Themes in American History: Capitalism, Slavery, Democracy

Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction, pp. 104–123 (on Blackboard)

Throughout the Eric Foner reading A Short History of Reconstruction, it focuses on the radical reconstruction time period. A time period in the late 1800s, where black minorities and enslaved African-Americans needed the assistance of other party leaders and abolitionists to help fight for their civil rights. During this time, African-Americans were still enslaved and working overtime due to a white man governed land or “white man’s government” (105). The south did not have representation, especially since freedmen and enslaved African-Americans could not vote, since they weren’t seen as equal. However, changes were made during the Radical Reconstruction era. 

Radical Republicans played a key role in helping the minority gain their civil rights during the Radical Reconstruction era. The Radical Republicans had one main goal, rather a commitment to help slaves live a free life with the same rights granted towards white Americans as the civil war was occurring and afterwards when it was over.  This can be supported by the reading as it  states, “On the party’s left side stood the Radical Republicans, a self-conscious political generation with shared experiences, and commitments, a grass-roots constituency, a moral sensibility, and a program for Reconstruction.” (104) Foner focuses on two radical leaders throughout the reading: Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. Foner describes both in the phrase: “differed in personality and political styles.” (105) To further explain their differences, Stevens was painted as “a master of Congressional infighting, parliamentary tactics, and blunt speaking” (105) while Sumner was painted as a dislikable character, “disliked by Senate colleagues for egotism, self-righteousness, and stubborn refusal to compromise, acted as the voice, the embodiment, of the New England conscience.” (105) 

As the reading continues, it discusses the changes that radicals managed to fight for. One major change being the 14th Amendment which granted all citizens equal protection/citizenship. The 14th Amendment is also widely known as it was one of the three amendments (including the other two: the thirteenth amendment – abolished slaves and the fifteenth amendment – the right to vote) passed during the Reconstruction period to a changed future for African-Americans. During this time, freedmen and slaves were granted the right to vote which granted the south representation. “… did the Fourteenth Amendment, the most important ever added to the Constitution, receive the approval of Congress. Its first clause prohibited the states from abridging quality before the law… Before the war, three-thirds of the slaves had been included in calculating Congressional representation.” (114) 

Overall, this reading strengthened my understanding of the Reconstruction time period. The descriptive details taught me the overall obstacles and achievements that Radical Republicans achieved/attempted like the fight for the plantation land as homesteads for former slaves, the fourteenth amendment, southern representation and more. The Reconstruction time period was a turning point for African Americans, especially with the assistance of radical leaders.

 

The Reconstruction era also known as the “Unfinished Revolution” had many major changes in history such as the creation of the 14th and 15th amendments and the black codes. In reading Joshua Brown “Reconstructing Representation, 1866-1877” it made me realize that it wasn’t as easy as I imagined it. Although many former slaves or immigrants were able to find  jobs due to the new laws being placed, it wasn’t enough for them to support their families. There was an economic depression in 1873 which led to many businesses hiring immigrants or former slaves because it was cheapest option for them. Leslie Illustrate Newspaper photo gives a great description on how families didn’t have enough money to feed the rest of their children and had to share their last piece of loaf wondering “where the next supply of food may come from”(Brown 133). Specifically it was demonstrated that the women did most of the work while the man just “sits idly by his cabin-door carousing with his boon companions”(Brown 132). There was also a “bitter Long Strike during the winter of 1874-75” where many miners protested to recieve a higher pay. During this Franklin Gowen the president of the Reading Railroad tried to “gain total control of eastern Pennsylvania coal mining by destroying the miners’ union”(Brown132). A lot of the people started to become chaotic because there was a lack of representation for the poor community. Even in today’s society there is a lack of representation for those who live in poverty. Although many changes have accrued throughout the years the most important issues we still continue to have is poverty and labor. It was interesting for me to see and learn about the negative side of the reconstructive era because what normally comes to my head when I think about reconstructive is how society improved due to new technology and expansion which eventually created more jobs for people. Now I see that it isn’t always the case and that every change has their pros and cons.

The reading which I found to be the most interesting was Joshua Brown, “Reconstructing Representation, 1866–1877,” from Beyond the Lines. I did some research about who John Brown was and found out he was an American abolitionist leader.Brown had the mindset that there needed to be violoience in order to end slavery because there had been years and years of peaceful efforts to end slavery but there was no outcome from them. However Dred Scott was not like brown and had a different mindset.. J.Brown led a raid on the Harpers Ferry federal armory and since he wasn’t successful John Brown was executed. Fredrick Douglas helps us understand how Brown’s plan with this raid would be unsuccessful. McPherson explained in detail why Brown’s plan didn’t work and the point that he didn’t think about.Brown explains in 2 short paragraphs and an illustration of what a family could go through in these times. Brown touches upon the struggle some families faced of not knowing where the next meal would come from.

Brown proceeds to explain what was happening with the mine strikes and Brown explains how others were  blaming the strikers for the way they were living. Brown talks about a family which had received a bread and were putting it in the oven as illustrated in the image provided in the reading. Brown allows us to see how some people much like today didn’t know where their next meal was coming from or if their families would have anything to eat the next day. I found this extremely touching because it’s something that is still happening today and something that I have experienced first hand with friends I have. It’s sad to see history repeating itself because of the lack of education. My question is if they were struggling so much why did they continue to have children? Why not keep the family small knowing they couldn’t provide for themselves?

 

 

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).