Category: Uncategorized

In the article “Making of Radical Reconstruction”, Eric Foner explains that slavery was overthrown during the time (the 1860s-1870s) and how the 14th amendment had an impact on people’s lives. The Republican party wrote the 14th amendment. Which protected all citizens and gave them the right to vote. U.S. citizens now had rights under the law. But black men were not able to vote even after the 14th amendment. Having black votes was important as it would have an impact on different laws and bills. So, during this time the government didn’t want black men to vote as they knew their votes would give them the power to make a change for immigrants and people of color.  Rules and laws such as the ‘grandfather clause’ didn’t give black men the right to vote but it gave them ‘an equal right to vote’. The law was if your grandfather was allowed to vote, you could vote too. It was an unfair law as black men’s grandfathers were slaves and were not allowed to vote, which meant these men couldn’t vote as well. The 14th amendment had caused legal equality. The conflict between the Republican party and letting blacks vote became a replication. White political leaders wanted to stay in charge and have power. The article states “Radical Republicanism did possess a social and economic vision, but one that derived from the free labor ideology rather than from any one set of business interests.” Southern whites wanted to recreate the past instead of having rights for everyone. They wanted to use free labor to their advantage and also make as much money as possible. The south attempted change was successful but was affected by the presence of freedmen. The Freedmen Bureau Bill and civil rights act gave American Americans food, shelter, clothing, land, and medical services. 

 

In the reading of the Joshua Brown reading he talks about the living conditions/lifestyle of people during the reconstruction era. In this article he showed a negative perspective on the Irish immigrants. He claimed that the Irish were alcoholic, ignorant and they were sloths. American white families feared that immigrants would come over and take over their jobs. Unlike Americans immigrants would take any job no matter how little pay they receive. This triggered white Americans and article can be an example of it. Immigrants were already facing enough coming to a new country and finding jobs but they were receiving hate from”Americans.” Although this isn’t a surprise to me because 100 year later immigrants who come to the United states still receive hate it was interesting to learn the hate people had towards Irish immigrants.

Before reading, I had a recollection of what I believed John Brown was known for. He was an abolitionist that chose to eradicate slavery with acts of violence. However, “The revolution of 1860” by James McPherson helped me acquire even more knowledge about all of John Browns endeavors and what actions he took as an abolitionist. Unlike other well-known activists like Dred Scott, Brown revolved his actions by a “lawlessness” kind of mindset. He chose to act on his beliefs with violence because of the god he worshipped that claimed, “without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin”. Often when he would go to anti-slavery meetings he would exclaim “Talk, Talk, talk” to insinuate that in his eyes people should be taking more action and target those that have done them wrong. Others began to change their mentalities on the nonviolence movement as well after the 1850s. Frederick Douglass for instance, was a pacifist before and when the fugitive slave law was passed on the New Testament he claimed “slave-holders…tyrants and despots have no right to live”. In fact, one of his favorite sayings was” who would be free must himself strike the blow”. To be honest it doesn’t surprise me that the oppressed would resort to violence to “earn self -respect and the respect of their oppressors”, I’m not entirely sure I can justify the ones that believed in “moral force”. When one has been wronged so many times, sometimes returning the favor can be the solution. I do believe that there are times when violence is the only answer and maybe some of Browns actions could have made sense. Regardless they did lead to a civil war that didn’t have many good outcomes. The author goes on to talk about how anti-slavery activists meet over time to act together. Overall, I would say this reading did teach me something and reassured my thoughts about how we view violence as a means to an end.

In the reading “The Revolution of 1860”, Author James McPherson, Introduces the famous abolitionist James Brown during the Civil War Era in the late 1850s. Throughout the intro of the excerpt, The reader is introduced to the Revolutionary Acts of James Brown. McPherson starts off with describing Brown’s idea of a raid into the Appalachian foothills of Virginia, where Brown would later move southward along the mountains attracting slaves to his banner. Later on, Brown would journey with 11 white followers to a community of former slaves in Chatham, Canada. Furthermore, in the excerpt, the reader is introduced to Brown’s belief, that in order to win the fight against slavery, violence must play in contrast. McPherson depicts Brown’s strategies by comparing the violence used in the 1850s, where the southwest won from Mexico solely through the threats of violence by southern congress. In more depth of Brown’s Belief, McPherson includes Brown’s singular phrase for his violence attack for the fight of freedom for the slaves where he states” Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin”(McPherson 203) which comes Brown’s Favorite New testament passage (Hebrews 9:22). 

 

Furthermore, McPherson includes Brown’s efforts into creating the abolitionist group the “Secret six” ,The ‘Secret six’ Involves six men following the scheme of  Brown’s intended invasion of the South. The men involved within the group range from A young educator (Franklin B. Sanborn), A Philanthropist of upstate New York (Gerrit Smith),Transcendental clergyman (Thomas Wentworth Higginson), Leading intellectual light of Unitarianism (Theodore Parker), A physician of international repute for his work with the blind and deaf (Samuel Gridley Howe),and a prosperous manufacture (George L Stearns). McPherson empathizes with the occupations of these men, to give the reader a sense of group members’ community ties. In more depth, To include the the group members’ daily lives don’t necessarily involve the expectations of being apart of the Harper ferry’s invasion for abolishment of slavery, However, They were participants in the resistance to the fugitive slave law, where the particular reform brought most them together to later form the “secret six”. 

 

Brown’s intended invasion on Harpers Ferry was extinguished as a “suicidal mission” according to Fredrick Douglas, in where, Brown had assigned a guerilla warfare invasion on harpers ferry with only 22 recruited men to ignite his small army. McPherson translates Brown’s immediate plan by empathizing with Brown’s step by step blueprint on Harpers Ferry, However, This plan would only take Brown so far, McPherson states “It was almost as if he knew that failure with its ensuing martyrdom would do more to achieve his ultimate goal than any “success ” could have done”(206). McPherson issues a foreshadowing moment where the reader is introduced to the failed invasion in Harpers Ferry in 1859. Additionally, McPherson depicts a pessimistic outcome on Brown’s intended plan by rehearsing that agony did more in Brown’s favor, than success of his ultimate goal.

All in all, McPherson includes Lincoln’s victory on his presidency as a prologue factor of the abolishment of slavery which would later pass as a law (13th amendment). McPherson recognizes “whether or not the party was revolutionary, Antislavery men concurred that a revolution had taken place”(233), identifying that though not all reinforcements of abolishment had succeed in grace, However, all acts of abolishment made a impact (factor) into the reform of the 13th amendment. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Reconstruction Era’s main goal was to restore the participation of the southern state in the Union. A major problem arose due to the new system of harsh labor that was supposed to be used to restore the economy and provide jobs for newly freed slaves. Joshua Brown displays the true lifestyle of families during the Reconstruction Era. Although new legislation was passed (13th, 14th, 15th amendment, both Civil Rights Act) as stated before a new form of slavery was birthed, the freed slaves now had to find jobs and homes for the family and build their life although they did not have access to these resources. 

Brown shares that mine strikes were starting but the depiction of those protesting by Becker was blaming them for their difficult life. “He blamed the destitution of mining families on a “spirit of lawlessness’ produced by ignorance, alcoholism, and sloth.” Becker also describes the family roles at the time, calling the father lazy while the mother does all the real labor (Brown 132-133). 

My interpretation of this message is that miners should not even be on strike, the father described seems as if he does not care for his family’s well being because instead of working he is “carousing with his boon companions,” while his “starving children” think this may be their last meal. This story is conveyed to the readers that the Irish immigrants are lazy. While I was reading, I thought, why does he portray these specific groups of people in that light? Obviously, families go through struggles but were immigrant families the majority of those who had it this bad? I also wonder how the writer would describe the average ‘American’ family, would he describe the father in that negative way without an explanation as to why he feels that striking is the best option for him at this point? This piece was especially interesting because it gave me a different perspective on strikes and protest, I believe that those acts of disapproval over issues are crucial and necessary but in that family’s case was it that crucial and necessary for your children to almost starve? 

The book The Revolution of 1860 by James McPherson provided insight into the road and adaptation of African Americans from slavery to a feeling of independence. He begins by introducing Dread Scott, a black man known for the infamous supreme court, and compares him to John Brown, who advocated for adopting “a “provisional constitution” for the republic of liberated slaves to be established“(202) and resorted to violence to gain a voice, compared to Federick Douglass, who “had been a pacifist” (203) but resorted to “forcible resistance” (203) after the racist fugitive law was passed. With these analogies, the argument for the necessity of playing the same way as the other side—in this example, slavery supports violent actions—needs to be replied to in a rational manner rather than maintaining one-sided diplomacy.

This reminded me of Malcom X, an African–American activist, and the distinction between his method and Martin Luther King’s peaceful one. Both were slain by the government, yet both contributed to the civil rights movement’s achievements. As a result, I pondered, “How is speech not more potent than violence?” McPherson concludes the reading by articulating the form in which Lincoln won the election via the unsuccessful democratic tactic of presenting three candidates “to deny Lincoln their electoral votes and throw the election into the House.” (232) As a result of the republicans’ seizing power, “antislavery men [concluded] that a revolution had taken place,” (233), which, as history has it, led to the civil war in which the union secured the freedom of the nation’s slaves.

When analyzing Foner’s chapter from A Short History of Reconstruction named “The Making of Radical Reconstruction,” the beginning is what was very intriguing. Especially in the differences between radical leaders like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, it demonstrates the differing opinions between the nation, and even more focused on the congressman within the Radical Republicans. The controversy stemmed from how congress should approach reconstruction. Thaddeus Stevens was considered “a master of Congressional infighting, parliamentary tactics, and blunt speaking,” while on the other hand Sumner was disliked by other congressmen for “egotism, self-righteousness, and stubborn refusal to compromise, acted as the voice, the embodiment, of the New England conscience” (105). Both characters demonstrate ideologies that are often coexistent with the opinions of W.E.B DuBois and Booker T. Washington because it was the ever-growing debate whether black people should compromise and assimilate into a predominately white culture, or should they go through political action in order to ensure equality of all. Even though Foner implied that all “Abolitionists considered him their politician,” this was not always the case. It was never a question whether Republicans were fighting for equal rights, but rather the party’s internal controversy on how they were to approach it (105). The easiest way to look at the differences between the two ideologies was the economic questions that reconstruction faced. Still focusing on Charles Sumner, he believed in a laissez-faire, or free market capitalism, which involved minimal involvement in the economy. Considering his perception on how reconstruction should be approached, his opinion on laissez-faire is very interesting considering how he is pushing for maximum involvement from the government during reconstruction. Besides the use of “free labor” there was very little intervention from the government that allowed for black people to advance withing society (106). Republicans believed that if they took these approaches, they would be able to provide equal economic opportunity. While some proposed taking land from white southerners, the idea never go enough support to ever be seriously considered. Looking at reconstructions impact on the present, it seems as if Republicans failed because over 100 years after reconstruction there is no sign of equal “economic opportunity” as seen by the massive wealth and income gap (106).

Blog Post #3: McPherson

 

The book The Revolution of 1860 by James McPherson gave me a more knowledgeable perspective on what it meant to go from being a slave to a free person. He writes about Frederick Douglass who initially believed: “The only well grounded hope of the slave for emancipation is the operation of moral force,” proving that he wouldn’t want the freedom of slaves if it meant “the shedding of one single drop of blood.” However, this was before 1850. A month after the fugitive slave law was enacted, he changed his view on how emancipation would be achieved. After this had occurred, Douglass claims: “who would be free must himself strike the blow” which is a direct implication on how abolitionists realized that in order for them to actually make strides in becoming free then they needed to act in the same way that the slave owners did. 

This book also gave me a different view on how the emancipation of slavery came to be because it helped characterize the importance of white people in this cause. John Brown was a mysterious white man who spent a lot of time, effort, and money to help free the slaves. He was fascinated by small groups of people being able to fend off huge forces. In fact, he studied guerilla warfare and slave revolts vigorously to the point where he felt ready to take action. After already traveling east to raise money for these causes, he finally went to convene with a community of free slaves. The thing that surprised me was that out of the 34 black people and 11 white people that were part of this secret group, John Brown was elected as commander in chief. Why would they elect someone who wasn’t impacted by the cause nearly as much as the rest of them? Why did he choose to put his life in danger for something that might not directly benefit him? In fact, it was interesting to learn that unlike many other abolitionists, Brown believed: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,” claiming that violence is necessary for the emancipation of slavery. 

In conclusion the book The Revolution of 1860 by James McPherson taught me about the ideals and backgrounds of the different types of abolitionists by comparing and contrasting white and black people who believed in the emancipation of slavery.

Eric Foner explains the influence of “Making of Radical Reconstruction.” He mentions the 14th amendment quite a few times in this reading explaining that it is more than “If you are born in the US, you are a citizen.” Foner ties the 14th amendment to “Radical Reconstruction”, he explains how the Republicans wrote into the Constitution their view of the Civil War. The other part of the 14th amendment is how all citizens are protected by law and allow all males to vote so the south have more representation in Congress. According to the reading “civil rights became the foundation of the 14th amendment.” I learned that the 14th amendment no longer allowed states to apply their own set of laws because all US citizens became protected by national law. This led to progress in “legal equality.” However, the 14th amendment created conflict due to the possibility of black men being able to vote. This also did not sit well with feminist supporters because the amendment only allowed black men to get the benefits of the amendment. The importance of African American votes grew changing the way the tide of any vote ended up with. Benefits from black votes would change the outcome bills, laws, and elections. With black votes counting for the same as white men, the treatment of African Americans possibly grew in order to have another for a certain bill they wanted to pass. 

What was a historical figure, event, or detail that particularly stuck out to you or interested you? How did the author use this figure, event, or detail to support his/her overall argument or interpretation? 

 

The Radical Reconstruction struck out to me the most in the reading called “The Making of Radical Reconstruction” by Eric Foner. The radical reconstruction was a time in the later 1800s where parties were trying to help the slave laborers get out of their dreadful situation of overworking and minimal to no compensation. Congress played a key role in making this life-changing decision for so many workers. 

 

Radical Reconstruction helped change the way labor workers or slaves were treated after the American Civil War. There was a position that was filled by someone. This person, under the title “Radical Republican”, is intended to be in charge of representing labor workers. The main purpose of this position is to ensure that former and current slaves(at the time) were protected and had the same civil rights as white Americans. The role of the Radical Republican was effective because it allowed radicals to gain support from other citizens such as manufacturers. According to Foner’s reading, it is stated that “Radicals also won support among manufacturers who saw upwardly mobile blacks as a new market for their products”(page 106). This shows how so many people were starting to take a stand for the radicals. This was just what Radical Republicans wanted and it affected the rest of the society- both people of color as well as White Americans. It positively affected people of color who were trying to get out of slavery, but White Americans were not very happy about this. The slaves (who are now being represented by Radicals), were meant to do labor and produce necessary goods for trade and profit such as cotton. Since the Radical Republicans are determined to reduce the labor of slaves(or essentially reduce free labor), the production of cotton will decrease and it will prevent businessmen from making money. Radical Republicans were reshaping the South so that the rich people living in that part of the society wouldn’t be able to control them. As a matter of fact, the Radicals proposed that the federal government should cut the “400 million acres of a plantation belonging to the wealthiest ten percent of Southerners”(page 107). This would eventually hurt those ten percent of the population that will no longer receive free cotton or money from cotton production More importantly, the people of color are now on the same level of civil rights as White Americans. To further support this movement, Congress removed the people who were originally selected as Southern Congressmen and formed a Joint Committee on Reconstruction to see if Southern states were eligible for representation. Unfortunately, the attempt to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment was unsuccessful because the proposed amendment stated that the weak class of laborers were to form contracts for their labor. This steered away from the main point to abolish slavery in the Southern states. This was doing the opposite of that, so President Andrew Johnson suggested that the amendment should be revised and reconsidered. President Johnson actually supported both Northerners and Southerners, but the Bureau Bill forced him to choose against his diverse allies. In other words, President Johnson went against the Southern states. 

 

The Radical Reconstruction movement in the mid-late 1800s was an attempt to change the way people of color were treated by their slave masters. They were producing loads of cotton without any compensation for their hard, long labor. Instances of labor with little to no pay still exist today such as the school bus protest that happened in the U.S as bus drivers were saying that they should receive more pay for the work that day do. In short, Radical Reconstruction had a strong impact on the government and population in the past briefly leading into the present where we still practice some of the same concepts.