by white people, no guns or weapons, couldn’t testify in court, no traveling, and a pass was required. Adding on, the KKK was white supremacist terrorist group that despised people of color and would hang, murder, and abuse African Americans. The terrorist violence started to become a normal part of life in this period which greatly brought us a huge step back from racial harmony. My interpretation of Reconstruction would not think highly of the KKK or Andrew Johnson because they didn’t help bring a stable foundation to our country and instead did the opposite.
I most agree with Eric Foner’s comprehensive Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution (1988). What this book said is that Reconstruction had its unfortunate consequences, but in the long run, it provided the basis for later progress in the “second Reconstruction,” which took place after World War Two. It was in this period that the Civil Rights Movements of the 1950’s and 1960’s fulfilled the incomplete achievements of the first Reconstruction.
In my opinion, the most important outcome of Reconstruction was the creation of the 14th and 15th amendment. Whilst its presence in the late 1800’s had limited effect, the amendments that provided for equal protection and due process, as well as full citizenship, would be driving factors and evidence for civil rights during the time of Martin Luther King Junior. One of the major issues, however, with reconstruction was that congress had some of the worst leadership in history. It is unfortunate that at a time where America was starting new, there was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Andrew Johnson quickly changed from being an advocate for black’s rights to a white supremacist. His initial vetoes of simple reform plans that were already in place made congress go bonkers. In 1866, Johnson denied a civil rights bill and disregarded citizenship for African Americans. By the end of the year, Johnson allowed former confederates into office and essentially reversed the entire cause of reconstruction.
While it does seem that Reconstruction ultimately was a disaster, large steps were taken for civil rights which in the end are landmarks in American history. In the post Civil War era, Black people for the first time got to experience education. The freedmen’s bureau was extremely successful in providing opportunities for all people through 3,000 schools. Freed slaves also made their own communities, each with a strong cultural faith.
All in all, some may believe that the balance was tipped to disaster as far as the first reconstruction goes, and that is totally understandable. However, it is easy for one to overlook the dramatic changes in the lives of African Americans decades after the first reconstruction and beyond which were largely a result of advancements in it.