Changing Interpretations of Reconstruction

This paper will discuss the period of Reconstruction in the United States, 1866-77, focusing upon the changing historical interpretations of that period. The specific interpretations which will be discussed are those which were prominent during the following periods: from the end of Reconstruction itself through the beginning of the Twentieth Century, from 1900 through the 1930s (including the interpretations of the Black historians), from the 1940s through the 1950s, the revisionist interpretations of the 1960s, and the post-revisionist interpretations of the 1970s and 1980s.

Although most historians discuss the Reconstruction period in the post-Confederate South as beginning with the end of the Civil War in 1865, Reconstruction did not officially begin until the passage of the first Reconstruction Act in 1867. The Reconstruction Acts were part of the official process by which the Southern states were reformed prior to their reintegration into the Union. Although officially abolished in the South by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, slavery continued to influence the relationships between Blacks and Southern Whites after the war ended. Emancipation could not mean instant equality between the two races, given the 200-year tradition of the master-subject relationship. Consequently, Northern Republicans began the process of re-ordering the racial relationship in the South as the war ended victoriously for the North.

. . .
one society of two races which were completely different in character. Co-existence required either slavery or some other set of conditions which expressed the same fact of racial inequality (Dunning, 1897, p. 384). Black prosperity during Reconstruction was due only to White rule (pp. 139-40). While noting that Reconstruction was efficient in achieving its goals, Dunning described the purpose of Reconstruction, the enfranchisement and granting of political power to Blacks, as "reckless" (pp. 250-51). At the end of Reconstruction, the Republican governments were overthrown because of their corruption and "viciousness;" after their overthrow, peace and tranquillity returned to the South (pp. 355-56). White historians in the 1920s and 1930s did not make any major revisions to the traditional view of Reconstruction. Instead, they placed more blame for the misguided policies on the radical abolitionist minority within the Republican Party. Howard Beale pointed out that this minority had denounced Lincoln during the war, but had been restrained by his popularity (1930, pp. 51-61). After Lincoln's death, they used his reputation to destroy Andrew Johnson's "restoration" policies and implement their own punitive policies (pp. 14
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
South According, Southern Whites, Northern Whites, South Reconstruction, Bill Rights, Whites Violent, According Dunning, Radical Republican, William Dunning, Andrew Johnson's, radical republicans, black historians, southern whites, civil war, civil war reconstruction, white southerners, south reconstruction, reconstruction york, poor whites, traditional interpretation, war reconstruction, reaction southern whites, reconstruction york harper, york harper row, radical republicans motivated,
Approximate Word count = 2328
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Changing Interpretations of Reconstruction