As historians who have heavily researched and debated the causes of the Civil War, you are charged with considering the following:
- determine what you believe were the most significant long and short term causes;
- who, if anyone, had the power to prevent these issues from exploding into disunion?;
- what should have been the priorities of reconstruction?;
- do you see evidence, in America today, of continued conflict over the issues surrounding the Civil War?
You shall create a focused and well-organized post that draws from the sources we've covered, primary, Zinn, etc.
As Alexander Stephens, I have served as a US representative both before the Civil War and after reconstruction. Through my great feats and experience I believe that the priorities of reconstruction should have been "to justify and preserve confidence; to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources, both to agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the union of the States; to add to their security against foreign attack; to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy;—these are the great and invaluable ends to be secured by a proper and adequate provision, at the present period, for the support of public credit." If anything we had to rebuild our foundations both physically, politically, and socially. After the Civil War more harm was done than good. Slaves were in danger after they were freed and the South was dictated over. As a nation we had to make amends and repairs first before we were to expand and make new laws and so forth. To reconstruct is to reshape our society not just find ways to tear each other apart for power.
ReplyDeleteAs President Abraham Lincoln wrote in his letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley, and like he had said so many times before, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union” (Lincoln Presidential Diary). Even though Lincoln was not successful at first with this goal by trying to avoid war, he still had a chance to make it happen. Unfortunately he was assassinated, and could not be a part of helping with Reconstruction; however his goal of uniting this country together to form the true United States should have been the priority of Reconstruction. By the end of the Civil War, the country had literally split apart in two, and forced brother to fight against brother, and father against son. But few soon realized that both of these opposing enemies would now have to come back together as one, and live as one united country. People who were at one point trying to kill each other now had to live in peace with one another, and trying to maintain that peace and equilibrium should have been the main priority of Reconstruction. However, the government decided that it would instead be better to fight against each other, and implement laws and regulations only in hopes of punishing and destroying the other, and not bringing the country together again. In addition to this, the small amount of effective money and services provided by to government to aid in Reconstruction was generally given to the North, due to their affluence in politics. This caused American historian C. Vann Woodward to say, “By means of appropriations, subsidies, grant, and bonds such as Congress had so lavishly showered upon…the North, the South might yet mend its fortunes” (Zinn 206). Lincoln’s goal of having a united country of equality and prosperity was not accomplished when it was supposed to during the Reconstruction era, and has still never been accomplished to this day.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Gersh's idea about how Lincoln was not successful with his goal and was not able to use his ideas during reconstruction.Thus, I would like expand upon the idea that was started by Gersh about how today the bipartisanship is even worse than it was during the Civil War and how divided our country is. First, today there are several events that are almost identical to the events leading up to the Civil War. In 2008 there was the Stock Market crash which dropped the United States into one of the greatest economic problems since the Great Depression. Then, came the differences in parties. Throughout, the United States people vote every year on who our president should be. But, after viewing Right America Feeling wrong our class discovered that America's wounds from the Civil War are being broken once again due to the opposing viewpoints today. Congress is a perfect example of this because nothing can be passed due to the fact that the other party doesn't want to see the other one succeed. Furthermore, the United States is split economically and according to social class more than it has ever been before. As stated by Howard Zinn in his book, A Peoples History of the United States, "To emphasize the commonality of the 99 percent, to declare deep enmity of interest with the 1 percent, is to do exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them" (632).
ReplyDeleteSterling- I completely agree with your response. I feel like the most fatal error made during reconstruction was Johnson’s failure to abolish the bipartisan government we operate by today. According to journalist Tim Wallace, “Most Americans tend to think politically in terms of a ‘two-party system’ in which the Republicans and Democrats are in a permanent face-off over the destiny of the American nation-state.” Although the Civil War technically ended in 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, our nation has yet to reach a mutual agreement on what is best for this country. Although there are exceptions, the majority of southern states are affiliated with the Republican Party, and the majority of northern states with the Democratic. Reconstruction should have put more of an effort into identifying the cause of division within our society rather than punishing each side for crimes committed during the war. Today in America, racism still exists, and the North, for the most part, is wealthier than the South. The poorest state in America is Mississippi, earning 45% less than New Hampshire and Connecticut. The redistribution of wealth after the Civil War may account for this difference. According to Howard Zinn, “While Maine got $3 million, Mississippi got $136,000.” No battles were fought in Maine. Mississippi was destroyed. In addition, Zinn stated, “The United States in 1865 had spent $103,294,501 on public works, but the South received on $9,469,363.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Southerners were still angry because of this. After Sherman’s March, the south needed money to rebuild, yet they received little. The Civil War’s legacy and our bipartisan government are keeping us from becoming a union. I believe if both parties were abolished, and every candidate ran as an independent, people would focus less on material matters, and more on the issues that truly affect the safety, security, and well being of this country.
DeleteWhile Sterling talked about how reconstruction has led to current problems in society, I would like to talk about what the priorities of reconstruction should have been. The first priority of the union should have been to rebuild the south. While the upcoming phrase is a cliché, you are only as strong as your weakest link, and the south was the weakest link. The south was completely decimated after the war because virtually all the battles were fought in that territory and various places were reduced to nothing after Sherman’s march. A logical person would think that the union would obviously try to bring the south up to par, but of course that did not happen. According to professor and historian Howard Zinn, “The United States in 1865 had spent $103,294,501 on public works, but the South received on $9,469,363” (Zinn). This is completely ludicrous, as the North did not even remotely need $93,825,138 more than the South in its efforts to reconstruct. Although these numbers are astonishing, the money Maine got compared to Mississippi is absurd. In reconstruction, Maine received $3 million, while Mississippi got $136,000. If I were at a political discussion with whoever divided the money up this way, I would seriously question the move. There were 0 battles fought in Maine and everything was left intact, where as in Mississippi numerous battles were fought and they receive about 22 times less than Maine. Seems very odd to me. I believe some of the resentment from southerners today is from how the money was split between the states. To have made reconstruction more successful, I would have laid equal distribution of money as my first priority.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Adam about the priorities of reconstruction. The first and foremost priority of reconstruction should have been rebuilding the south. As professor and historian Howard Zinn said, “The United States in 1865 had spent $103,294,501 on public works, but the South received on $9,469,363” (206). Considering there were no battles fought in Maine, who got $3 million, compared to Mississippi who got $136,000. While this is true, I want to bring up who should have been the one to stop the civil war from blowing out. While the president and congress directly have the power, it was the people of the country who should have prevented these issues from exploding into disunion. While the North is portrayed as being against slavery, “Racism in the North was as entrenched as slavery in the South” (Zinn 189). The people of this country were so stubborn that they could not look past these issues and realize that they were tearing the country apart. On that note, the conflict that started during the civil war between parties is completely evident in today’s government. Nothing in congress is being passed because one party can’t stand to see the other party have a victory. For instance, the Democratic Party, with the support of President Barack Obama, passed Obama-care in 2010. This week, 26 states are taking this issue to the Supreme Court in order to repeal the law. The great divide that split this country in two during the civil war is greatly evident today, and both parties need to wake up and do what is best for the country, not their party.
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln once expressed “ an earnest desire to preserve and maintain the Union of the states, if it can be done upon the principles and in the furtherance of the objects for which it was formed”. I believe Reconstruction should have been completed from the fundamentals at which the Union was created, equally settling all economic, social and political problems that existed. Although the civil war caused a tear in the nation so great the country was unable to stay united, it is important for America to return to its unity, not only physically but also emotionally. As Howard Zinn stated “ the United States in 1865 had spent $103,294,501 on public works, but the South received only $9,469,363.” The south was torn after the war physically, and needed to receive more money in order to maintain and fully recover what it had existed as before. It is said that the south “has acquiesced in the claims of the north to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business for the whole union.” Had the north been able to support them economically, the south would not “seek to cripple the north”. To reform these problems in Reconstruction there must be an economic balance between the North and South, one in which each contribute to the success of this country. As sterling stated, clearly the country is still divided as evidenced by the divisive partisan politics we see today, especially the influence of the southern religious right.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the split between the North and the South directly relates to the current trouble we are having regarding the split in politics. In A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn stated, "The period before and after the Civil War is filled with politics, elections, slavery..."(The Other Civil War). As several people already posted, it is evident that the North received more money for Reconstruction after the the Civil War. After the war, the south was both metaphorically and literally destroyed. The south needed more money than the north after the war in order to rebuild the land, but the north still got more money. Although the split we see today in congress is not the split between the North and the South, it is still very similar. At a press conference, President Barack Obama explained, "We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure." Just like our current need for equality in politics, the north and south needed to compromise as well. Rather than the north controlling the south, there was a need for economic, political, and social equality. Today, the bipartisanship is causing the problems our country faces to not be solved, simply because one party does not want the other to be successful. In this case, the interest of the people is not being favored, just like during Reconstruction when the interest of the southerners, a large part of the country, was not being looked after. Like after the civil war, as Obama said, in order for our country to be successful, we must compromise.
DeleteI completely agree with Adam and Zach’s point about the inequality in how much money was given to states post Civil War. In addition, to money being a priority in reconstruction, I believe that African Americans should have received more help from the national and state governments. The Jim Crow Laws were enforced in 1876, which is just 11 years after the Civil War ended. Even though the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Civil Rights Act were passed, they provided little to none actual protection for African Americans, and the Civil Rights Act was nullified by the Supreme Court in 1883. In addition, violence against African Americans was still a major problem, “The violence mounted through the late 1860s and early 1870s as the Ku Klux Klan organized raids, lynchings, beatings, burnings.” (Zinn 203). Once more and more people became violent and against blacks being equal, the government started reducing support. This was apparent in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case in 1896, in which separate but equal was created. In the twenty or so years after the Civil War ended, many laws, decisions, and amendments were created that greatly affected how African Americans were treated on a legal and civil level. If the government had taken a more active role in protecting African Americans’ rights during reconstruction much hardship could have been avoided. Overall, I think that the U.S. did not handle reconstruction well. For, there was an opportunity to grant and protect African American rights, and instead the government worsened their rights, and set up laws against them that lasted for nearly a century. In addition, I think that reconstruction did not solve many problems that are still present today.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what my boy Dulk was saying about the significance of the discrepancies of money allotted to both sides of the nation following the Civil War. Throughout my research for Around the Horn, I found it difficult to find instances where the South was truly supported in terms of the reparations effort. I hate to beat a dead horse, but it's truly ridiculous that Mississippi was given so much less than Maine. In fact, if Mississippi was given $3,000,000, while Maine was given $136,000, I feel that the sum of money still wouldn't have been nearly large enough to repair the damage done throughout the war-torn state of Mississippi. I honestly have no idea why our nation preferred to expend $83 million to help pay for the construction of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads through the north (Zinn 206) rather than help actually RECONSTRUCT the union and try to at least recreate somewhat of a semblance of what the war-torn southern states looked like before the Civil War tore down their buildings and farms. For all we know, this complete lack of care by the government to utilize its finances correctly may be the reason why Mississippi to this day suffers as the poorest state in America, directly followed by other southern states such as Arkansas and Tennessee (Wallst.com). Expending money to help repair the damaging effects of the Civil War and Sherman's March should have definitely been the priority for the government throughout the Reconstruction period. However, this priority was not even close to being addressed by the most powerful men in the nation, including President Andrew Johnson, and as a result, most of the south is still feeling the consequences of the government's carelessness to this very day. It truly baffles me to see how politicians like Andrew Johnson thought they were doing the right thing by focusing mainly on slavery and keeping a balance of power throughout the south in their reconstruction plans, when simply allotting the appropriate sums of money to the states first and then focusing on other demands later would have been a much more effective reconstruction plan. All I have to say is that I am happy that I did not have to live life as a southerner throughout the Civil War and Reconstruction periods.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you just said above. The distribution of funding to the Southern states could be the reason why today some of the Southern states are either poorer, less educated and or have a high level of racism. It is odd to think what the South could be like today if it received proper funding, they could have moved on and been able to pick themselves back up and not fall behind the North in a lot of ways. As for Mr. Johnson, I too believe that he could have done a better job Reconstructing the country after the Civil War. With him mostly focusing only slavery, a depression started to form and in "Chicago there were twenty thousand unemployed" (243). Although I do agree with him constructing the Railroads, without them the U.S would not be able to spread news across the country quick enough, transportation would take dramatically longer and more jobs were created by having workers build the rail road tracks. Mr. Johnson definitely could have done more to help out the U.S during Reconstruction.
DeleteI agree with jack in that the misdistribution of money during reconstruction greatly affected the south at the time, and could be a main cause of some problems in the south now. I would like to state that I believe that Abraham Lincoln had the power to prevent the explosion of disunion. I believe this to be true because it was evident that Lincoln would say one thing to the North and another to the South. Howard Zinn states “ Lincoln could argue with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds, while acting cautiously in practical politics” (187). I believe Lincoln focused more on his respect within the country rather than the overall togetherness of the Union. Had Lincoln focused more on what he could actually do to maintain unity while creating a system in which the country can operate successfully, rather than what each side would think of him, the country may not have faced such hatred towards each other. Zinn states, “ when it was proposed to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, which did not have the rights of a state but was directly under the jurisdiction of Congress, Lincoln said that this would be Constitutional, but it should only be done unless the people of the district wanted it” (187). Here, Lincoln has an opinion of what was the right thing to do; yet he let the people decide only to gain respect, not regarding what was right at the time. After refusing to denounce the fugitive slave laws Lincoln stated “’ I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down… but I bite my lips and keep quiet.” (188). It is clear that Abraham Lincoln “opposed slavery, but could not see blacks as equals”, this opinion I believe was misrepresented in his time of presidency and his lack of consistency between his opinion, I feel got in the way of him truly focusing on the unity of the country, therefore causing the explosion of disunion.
ReplyDelete(Its Elizabeth C by the way..Idon't know why my name is showing up at this!)
The divide between the North and South that was evident during the Civil War continues to plague modern day society. Distinct differences between culture, morals, and beliefs separate the country socially and most detrimentally, politically. Pitted against each other during the Civil War, Republicans and Democrats still cannot cooperate today, leaving a political stalemate, hindering any governmental progression. Additionally, the issue of freeing slaves was mishandled after the Civil War, leading to extreme racial conflict involving the Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, and the rise of the Klu Klux Klan. As historian Howard Zinn states, “With slavery abolished by order of the government, its end could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation” (171). These limits to the freedoms of the freed slaves were written into law, especially in Southern states. However, black men could only vote in nineteen out of the twenty-four more radical northern states (Zinn, 207). Though supposedly free and equal, blacks were socially pillaged of that sense. Protection, formally found in the 13th amendment, 14th amendment, 15th amendment, and the Civil Rights Acts, was a meager defense for the freedmen against a war-torn society. This climate was one of anger, southern states were destroyed and there was no sense of coalition within the Union. Southerners who had lost their land and slaves could easily target blacks, thus setting in place restrictions on their newfound freedom. Previously in a place of subordination by law, the newly freedmen were placed back into subordination by post-war society. Racial hate movements continued for over 100 years after the Civil War ended. We are left with a still divided society and government.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Adam about how poorly post war funds were distributed, I would like to bring attention to the long and short term causes of the Civil War, as no one has yet. Even President Abraham Lincoln’s “earnest desire to preserve and maintain the Union of the states,” the Civil War could not be avoided. While there are many different possibilities on what the long and short term causes of the Civil War could have been, I believe that the Civil War occurred almost entirely because of slavery. In my opinion, it was the primary long term cause that incited a disagreement to become a brutal war. When the United States was established, slavery was common in the south and there were no significant problems. However, this quickly changed when the Radical Republicans were created in 1854. One Radical Republican, Thaddeus Stevens, once said, “I wished that I were the owner of every southern slave, that I might cast off the shackles from their limbs, and witness the rapture which would excite them in the first dance of their freedom.” These types of views were greeted by the views of others, like Andrew Johnson who was quoted to have said, “I would send every negro back to Africa, disintegrated and blotted out of space.” Just from these two quotes, the difference of feelings about slavery quickly becomes very clear. It was evidently a huge problem that existed as early as the United States did. This ended up eventually leading to the Civil War. In addition, I believe that slavery was also the short-term cause of the Civil War. In particular, I would say that “Bleeding Kansas” was an example of a short term cause that occurred entirely because of slavery. “Bleeding Kansas” originated when the Missouri Compromise was repealed, meaning slavery could exist above 36’30” degree line. It was decided that to determine if Kansas would be a free state or a slave state, there would be a vote, which was also known as popular sovereignty. Therefore, the North and the South both sent in out of state citizens to vote either for or against slavery to sway the vote. This resulted in a series of violent confrontations where approximately 55 people were slaughtered (Africans in America). This incident was basically the Civil War on a smaller front. I believe that this confrontation in particular provided a necessary spark to ignite the feelings of animosity shared by the North and the South to the point where a lot of people felt war was the only option. Thus directly inciting the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWhile people have talked about many points of reconstruction. I want to talk about who could possibly be a savior in this situation. I believe the disunion couldn't have been helped by anyone. To be honest it was something that was impending. There was a huge difference between the North and the South, both by their economic standings and their societal values. If anyone could do anything to stop the disunion, it would be the President or so we would have believed. But as it’s been said before Lincoln really isn’t a savior at all. He couldn’t have stopped this horrible war even if he tried everything. The ultimate two long-term causes, slavery and state or federal rights, couldn’t be stopped, since by the time he became president in March of 1861. Although he had, “an earnest desire to preserve and maintain the Union of the states, if it can be done upon the principles and in the furtherance of the objects for which it was formed.” His intense obsession with keeping the Union together forced him to free slaves when he clearly said he wouldn’t. Such is said in his inaugural address he had, "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He said this clearly to keep the Union together, and when he eventually did end up freeing a certain group of slaves, in the succeeded states, it was only to really weaken them and prove the power that the Federal government still had on them. This also fed into the differences of States and Federal rights, as the states that wanted their state governments to rule supreme to the Federal governments generally had the slaves, while the states who wanted Federal governments were more north and relied on the Federal government more heavily. Lincoln himself was a short-term cause for the war. Ultimately, “when Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded “ (Zinn 189). Lincoln wasn’t that power that could stop the disunion, but as the president he should’ve been. Yet he seemed to further cause animosity and strife in the nation. As he continued to address the causes, he generally just messed them up even more, making them even more potent then they were.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most people have said after my previous posting, about the unequal distribution of monetary funds awarded during Reconstruction. I agree that it is unfair that when the government gave out over $100 million in federal funds, the South only received less than 10% of it, considering that the sole purpose of those funds was to reconstruct the South.
ReplyDelete(Zinn 206). If those funds had been used to help re-build the South from the horrible destruction of Sherman’s March and other horrible battles, some of the problems that the South currently has could have been avoided, and the current tension between the North and the South today could have been avoided. I find it incredibly interesting how everyone in the class is so quick to jump to conclusions and say “that it’s the north’s fault our country is divided” and “the north should have given the funds to help the poor southern farmers”, but to be honest, would any person in their right mind go and give millions of dollars to the same people who just tried to kill and destroy them????? Think about it!!! That would be as if America had lost the American Revolution, and then Great Britain gave them millions of dollars just so they would be able to become unified again! Honestly, it doesn’t make sense, even if we all hoped it would. Just to put it out there, even 151 years after the war over states rights, our country is till fighting over them. According to a FOX News article, Rick Perry along with around 30% of Texans, want to secede from the United States because of the federal government’s abuse of power!!!! (no shock) This shows that the same problem that faced this country a century and a half ago is still facing us, and is still not being solved.
P.S. –Sterling, we vote for president every 4 years, not every year!
Colwell Lincoln's ultimate goal was to save the Union, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so" (Zinn 189). I think Mr. Lincoln did not desire to take a stand on slavery because there was so much opposition going on. To get a good idea, slavery pretty much meant South and State’s rights, whereas abolition of slavery meant North and no State rights. I believe that Mr. Lincoln was a very wise man that did not want to choose from one or the other. His whole gig was to save the Union because: 1. He gained more supporters since he did not take a direct stand on slavery 2. He personally disliked slavery and saving the Union would certainly benefit abolitionists 3. Lincoln knew that a divided country would not stand. Had the North and the South separated, there would have been two separate countries. To maintain the Union was beneficial because the North and the South were dependant on each other and their economies would have slowed down tremendously had they split up. I would also like to talk about the main cause of the war: Many people think slavery is irrelevant since the South was fighting for State rights and the North was battling to save the Union. However, I would like to point out that slavery is the epicenter of all causes. Without slavery the South could have probably cared less about state rights.
ReplyDeleteDiego, you said that the "north and the south were dependent on each other," however, I have yet to see any evidence showing that the south was dependent on the north. The south was completely self-sufficient as they produced more than enough agricultural to support themselves and had a plethora of land, which contained lots of natural recourses. However, as the north was primarily industrial and the climate was unsuitable for agriculture for the majority of the year, they relied on the south as well as imports from overseas for the majority of their raw materials and food. If the south was truly dependent on the north, why would they have seceded from the US in the first place?
Delete- Alexander Stephens via Sam Neufeld
Sam the South had a smaller population and therefore less industry and infrastructure. Since they were not industrialized they would’ve had a hard time boosting their economy without the North. In fact, you’re right, the South produced cotton and raw materials. Thus, without the North to buy and consume these materials, the South would have been relentless. I am not saying that the South depended on the North more because I think we all know it was the other way around; however, I don’t think we should cross out that the South depended on the North as well. In fact, you are right, the North relied on the South because they produced materials that the North was incapable of producing. All in all, I think it’s like a cycle. The North consumed the South’s materials, but at the same time the South needed the North’s industrialization and consumption. Although Southerner’s complained about this and the systems certainly favored the North, the South still got something out of it.
DeleteWhile I am sure the South certainly did rely on the North for some things, I have yet to see any examples of them. I respectfully disagree with your point that the South depended on the North for the consumption of raw materials. The article we read today in class entitled Five Myths About Why The South Seceded stated that in 1860, "the south produced almost 75% of all U.S. exports" (Washington Post). While the South certainly did sell raw materials to northerners, exporting these materials overseas was always an option for them and in no way did they rely on the North for consumption of them.
DeleteEven though the North may have been more industrialized, the agricultural business of the south, which was made possible by slavery was far more valuable and beneficial to the economy. In 1860, "Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation" and the practice of slavery would only have expanded if the south had it's way (Washington Post). Now don't get me wrong, I completely despise the practice of slavery and am grateful that it has been made illegal in America and most other 1st world countries. I am merely arguing that the south was not dependent on the north for the reasons you stated.
In response to your claim about the South relying on the Northern industrialization, I certainly agree that industrialization was extremely beneficial to America, however, the south received little of the benefits. For example, even though both southerners and northerners paid taxes to the federal government, the majority of industrial improvement was given to the north. The north became the primary location for factories and was also given a plethora of railroads while the south was given little. Without the dominance of the North lurking above them, the South would have been free to industrialize their society as they pleased.
Sam
Robby, I understand your point about how the North would not want to help reconstruct the South because they were at war. However, "Sherman's troops carried the war to the Southern home front and blazed a wide path of destruction that delivered the death blow to the Confederacy's will and ability to fight" (History Channel). Because Sherman's troops caused so much damage, as they burned almost everything in their path, the North should have been more willing to fund the South. Instead of giving Maine 3 million dollars to reconstruct and Mississippi only 136,000, more money should have gone to help the Southern people reconstruct. The armies that destroyed the South, did a lot of damage to the agriculture, which was the South's main profession. While in the American Revolution, Britain did not give the U.S. money, as that would not make sense, but they also did not leave the country with no resources and completely helpless. However, this relates to the treatment of Germany after World War I, as it was left in ruins and they were forced to pay millions of dollars they did not have. Ultimately this led to a depression which was a cause of World War II, which is why it was so crucial that the South received more money to reconstruct. While the North and South were enemies, the South deserved its share of the reconstruction money because Sherman's troops left the South with no resources to improve its economy and rebuild.
ReplyDeleteGersh, I think you bring up an interesting point about giving money to the people who had just fought against you. But, I also think it’s a different situation than that of Britain, just because the North and South had a much more dependent relationship on each other than that of Britain and the United States. Since, the Union was fighting to sustain the United States; it would make sense that at the end of the war, they would want to aid the South to held aid the union. Rather, I think by them giving, “Maine… $3 million, Mississippi got $136,000” (Zinn 206), it showed the North was more focused on keeping the states together, and having the North continue to grow economically. Rather, than making sure every state would be able to reconstruct from the war.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in addition to some of the after effects and long term causes of the war discussed, I think that the issue of expansion and new states created much tension within the United States. Throughout the 1800’s, many compromises and acts were passed concerning whether or not new states would have slavery be legal. Firstly in 1820, with the Missouri Compromise it was decided that, “an imaginary line was drawn at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, and any portions of the Louisiana Territory lying north of the compromise line would be free”. This compromise seemed to solve the issue of new states; however, with the new appeal of popular sovereignty, it was contradicted with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, there was the major fight in Kansas over becoming a slave state. Thus, I think that the contradicting compromises and acts show just how difficult it was for the two sides to agree on anything, and explains why war would break out. In addition, the bloodshed in Kansas shows how important having the majority in the government was to not just politicians, but the people as well.
Just two quick points:
ReplyDelete1. Depending on your personal view of what the primary cause of the Civil war was, the thought process behind the division of the Reconstruction funding, however unfair it was, can make sense. Andrew Johnson believed that the primary cause was secession, therefore, why give money to the people that caused the war? As Robby pointed out, the bitter feelings between the North and South also gave reason for the way the money was divided.
2. Was brining the Union back together the right thing to do for the country? Many of the characters portrayed in the Around the Horn debate believed that the Union should have been put before anything else. Clearly, as this discussion has pointed out, Reconstruction simply put a Band-Aid over the gash that divided the country. As you can see today that socially and politically, there are divides that still remain. Animosity is still rampant between the North and South, therefore would have creating two separate countries, instead of a single Union, been a better option? With that said, the obvious economic reliance between the two regions would be something of concern. However, hypothetically, it would have been easier to construct a trade agreement between the North and South rather than trying to force pacification and coerce unification.
Both of your points are interesting, so I will try to respond to both of them. While Johnson did believe that the primary cause of the war was secession, this does not mean that he did not let his own opinions of the south's decision to secede get in the way of his decision making. In fact, Johnson pardoned thousands of confederates by the end of his presidency (by the way people, he was not impeached; the senate came one vote short of doing so), including Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens. With that being said, I don't see why the north shouldn't have given money to the South following the war. You can look at it at either a pragmatic angle or an emotional angle, and I look at it in the former. It didn't matter that the south had seceded the union and ultimately caused the war, as the north desperately needed the south, and was able to utilize the south before the war to garner immense profits in the carrying trade, while forcing the south to do all of the importing and most of the exporting. A newspaper article entitled "The Imperial North" made in Mississippi in 1860, supports this by stating "New York City, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her island throne, sparkling in jewels and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South." The North was able to come to prominence through its utilization of the south, so it would only seem logical that it would work on repairing the entire half of the union, not for the good of the south alone, but also for the prosperity of the north. It really can be looked at many ways, but I feel that it would have been best for the North to give more money to the south as it would have helped the north prosper, and it would also help the union actually come closer to reuniting, which seems to be the whole point of Reconstruction.
DeleteAs for your second point (don't worry I'll try to be short), I completely agree with you. I appreciate that you mention the economic reliance that I ranted on above for probably much longer than necessary, and it seems to me that we can't really say that it would have been better to break apart into two nations, as how could anyone possibly know what the two nations would look like today. Of course, today the effects of the Civil War are still pretty apparent, with the economic disparities between the north and south and the fact that racism in the south is much more outward, but I just don't see how we would be able to find out if splitting the nation would have been better. Responses are welcome.
P.S. Hi Katie
Regarding your second point, I don't believe that creating two separate countries would have been a better option. Although there are harsh feelings between the North and the South, with separate countries the feelings would have been increased. The country also would not have been the super power that it was. The size would be much smaller, and the countries ability to have power over others would also be decreased. There would have been greater problems between the two nations over land, power, resources, etc. The country as a whole was a strong force in the world and without each other they could not have achieved as much as they did. As you brought up as well, there would be huge economic issues that would arise. Much more is grown and produced in the South than the North, however, the North is where much of the goods are processed and sold. The two sides need each other in order to support themselves. A simple trade agreement would not have been able to solve this issue because the need for both the manufacturing and the agricultural sites is inevitable.
DeleteGersh started to allude to at the end of his post about the problems that still are issues from the civil war. One problem that I still see today (Not up here in CT) but down south is with the flying of the confederate flag. The confederacy surrendered in 1865 and still 147 years later, there are still people who make it a visual sign. It is still flied on people house and public places, including the South Carolina statehouse. This has caused so many problems because of what the confederacy did during the civil war and what the flag symbolizes for people. For a white southerner they feel its part of their heritage and for African-Americans they take serious offense to it as it represents slavery and racism. This is such a huge problem because first off, it is unconstitutional to secede from the union and still flying the confederate flag is pretty much supporting that decision to secede and second, African-Americans have to remember the horrible time in their history where they were slaves. I mentioned before how the flag was visible in the South Carolina statehouse, it was also part of Georgia’s state flag from 1956 to 2011. These states from the south still feel animosity from how the civil war was handled and feel they need to show their support of the confederacy. While changing the flag of Georgia was seen as a move based civil rights, the Heritage Preservation Association said, “Even though certain "civil rights" groups have started attacking the current Georgia state flag and other Confederate symbols, no one saw the flag change in 1956 as being racially motivated.” From the Confederate flag still being used as state flags and being placed on houses, shows how the results from the civil war, are still prevalent in the minds of southerners.
ReplyDeleteThe Post Civil War hostility between the North and South is still somewhat prevalent today. To say that the North and South coexist today would be false, although there is no actual violence towards each other, there is still verbal separation. There is still an invisible rift between each other, the North and South have their bias's about one another and its been around since post Civil War. I have mixed opinions on how President Johnson handled Reconstruction. I disagree on the way he distributed funds for all of the States after the civil war. Obviously Mississippi should have received more money than Maine. I do agree though in his push to have the Railroads completed all across America. It is important to have a faster means of transportation, a faster means of spreading news across the country and a faster way of trading and sending supplies across the country. Also freeing the slaves was a very wise thing to do. Although Andrew Johnson is regarded as not doing a very good job with Reconstruction, freeing the slaves and helping complete the Rail lines were positive contributions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Robert, seeing as how the resentment and lack of ability to communicate with each other has long outlived the actual violence that ended with the Civil War. So, with the social, economical, and political issues still standing between the North and the South the question remains of what if the Civil War never ended? By this, I mean what if the U.S. is just taking a break between fighting with each other once again. It certainly seems possible, after discussing in class the radical sides of both parties in the present day government, with movies like "Right America Feeling Wrong". These Americans feel cheated from the Democrats, failing to even consider compromise with them in order to benefit the majority of the nation. Whether it be the failure of a democracy working all together, or simply past leaders taking the wrong turns amongst the path to success, it must be questioned how much time there is until the next fight breaks out.
DeleteMr. Fivehead Nation, I would tend to disagree with the message you are sending. To think that we are anywhere near the point where violence is descending upon us in the foreseeable future is somewhat nihilistic and suggests that you have lost all faith in the state of the human condition, especially in the south. Now sir, I agree with you and the aforementioned Robert to a certain extent; there is a massive rift between the North and South of America even today, decades after the final bullet was fired in the civil war. However a nations willingness to go to war with itself is no simple matter, and basing your claim purely of the opinions of twenty or so interviews that you saw in a documentary is insulting to the whole of middle / southern America.
DeleteNow this post is not all about exclaiming my disbelief at the rudimentary nature of your claims, I also have my own belief's in regard to the matter. I believe that just as the printing press furthered the cause of literature, and the bicycle furthered the condition of women, the news media and internet have helped to bridge the ideological gap between the North and South: helping to mend the wounds of the civil war. People are now able to be in a conversation with anyone on earth, 24 hours a day. New media is a forum for people to express their ideas, converse, and work through tensions. This, is evidence we are not drawing ever close to another civil war, but evidence that we are edging ever closer to healing the wounds of old. Finally, in coherence with your level of logic, the mere fact that we have not gone to war with ourselves up until this point is evidence enough that we will not go to war again.
Although this has been said many a time not only here but also in class and mentioned by many other sources, one cause of the Civil War was slavery. Now, we just had a long lasting debate about the views of many different influential figures on the subject, however I still believe that it was a major cause of this great war. The conflicting opinions about the subject were a huge instigator of the problem. The disagreement caused tension between the North and the South which was the motive for the secession. One large influence in the war was Mr. Roger Taney's decision in the Dred Scott Case. Taney ruled that a Missouri slave who traveled with his master to free territory should remain enslaved. During the case, Taney said, “[blacks were] beings of a inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race. The Negro has no right which the white man is bound to respect.” Speeches like these were what caused a huge uproar of hostile feelings and distrust between people. There have been many incidents like this where people have made harsh statements promoting racial discrimination, and the influx of comments from political leaders, and even common civilians brought upon the war.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Hannah. I agree that the disagreements could also be sparked by words, the words are the spark but its the people who end up hearing those words are also a factor. Many people back then didn't get news for weeks at a time. The richer, "intellectual” people in positions of power are often the ones who end up hearing these powerful words. It is this that causes strife. With this power they end up fighting in Congress and not actually resolving anything. Which is a problem we have now in Congress. This duel party system has seemed to fail us. And it is the initial sparks of words that cause the tension. An example would be Lincoln’s proclamation speech, “all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; “(Emancipation Proclamation). These words caused even greater tension in the divided country even when the people of power and not the ones who actually had a real care only generally heard them.
DeleteJocelyn, I like how you brought up how the two party system has basically failed us. I believe Lincoln was one of the only people in congress who put the needs of the country above all else. He was quoted to have said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union" (Letter to New York Tribune). However, there were Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens, who said that, "I wished that I were the owner of every southern slave, that I might cast off the shackles from their limbs, and witness the rapture which would excite them in the first dance of their freedom.” In addition, there were people like Andrew Johnson, who said, “I would send every negro back to Africa, disintegrated and blotted out of space.” These two radicaly different points of view caused problems back then and continue to cause problems even to this day. This has been a problem that has existed for as long as the United States has and I am curious to see if any solution can be achieved in my lifetime.
DeleteI agree with the comments on the unequal distribution of money in the South, the distribution was unfair and left the South still in ruins. Giving the south only about a total of $9.5 million dollars out of the total $103 million spent was crazy seeing that most of the war was fought in the South. I think that Jack had good ideas when he added that the South was destroyed by Sherman during his march. Another factor that did not help the South was the amount of money that was spent on railroads, “...$83 million had been given to subsidize the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, thus creating a transcontinental railroad through the North, there was no such subsidy for the South” (Zinn 206). Robert, I see how you think that the railroads were a good idea, and I don’t disagree, but the railroads only benefited the North. If the railroads were built in the South, the rebuilding would have been much better and the South would not have had to suffer. If the railroads were more evenly distributed, like the funds, the nation would have been able to unify and rebuild, supplies, ideas, and trading could have been much easier. Andrew Johnson focused mainly on slavery for the South and separating blacks from whites, however, this did not benefit the South. These ideas still left the South in ruins, many homes were destroyed and people were left with nothing. The issue of slavery and separation would not help the fact that the South needed to physically rebuild. The other side of the issue that was discussed was the idea that the South should suffer for separating from the union, but this would not help either. I think that if reconstruction was more focused on helping the South, there might not be the same feelings of animosity. The South felt punished by the North, making unification much more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Stephens: Krim, I love how you bring about the point of who can possibly be the savior in the situation. Since the North and the South did in fact have different values and their point of reconstruction (that can not even be granted the name of "reconstruction") was fluke I think that there may have been a need for a third party. What kind of third party... I am not completely sure, but it would need to be created with impartial justification. There cannot be civilians who feel discriminated against because of there class, ideas on slavery or so forth. Howard Zinn stated that "Racism was becoming more and more practical. Edmund Morgan, on the basis of his careful study of slavery in Virginia, sees racism not as "natural" to black-white difference, but something coming out of class scorn, a realistic device for control (pdf)." Due to the fact that slavery was still focused on during reconstruction it was vital to understand how to handle the situation instead of create further trouble and abolish it. As a man of honor and principle, I like to mention that the nation should have started anew. "The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves. But from time to time, Americans reject that idea and rebel (Zinn; pdf)." As a leader myself, after being sent to jail I feel as though I understand that the North's leadership tried to "set fire to the rain" but ended up being dictating. Thus, it is visible that the people of the nation would become hostile and rebel. It is my duty to keep order in the nation and to reform we could have let the past go. As I have mentioned in my Cornerstone Speech: The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice." So, our Constitution should have been altered as well because it is the fabric of our nations wave of the flag. Though Lincoln may not have executed all of the best plans, he is still a friend and his legacy is to live on. We must not focus on all of the wrongs but all of the rights. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Diego on the idea that slavery was the epicenter of all causes. The South seceded because they were tired of the federal government controlling them and they wanted more states rights. They wanted more state rights because they wanted to keep slavery/stay in control of their slaves, and not have the North take that away from them. However, in response to Robby, I have to disagree with you a little. You said, "would any person in their right mind go and give millions of dollars to the same people who just tried to kill and destroy them?????", but in my opinion, the North destroyed the South much more than the South destroyed the North. According to Zinn, "The American government had set out to fight the slave states in 1861, not to end slavery, but to retain the enormous national territory and market and resources." The US government set out to attack the South and get it back. General Sherman marched down to the South and burned everything in his path, leaving it in shambles. All the South wanted to do was secede. Naturally, this was not in the interest of the North to let that happen, so that's why the war happened. Of course the South had to fight back- but I don't think they destroyed the North. I think the North definitely should have given the South more funds. I don't know how they expected to go forth and become seamlessly united by giving 90% of the reconstruction funds to the North and barely anything to the South, when the South was the part that needed it the most. If anything, I think this just made the South more hostile. The South should have been the priority of Reconstruction, not the North. Stifling the South's funds did nothing to improve the situation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you that the South should have received more money to reconstruct, you have to put it in to perspective from the time period. The North had just won the war after the surrender at Appomattox. The North had the power here, were they just going to give a lot of money to the power that they had just vanquished or were they going to use it for their own benefit. In the end, the idea of preserving the Union, which many of the around the horn characters as well as I think should have been the focus of reconstruction, was lost. As Katie said above, reconstruction only put a small Band-Aid on the giant gash that was the civil war. The gash created by the civil war is still here and presenting itself strongly. At this very time with the race for republican candidate and the possibility of a power shift in November the idea that no one is seeing that we need to put the needs of the whole country before the needs of our political party and ourselves is coming back again.
DeleteI see what you're saying about putting it into the perspective of the time period. I was just saying what I think should have happened, not what the right thing to do was. I agree that they weren't about to give funds back to the South after they had just won the war, but I still think they should have. Perhaps if Reconstruction had been handled better, and not just a Band-aid on a huge gash, the hostility that the South has for the North would be smaller. If you look at it from the point of view of the South, they've just been beaten and then not helped bakc up by the people they are supposed to be reunited with.
DeleteI agree with everyone who has been saying that slavery was a main cause to the civil war, but I want to point out that just because it contributed to the war doesn't mean it was solved. To compare the way slaves were treated before and after the Civil War, I looked at Zinn's chapter "Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom." One slave wrote, "I myself and three or four others, have received two hundred lashes in the day, and had our feet in fetters"(172). Several political historians that we studied, like my character, Thaddeus Stevens, were dedicated anti-slavery activists. And right after the Civil War there were several positive changes for African Americans. Blacks could vote, mixed education was introduced, and the thirteenth amendment was passed. This reads, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." However, violence also began shortly after the war. Zinn wrote, "The violence mounted through the late 1860s and early 1870s as the Ku Klux Klan organized raids, lynchings, beatings, burnings." Throughout the years, blacks faced continuous extreme segregation, such as the Jim Crow laws. In reality, the laws that attempted to solve these issues did nothing to protect blacks. Many minorities still face segregation problems today, however our country has come a long way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the fact that the negative treatment of African Americans never really stopped after the Civil War. Even the Emancipation Proclamtion, which many people believed led to the slave's freedom, was decieving because if the South had rejoined the Union slavery would still be enacted. Therefore, "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" (Zinn 192). Not only was the mistreatment of African Americans evident during the Civil War, but while slavery ended, the racism was still present. Even in northern cities, "Off-duty black soldiers were attacked" (Zinn 195). While the North was seen as a safe haven for African Americans, they were still subject to the same treatment whcih shows that the South was not the only one to hold the blame for the racism against African Americans. After the war, the Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan further persecuted African Americans, and had the Civil War stopped racism, intolerance like this would not have happened.
DeleteTo preform Reconstruction is to assume that America was "constructed" beforehand, which it clearly wasn't. It's not like the secession of the southern states was out of the blue - tensions had been rising between the north and south for years and years, it was really just a matter of time. What use would it be to reconstruct America if the problems of the past were still just as prevalent as before? If reconstruction had been impartial and the federal government had awarded money and respect to the southern states without bias, I don't think things would have changed significantly. Perhaps the south would be more submissive and would have been able to rebuild faster, but the spirit of rebellion and independence would always be alive. Is it really reasonable to believe that the leaders of the Confederacy, many of whom continued to hold power after the civil war, would just forget about the fact that they were conquered by another country? These people, while they have been beaten and forced to be a part of the US, always attempted to regain elements of their beloved Confederacy. For example, the KKK, which is prominently known as a terror organization that targeted African Americans as well as other minorities and strongly opposed Reconstruction was composed almost entirely of former confederates in the beginning. Though southerners were officially a part of the union, they refused to budge the traditions and practices of the Confederacy. Though things like Slavery were illegal, they put in place measures like Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes to ensure that they didn't really have to change their ways.
ReplyDelete"Reconstruction" in a sense, could never really make America the way society wishes it to be. Emulation is a better term to describe the construction that America needs to eliminate bipartisanism and the extreme division between the north and south. Though the division has certainly decreased in the years since the civil war through the advancements in technology, communication, and education, it is still very visible. As Illustrated by Right America Feeling Wronged, there are still many people who still hold beliefs extremely similar to those of the Confederates hundreds of years ago. Racism and resentment for northerners, while not extremely common, is definitely present in southern society. I think the only logical step towards decreasing the enormous division between the north and south would be the equality of education for both northerners and southerners. If both were taught the same ideas by non-biased individuals, the youth would not be as influenced to make a certain decision. The youth of this country are becoming more connected to each other with the recent advancements in technology and perhaps some sort of program could be instituted that allowed people from different regions to communicate with each other about certain ideas and share there opinions. However, all of this is totally hypothetical and in no way do I believe it would be easy to carry out. However, I am sure though that the only way to eliminate this immense division is to target the youth. Adults have already made their mind up about topics and pretty much decided where they stand. Youth are more likely to make a more reasonable view based on un-biased information than an adult who is allied with a certain political party. Eventually, todays generations will become adults and take control of America - it is up to them to decide if this division will continue or not.
Sam
After reviewing several sources, I have come to the conclusion that the Declaration of Independence was a significant long term cause of the civil war. In paragraph two, it states, “When a government fails to derive its power from the consent of the governed, it is the Right of the People to abolish it, or declare separation.” According to Avery Cavern, “The Declaration was written to justify revolt. This is a fatal weakness in the democratic process.” I believe this is the most significant long term cause of the civil war because it listed in writing that any people or state has the right to secede if it feels oppressed by the government. The South felt oppressed in the following ways: the North monopolized carrying trade with its immense profits, and it threatened to abolish slavery. According to James Truslow, “The Southerners loved the Union, but they wanted a Union in which they could preserve their peculiar institutions, ancient customs, and well-loved ways of life and thought.” The North tried to force the South to conform to their ways of life by abolishing slavery, and therefore, according the Declaration of Independence, it was the Confederacy’s inherent right to secede. I don’t believe any one person was responsible for the Civil War. Before it began, America was a divided country. Even if we were technically united prior 1861, we weren’t acting like it. Although it wasn’t the best method possible, the Civil War did force this country to come back together. Exploding into disunion just emphasized the need to solve our country’s problems. If they were hidden before the war, after the South seceded, everybody was aware of what had to be done to rebuild our nation. No one person caused the war, but fighting it helped us discover what measures needed to be taken to reconstruct back into the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteLike many have referenced above, I find it critical to understand that the failures in Reconstruction have lead to the divided nation that we find ourselves a part of today. It was not necessary for the North to treat the South with such little respect, and should have understood the weight of their actions for the future of the Union. With the war twirling down as the South became weaker, the Northerners should have recognized certain risky actions that would have made the post-war world a much more peaceful place. The phenomenon of total war should have never taken place, as it caused 1. The physical and mental rebuilding of the South to be a grueling process, and 2. Southerners to resent the North for centuries to come, no matter what logic the North held over them. I do not, however, want to be misunderstood in blaming the actual Northern soldiers in destroying the South. Once again, it comes down to who was in power. I believe that the stance Johnson took on the whole Reconstruction situation was wrong; he should have not just completely rejected the reconstruction Acts that were proposed by the Radical Republicans, but should have worked to better improve them furthermore. At such a desperate time during this nation's history, it certainly doesn't help when Johnson is fighting with his own side. They should have collaborated to create a better Union, in and of itself a model for how Americans should treat each other in the future. This brings me to another commonly agreed point above, in that Lincoln could have completely changed Reconstruction with his ability to compromise. As stated by Lincoln himself in a letter to the New York Tribune in 1862, "What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help save the Union." Despite possible moral issues that could be recognized from people like Salmon P. Chase and others who were crazy into the freedom for slaves, it must be seen that Lincoln thought about the long term state of the union, not just what mattered directly afterwards. However, Lincoln was assassinated, fights arose between the Northern leaders, and little to no progress was achieved. It can be questioned how different we are from Reconstruction-Era Americans today.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the goal of was lost among the childish politics of post-war rhetoric. The reason that the south seceded in the first place was to be able to have freedom and independence from the oppressive reign of the north, and now in the process of being re-admitted into the union, instead of acting like responsible politicians and righting the wrongs they have done in the past, northerners have voted for cruel and extreme guidelines by which the south will slowly be readmitted. Some of these measures include things like the Military Reconstruction acts of 1867, supported by the radical republicans like Thaddeus Stevens. According to this act, it was constitutional to make the people of the south, some of which were innocent of any crime even by the North's strict standars, live under an oppressive military rule. By doing this, the North made the situation of the South even worse that it was before, and in the process, went against their own word. If the north truly wished to help restore the union, it could not just be in a geographical sense: that is the least important way. It had to also be economically, politically, socially, and of course ideologically. These things should have been the goals of reconstruction, because if these goals had been set and accomplished, it would have set the stage for the full reconstruction of the two sides of america, instead of just handcuffing them together.
ReplyDelete