Talk:Reconstruction era/Archive 1

message: This article has numerous time continuity problems. Specifically, in numerous sections, references to events jump 'back and forth' between Lincoln and Johnson, leaving readers to guess as to which particular administration or timeframe the editor is referencing.--Fix Bayonets! 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity Issues

message: Perhaps the page could also use a discussion of the "Radical Reconstructionism" which was proposed and rejected; i.e. the stringing up of Confederate leaders, stripping property from southern plantation owners and distributing it to freed slaves, etc.
This page should be disambiguated in some way. First, there the word reconstruction in general. Next, we have Reconstruction. That is explained here as the period after the US Civil War, but I bet there are more countries were periods are called Reconstruction in one way or another. Any suggestions for a good way to disambiguate? jheijmans, Friday, June 28, 2002
*I moved it to disambiguate.  If anyone disagrees very much, feel free to move it back.--Pharos 19:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsectioned Text

message: Under "Culture Clashes", the last paragraph is "1870 (Georgia was the last on July 15), and all but 500 Confederate sympathizers were pardoned when President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Amnesty Act on May 22, 1872. Reconstruction nev" — nev-what? Anyone know what that should be? Thanx 68.39.174.150 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offed sentence 

message: ...is this article a mess.  No one seems to be working on it, which probably explains it.  I don't have time to work on it either; if anyone else ever does, some mention needs to be made of the fact that this is a hugely contentious historical issue, and some mention made of different interpretations.  Specifically, this article makes no mention of the long standard interpretation that reconstruction failed because blacks were not sufficiently educated to take advantage of freedom (I don't agree with this interpretation myself, and I think that it's been pretty thoroughly shot down, but it is still fairly popular (Gone with the Wind) and needs to be discussed. NoahB 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it does need some work.  Though it could be a lot worse. :-)  There should be something about the Dunning school, of course, one of the many things I had been planning on doing at Wikipedia was adding stuff here, based on Foner's book, which was pretty much what thoroughly shot down the old, as you say, long standard "interpretation". At least I'll add this book to the references now for a start.--John Z 04:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it needs work.  From the article: "people both black and white who participated in this exciting point in American history."  I'm not going to put an NPOV tag on the article, but people who actually lived through Reconstuction and its aftermath had a very different view of it than this article presents.  Bubba73 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh boy 

message: Dunning School is now mentioned, and so to is a legacy of Reconstruction and some historical styles drawing from Foner.
:Looks good! Major improvement.--John Z 14:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Additions 

message: This article seems to lack substance, facts.  I suppose the problem is in the Military Reconstruction section (maybe others also) which really says nothing much about what happened.  It does not give start or end dates.  It does not say what military units were involved, their composition, base camps, operations, whatever it was they they did.  They must have been doing something, right? State by state. The underlying articles on the Reconstruction Districts don't say much either.  If someone knows this information, I think it would be helpful to add it to the article.  Thanks Hmains 00:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: very good point.  I'll try to add some detail. Rjensen 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Reconstruction  

message: The movie "Birth of Nation" did use genuine Wilson quotes from a history book he wrote in 1901, praising the KKK. The alleged quote by Wilson: "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." is fake.  The quote itself first appeared in a magazine article in 1937 quoting an unnamed Hollywood source. Wilson explicitly said he did NOT approve of the movie. His top aide wrote the NAACP: "...the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP. See Roger Ebert's discussion which noites there is no evidence whatever that Wilson said that  at:  
Wilson explicity wrote that he "he disapproved of the “unfortunate production.” " [Woodrow Wilson to Joseph P. Tumulty, Apr. 28, 1915 in Wilson, Papers, 33:86.]  The quote is show to be fake in Link, Wilson The New Freedom (1956) p 252-4. Rjensen 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake Wilson Quote 

message: I am wondering why the race of DuBois is singled out for identification on this important page. Should the race of the other scholars also be noted? Unless I hear back, I will add white scholar to all of those I can establish are or were indeed "white," or I will remove "black" from the identification of DuBois. Comments?  skywriter 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased it to make clear that DuBois wrote explicitly on behalf of the black community--unlike the other black scholars in the bibliography. Dunning school did NOT ignore the real fears of blacks. Hiding this info on DuB does not do a service to our users.  Rjensen 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewording makes sense.skywriter 06:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enlightening exchange, and good resolution of conflict. I agree with S's assertion that undue focus on a person's race flies in the face of increased racial tolerance. What was the big deal with Olympian Shani Davis being the first black in an individual event to medal? This was no big color barrier. Every day you read about someone being the first ___ or ___ to serve as Undersecretary to the Assistant of something or other. This is NOT A BIG DEAL anymore.
Such references distract from the subject matter. One day I want to hear, "That skywriter is a credit to the human race." ;)  skywriter 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  race was a big deal in the 1860s, which is why we have the article. And in the 1930s.  It did not accidentally happen that race disappears--lots of people were involved like DuBois. Rjensen 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Scholar/Black Scholar??

message: The following is too vague. Which historians argued what should be stated and the material sourced. 
Some historians have speculated that the disputed election was handed to Hayes in a political exchange for an end to Reconstruction in three states; this theory characterizes the settlement of that election as the Compromise of 1877. Other historians see the Hayes victory as reflecting a desire for conflict less between the the races and between elites of the North and South, and an increased will to integrate the white Southern social hierarchy into the larger American society. skywriter 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some historians/Other historians

message: You mention Lincoln and Andrew Johnson as moderates.  While Lincoln probably would've been less harsh than the Republican Congress was, Johnson was a southern democrat from Tennesse.  He was no moderate.  Reconstruction took place only by override his vetos constantly.
::Lincoln vetoed the key Radical reconstruction proposal (Wade-Davis) and in turn they opposed his plans. What he would have done --who knows?  Johnson in early 1865 was the favorite of the Radicals. He switched after he became president (for reasons unknown) to being the chief opponent of the Radicals. On the other hand he did not join the southern conservatives and insisted they accept the moderate proposals (like 13th amdt). so historians call him a moderate after summer 1865. Rjensen 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate? 

message: There are two excessively long blocks of text from Oberholtzer that will soon be removed if they are not paraphrased or shortened. Oberholtzer is also only one of the Dunning School. skywriter 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: excessively long? No, I don't think so. Wiki history articles are full of very long quotes from EB1911 -- sometimes the entire article--and no one has objected.  The POV on Oberholtezer [Dunning] is clearly indicated, and the result is a variety of viewpoints for the user. The first one on Black Codes is a very detailed and accurate summary of a critical issue (the Black Codes). The other is a good synthesis of the Conservative southern viewpoint. It would be almost impossible to rewrite these without falling deep into POV problems. Rjensen 09:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oberholtzer blockquotes

message: The page subject is Reconstruction and the references should explicitly refer to that. 
So as not to make this section excessively long, the following three references more properly fit on the Wikipedia pages for these individuals. okay? (Donald is already referred to once in reference section).
Castel, Albert E. The Presidency of Andrew Johnson (1979)
Donald, David. Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man (1970), the major biography
Donald, David. Lincoln (1996), pro-moderate.
skywriter 10:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of biographies

message: Is Foner a neoabolitionist? yes. For example see Facts of Reconstruction, Race, and Politics: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin by Eric Anderson, Jr. and Alfred A. Moss, eds. - 1991  Page 210: "Eric Foner reflects neoabolitionist, affirmative-action ideas in stating that blacks claimed a right to the land as compensation for their unrequited toil..."  Rjensen 10:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleming's carefully edited collection of primary sources is the best that has ever been created. It's false to say he opposed citizenship or voting rights for blacks. Rjensen 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleming's survey was synthesis of Dunning school (and is so labeled).  However his Documentary History consists of several hundred short excerpts (a page or two) from a very wide range of primary documents. He makes a good effort to include all possible topics and all viewpoints.  The editors' introduction to Foner's own book says: "James Ford Rhodes, Ellis Oberholtzer, John W. Burgess, and Vernon Parrington to the schools of William Dunning, W.E.B. Du Bois, Walter Fleming, and Allan Nevins. It is to this distinguished lineage of Reconstruction scholars that Professor Foner belongs." (Foner, Reconstruction, page xvii) Most of them are included in the bibliog, as they should be. Rjensen 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The quote from the editors of Foner's book says that he is part of a "distinguished lineage of Reconstruction scholars" and those are the ones we should include in reading list (and so include.)  For Foner as neoabolitionist see a standard work honoring a leading black scholar: Facts of Reconstruction, Race, and Politics: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin by Eric Anderson, Jr. and Alfred A. Moss, eds. -1991 Page 210: "Eric Foner reflects neoabolitionist, affirmative-action ideas in stating that blacks claimed a right to the land as compensation for their unrequited toil..."  Wiki articles include a range of audiences, some of whom should be able to handle unfamiliar words.  The "neo-ab" term is used only in the bibliography for people looking for advanced reading; wise policy is to identify the POV of the authors on this controversial topic.  (One point is not very controversial--everyone seems to consider Reconstruction as failure.)   Rjensen 12:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh don't worry about being beyond the pale! Wiki readers and even editors are allowed to learn new words. "Neoabolitionism" has been used to describe the historiography for over 30 years. It's used by leading scholars--but not by People magazine. The point is a serious one: Foner deliberately goes back to the abolitionists for their interpretation of Reconstruction and the Civil War. We live in a world of "neoconservatives" "neolibertarians" and all sorts of other neos. It's not a naughty word. Rjensen 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foner 

message: Read the book, the reviews, the book jacket, the description in the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize to learn that Litwack's two most acclaimed books are based nearly in their entirety on primary sources untapped by earlier historians. And, he does not bother to take sides with the various "schools." Ignoring them, he lays plain the factual accounts.
What is the basis of your claim that Litwack's epic works are not based on primary sources?
In wholesale reverting of this page, Rjensen, you also reverted edits, such as removal of improper italics, and other edits that made this page better from a copyediting perspective. Please be more careful. skywriter 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources were written by people who were there at the time. Litwack was born 60+ years later so he was not there. He indeed used primary sources --and so did most of the scholars on the list.  What historians write is always called "secondary sources", and should be listed as such.  (Blaine was indeed there and can be considered a primary source on Congress.)  My apologies for reverting some formatting! Rjensen 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Berlin is a splendid collection of hundreds of short primary sources ( 1 to 3 pages each) pulled out of the archives. The volume listed I think is a condensed version of a multi-volume set.  Hyman is a little different. He has a small number (maybe 25 or 30) long items (10-30 pages) -- all speeches or pamphlets published at the time. (They are hard for undergraduates to use. but very solid.)  In every case we have a short one paragraph or so introducing the document.  Also online and should get listed: the complete Congressional Globe (official reports of all debates in Congress.)  DuBois was born after the war and he used printed sources, so that's "secondary". [User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Litwack is most definitely primary source

message: It is highly offensive to continue to label Alrutheus Taylor "black perspective" when no white historians are labeled as "white perspective." That was corrected yesterday and yet without discussion on this Talk page, reverted. 
Black historians of this period, including Taylor, were systematically ignored by the dominant and flagrantly racist Dunning School. skywriter 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not offensive: that is how he labelled himself (he used "Negro").  His work was in fact not ignored--who made that claim? Rjensen 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, who is this supposed to be offensive to skywriter? 144.173.6.67 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Revert

message: Terms like radical, moderate, carpetbagger, scalawag, Freedmen, Conservative are used by all historians regardless of school. (They were used by the players in the 1860s and were NOT invented later by Dunning.)  the terms are not controversioal, but they are specific and should be used correctly.  Wiki has to use them or readers will be baffled.  It is false that all southern whites thought or voted alike. They split (most were Conservatives/Democrats, a large minority were Scalawag/Republican.) This is a complicated subject covering 15 years in 11 states and Washington, and is in the state standards for every state, so many thousands of students will be coming here for help. Rjensen 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  standard terminology 

message: Primary sources have to be grouped separfately or no one will figure out what is what. Rjensen 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references need to be grouped 

message: 1. After the Civil War, Reconstruction is the single most contentious area of U.S. history yet no one would know that by reading this article. 
2. Very few of the viewpoints represented on this page are traced to specific historians, and one reference goes nowhere. Given that the entire history of Reconstruction has been rewritten from entirely different viewpoints over the last 50 years, it is crucial that this article use citations. The failure to source what is written results in the false notion that there is agreement here on the facts. There is not. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Most of what is on this page is not sourced, and that is a real problem.
3. It is the subjective viewpoint of one person contributing to this page that W.E.B. Du Bois is not a primary resource for this article, yet Du Bois was a contemporary of others represented as primary resources, and he authored one of the most important books on the Reconstruction era. This non-neutral viewpoint has resulted in an editing war in the reference area. The last edit of the bibliography reverts to an old version that does not acknowledge that modern historians reject the viewpoint that is repeated multiple times in this article-- that Reconstruction was a failure. That viewpoint was dominant during the Jim Crow era but is no longer dominant. There are other scholarly viewpoints not represented in this article, and descriptions of those viewpoints have been repeatedly removed or modified in favor of the turn of the 20th century historians whose scholarship has been questioned. I have previously argued on this page that Du Bois writing is a primary resource for this era,and the argument has been ignored.
4. The person who has repeatedly removed viewpoints that do not match his own original research indeed has placed a reference in this article to his own web pages, a factor otherwise known as independent research, which is not countenanced on Wikipedia. One (but not the only) problem with transferring that original research to this and related articles is that the work of African American Reconstruction writers was ignored until I added them to the reference section. I am sorry to say that since then, there has been an editing war over how those books will be described. I am no longer willing to spend the time writing descriptions only to find them hacked shortly afterward. I would rather place factual and point of view tags on this page to get these disagreements into the sunshine. 
5. I have previously argued that the labels on this page and linked pages are insufficient, that the content of the labels-- what the different groups stood for i.e. radical, moderate, carpetbagger, scalawag, Freedmen, Conservative-- must be defined just as acronyms must be spelled out. For example, the words "radical" and "moderate" mean very different things in different eras. To assume readers know what the writer intends is to assume mind-reading. This article and those pages that link from this article are deficient in this area. 
I would be happy to see arguments against the placement of tags on this page. I am unwilling to continue pretending there is agreement while scholarly viewpoints are suppressed. Skywriter 04:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DuBois was born in 1868 and Reconstruction ended in 1877 when he was 9 years old. He took a PhD in 1896. "PRIMARY SOURCE" means written by people who were on the scene at the time, and SECONDARY SOURCE means written later by historians like DuBois.  "Primary" does NOT mean better than secondary. Rjensen 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: several historians (like Fleming, Berlin, Hyman) collected and reprinted documents from the 1860s and 1870s. For example speeches, letters, newspaper clippings, editorials, and government reports. Those documents are primary sources and are heavily used by scholars. The history books written by Fleming, Berlin, Hyman -- and DuBois, Litwack etc --are ALL considered secondary sources. See the wiki article on Primary source. Rjensen 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This page, by historian Richard W. Slatta of North Carolina University, does a very good job in explaining the differences between primary and secondary sources. According to his explanation, Du Bois would not be a primary source (unless you are writing an article about Du Bois). His use of primary sources to write his own interpretation of Reconstruction makes it a secondary source in an article about Reconstruction. I hope this helps. --Kfreeland 23:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Intent to Place POV and Fact Tags on This Article

message: I find the information in this article to be incomplete. It does not include much information on the individuals involved in Reconstruction. I am referring specifically to the thousands of black office holders.
The above remark was added by  User: Ladb2000. 
I concur with the statement by Ladb2000 and suggest we begin adding this information and deleting unsourced material. 
The focus and thrust of this article ignores the solid work done in this field over the last 50 years, and for the most part, puts forward the view of former slave holders and those who took their place. That is exactly why I placed the fact and POV tag on the article. The scholarship is shoddy in that it fails utterly to source the material. Thus we are left wondering about its origin. When a criticism is made, someone adds another non-sourced claim to modify the original, and it is like a merry-go-round with no exit, and no recourse to the true documentation. My feeling is this article should be either trashed and begun again or all non-sourced material removed and we can start all over again, this time using citations.
Skywriter 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about discussions of African-American officeholders during this period? 

message: Reconstruction is one of the least understood periods in U.S. History. Most American high school students know very little about this period. They know more about the Civil War and the periods after Reconstruction. This article should serve as a corrective measure for this trend. Instead, we have a hodge-podge article that is going in a hundred different directions. The result is, an article that in many ways, mirrors the lack of understanding of the actual time period. I am going to start revising this article. We are starting from scratch. We also have a mistaken impression of Reconstruction. The election of African-American officeholders and the imposition of a codified system of segregation in the South was not something that occurred over night as soon as the Federal troops were removed or the state legislatures became Democratic. In Florida, most African-American officeholders (there were over a thousand) held there offices after 1876. I believe that Professor Eric Foner is correct when he places the starting date in 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation. However, we have a very restricted definition, if we automatically end the period at 1877. The period really ends with the codification of segregation and the Jim Crow order of the South. Reconstruction overlaps with Redemption, and vice-versa. The Supreme Court provides the best indicator for when this period ends. As early as 1873, the Court narrowly interpreted the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Once again, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly on the issue of rights for the freedmen, in the Civil Rights Cases (1883). The death-knell of the interracial democracy spurred on by the end of the Civil War, was in 1896 with the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. I believe that we should take a more expansive approach to the period. Reconstruction should be the period of time between 1863 and 1896.
User: Ladb2000.
I'm looking through my books on this but I believe Foner et al. pretty much agree that Reconstruction ended definitively with the Hayes-Tilden compromise election in 1876 in which Tilden won the popular vote. Florida votes among others were in contention. A deal was cut. Tilden agreed to give up his claim to the Oval Office and Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction and all protection for African Americans. I'll come up with something more definitive. Thank you for volunteering to work on this. Skywriter 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Time to Make This Article the Best Article It Can Be 

message: Here's the page on archiving. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page
The previous talk page can not be deleted. It must be archived. 
Please use four tildes to sign messages. It is the only way people will know who wrote what on a crowded page. Thanks. Skywriter 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving Talk Page and 4 Tildes

message: Regarding the following entry, the Patton cite does not support the claim that Lincoln did not want suffrage for any African Americans except veterans. It also does not reflect that as Johnson's thinking. Is there a more precise source? Or should the sentence be reworded or removed? 
Later in the article is a claim that Lincoln did support African-American suffrage. Skywriter 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Foner says black leaders were "mostly freeborn urban mulattoes." and "northern blacks assumed a conspicuous role." [Foner 1988 p 285-6] Rjensen 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Haven't contributed to this article (wow a lot or recent activity!) or Wikipedia for a while, but the last rv by Rjensen - who has clearly done a lot of good work on the article - with the above comment deserves some comment.  In several ways the "deleted POV"  by 170.110.243.157 abides by Wikipedia policy better than the current "balanced" text, which has some unacceptable features. 
Compare the reverted
Foner and the neoabolitionists historical research highlighted the legislative achievements of the Republican state governments, and contradicted the claim that these governments were more corrupt than their successors.  
to the present
Foner and the neoabolitionists minimized or ignored the corruption and waste caused  by Republican state governments, and emphasized that poor treatment of Freedmen was a worse scandal and a grave corruption of America's republican ideals.
One can't make factual statements, especially essentially pejorative ones like "minimized or ignored"  unless every reputable scholar  - including of course Foner himself - would make them.  This is absurd.  The deleted version attributes views to Foner et al, in the correct manner.
Unless there is universal agreement on the factuality and influence of increased corruption in  Reconstruction, and there is not, then the references to it must be better phrased, and the pro and con arguments made clearer.  The sentence it contained needs to be recast, but "perceived" corruption contains a valid point.  I'll make some changes but I wanted to give an explanation first.John Z 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "neoabolitionist" is in common use by historians. Foner has never repudiated it. It basically makes the point that the historian follows the abolitionist critique of the 1860s which emphasized the rights of blacks.Rjensen 11:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete POV -- the article has to be balanced ? 

message: This article leans very heavily in support of the Confederate viewpoint of Reconstruction. Various attempts to balance the article are consistently reverted. 
The latest example is Rjensen's deletion of the sourced description of this title:
-  	* Coulter, E. Merton. The South During Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (1947). Dunning School "Considered by many scholars to be historical apologies justifying southern secession, defending the Confederate cause, and condemning Reconstruction in the style of his mentor (J. G. de Roulhac) Hamilton. These works, along with his other writings, presented a powerful intellectual paradigm useful to those opposed to the mid-century crusade for civil rights reforms."  	
Coulter's account is highly controversial. The deletion of the explanation, as was done, can be construed as racial bias. Along with the Civil War, Reconstruction is the most controversial area of U.S. history. The exclusion of mainstream viewpoints that differ from the pro-Confederate viewpoint is not acceptable. A continued exclusion of differing viewpoints will result in an immediate tagging of this article as biased and factually challenged. Skywriter 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skywriter added an annotation that tells nothing of the content or accuracy of one major book. That is straight POV--if the source had said it was "a brilliant performance. Professor Coulter has examined an amazing amount of material... and has shown a profound grasp and understanding of this complex period" I fear he would not have included that. (That is a quote from the review by a Northern scholar in a leading history journal.)
Let me challenge Sywriter: has he read the Coulter book or not?  Rjensen 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coulter wrote a different book on the Confederacy--one that is not at issue here. Bailey (who wrote that excerpt) doesn't seem to like Coulter. But the issue for books is their content not personality conflicts. (Coulter's POV is Dunning school, which is clearly indicated). Coulter says his goals are: "to discover as far as possible what were the aspirations of Southern white Radicals and Negroes and what was their defense against charges made by traditional Southerners," and "to give greater attention to the lives of the people, white and black, in their many interests and activities apart from politics." He says (ch 1)  "The Civil War was not worth its cost.... It freed the slaves, upset a social and an economic order, strengthened the powers of the national government, and riveted tighter upon the South a colonial status under which it had long suffered. What good the war produced would have come in time; the bad would not have come at all."  I don't happen to agree with that (I'm a strong Lincoln supporter) but Wiki does not allow editors to exclude solid scholarly books for that reason. Rjensen 09:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is discriminatory in its focus

message: Participants express contrasting views of the purpose of Reconstruction, moderate and radical approaches, the role of Blacks in society, the end of the era, and reasons why Reconstruction failed.
I have adapted the table of contents of the following book for this purpose. 
Reconstruction: Opposing Viewpoints compiled and edited by Brenda Stalcup 
The advantage of using this stucture, which would be credited to Stalcup without using her running commentary, is that it relies only on primary sources, and offers a pro and con for each area of controversy. This proposal resolves the imbalances and chronological confusion in the current article. All of the primary sources are out of copyright. Because Reconstruction was deeply polarized by those who wrote about it, the opinions of historians are clipped, and kept to the end as representative historiography. 
We do not have to summarize the arguments of these particular individuals if other primary sources are available. It is important that each area of dispute be put forward fairly and even-handedly. 
*Intro would present the fact of sharply opposing viewpoints. The areas of divisiveness would follow. Each element would contain a representative paragraph with a link to the originals if they can be found. A brief paragraph could follow each section saying how the disagreement was resolved. 
*Reconstructing a Nation: Opposing Plans
:Reconstruction Is an Executive Function by Abraham Lincoln
:Reconstruction Is a Legislative Function by Henry Winter Davis
*The South Is a Separate, Conquered Nation by The Joint Committee on Reconstruction
:The South Is Not a Separate, Conquered Nation by Andrew Johnson
:The South Is Willing to Accept Reconstruction by Ulysses S. Grant
:The South Is Unwilling to Accept Reconstruction by Carl Schurz
*Moderate Reconstruction: The President Versus Congress
:The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 Should Not Be Enacted by Andrew Johnson
:The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 Should Be Enacted by Lyman Trumbull
:The Fourteenth Amendment Violates States' Rights by Andrew J. Rogers
:The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Violate States' Rights by John A. Bingham
:President Johnson Should Be Impeached by Charles Sumner
:Johnson Should Not Be Impeached by James Grimes
*Radical Reconstruction
:Carpetbaggers Have Harmed the South by William Manning Lowe
:Carpetbaggers Have Helped the South by Oliver Morton
:The Ku Klux Klan Is a Peacekeeping Organization by John Brown Gordon
:The Ku Klux Klan Is a Terrorist Organization by The Federal Grand Jury 
:More Federal Intervention Is Needed in the South by Joseph Gurney Cannon
:Additional Federal Intervention in the South Is Unnecessary by Henry Lillie Pierce
*The New Social Order 
:Blacks Should Have the Right to Vote by Frederick Douglass
:Blacks Should Not Have the Right to Vote by Benjamin M. Boyer
:Southern Land Should Be Given to the Freed Slaves by Thaddeus Stevens
:Southern Land Should Be Returned to the Owners by Burwell C. Ritter
:Blacks Are Capable of Holding Public Office by Henry McNeal Turner
:Blacks Are Not Capable of Holding Public Office by James S. Pike
:Segregation Should Be Maintained by Henry Davis McHenry
:Segregation Should Be Abolished by James T. Rapier
*The End of Reconstruction
:The Compromise of 1877 Will Help Reconstruction by John Mercer Langston
:The Compromise of 1877 Will Harm Reconstruction by George Washington Cable
:Blacks Should Stay in the South by Frederick Douglass
:Blacks Should Leave the South by Richard Theodore Greener
:The Civil Rights Act of 1875 Is Unconstitutional by Joseph P. Bradley
:The Civil Rights Act of 1875 Is Constitutional by John Marshall Harlan
*Historians Debate Reconstruction
:Reconstruction Failed Because Republican Reforms Were Too Radical for American Society by William R. Brock
:Reconstruction Failed Because Republicans Were Not Committed to Racial Equality by C. Vann Woodward
*The Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Skywriter 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike college students who use the Stalcup reader, Wiki editors are not allowed to do original research. We only tell users what the scholarship says--what is the purpose of ignoring the hard work of over a thousand scholars, who use vastly more sources in much more depth? Rjensen 22:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A structural proposal

message: I think we need to agree upon a common framework for this article. We also cannot ignore the work of thousands of scholars. I have contributed a fair amount of articles highlighting various figures from Reconstruction. 
Feel free to examine the following articles
African-American Officeholders During Reconstruction
Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs
Thomas Van Renssalaer Gibbs
Mifflin Wistar Gibbs
John Willis Menard
James D. Lynch
Nathan Lord
As a student of this time period, I can vouch for the fact that we definitely need to set some standards for this article. However, the very nature of the subject does not easily lend itself to a neutral point of view. However, the majority of scholars do agree that Reconstruction was a failure, not because it was tried, but because it failed to deliver civil and political equality to newly freed blacks. We must discuss other kinds of historiography and other points of view, without ignoring the accepted wisdom of thousands of scholars. While I am in favor of having a definite framework that sets out clear and concise points for discussion, we cannot tie ourselves down to one writer or one single point of view. Ladb2000
::The article as it now stands covers all the main points of Reconstruction, national and regional, with a reasonably good bibliography. Skywriter seems to think there is bias and POV out there--but seems unaware that he might have some himself. For example he strongly criticized books he has never read. He might for the fun of it look at what he is condemning. Rjensen 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen falsely alleged-- For example he strongly criticized books he has never read. 
Rjensen, you disappoint. Always a mistake to speak of what one provably knows not a thing about.Skywriter 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can read between the lines. If Skywriter had actually read the books he would not make his claims. For example he mixed up Coulter's book on reconstruction with his book on Civil War, which is unlikely if either had actually been read. Rjensen 04:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weighing in on the focus of the Reconstruction page 

message: A lot of users only read the summary section, especially of a long article like this. They want to find out what Reconstruction was -- who were the main players. Rambling rhetoric is not called for. Summary should have: major names, key dates, major events, major issues. Rjensen 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: try the World Almanac and Book of Facts. Rjensen 06:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: This is not accurate. It is well-documented that the Freedman's Bureau provided aid to both races. It did not discriminate. To suggest that it did so in a caption is misleading.
In a call for "white supremacy" and an end to the Freedman's Bureau, this Conservative/ Democratic racist poster from 1866 ridicules the loafing black man subsidized by the Bureau in contrast to the hard working white man who does not get federal money.
Skywriter 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: caption

message: I know next to nothing about Reconstruction, so I came to the Wikipedia to learn about it.  The first thing I noticed is that the article says it ended in 1998.  That kind of supprised me, so I searched the article for some indication of when, precisely, Reconstruction ended and could find nothing indicating that it ended in 1998 (or even in 1898, in case 1998 had been a typo).
Jsminch 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What ended Reconstruction?

message: This article (and its TOC) is becoming unmanageably long. I think a lot of it should be summarized and spun-off into subarticles. The most obvious choice is the "radical reconstruction" section. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article covers very complex material. There may be ways to shorten it (why?) -- but the main themes have to remain, esp Radical republicans. But Savidan is right about unnecessary material, so I cut down the article esp by reducing long quotes. Rjensen 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The first sentence in this article is absurdly overlinked. 71.252.42.247 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstruction was the process in US history, 1863–1877, that resolved the issues of the American Civil War when both the Confederacy and its system of slavery were destroyed.
It is not clear to me if the sentence is saying that the Reconstruction destroyed "the Confederacy and its system of slavery" of if they were destroyed in the Civil War.
*Surly reconstruction was the process under which the South was integrated into the North's vision of the United States. A stronger central government with states rights more subservient than previously held to be true. As has been said before the Civil War people said "the United States are going to ..." after the war "the United States is going to ...".
*This is not to say that slavery was not an important issue, but to say it was  "Confederacy's and its system of slavery suggests that it came into existence with the Confederacy and died with the Confederacy. The system my have died with the Confederacy but it existed withing the United States prior to the existence of the Confederacy.
Sections of the reconstruction process were of course resisted by the "bitter enders" (to borrow a term from the Second Boer War) and their machinations and actions also make up part of the reconstruction process, as these fed back into the reconstruction process.
So I think that the first sentence needs a rewrite! --Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: This may be relevant to the article:
Freedmen's Bureau Bill 
It may be useful to include a link to it in the Reconstruction article and also could use expansion. -- VGF11 03:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedmen's Bureau Bill 

message: This is way to POV in the intro.  Johnson was never radical, and congress was not in control of the radicals , since they were only a faction. The party was made up of conservatives, moderates and radicals. The radicals gained more seats, but thats it. YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical bias? 

message: Near the beggining of the first section is the word "fag" in between two sentences.  Vandalism has been erased.
69.64.2.120 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism 

message: Most recent edit deleted the analysis and reference citation to contemporary United States historian John Hope Franklin in favor of inserting more racially prejudicial text from Walter Lynwood Fleming. 
-  	John Hope Franklin.Race and History: Selected Essays, 1938-1988 (Louisiana State University Press: 1989) pp. 65, 411 Walter Lynwood Fleming, Documentary History of the Reconstruction (Cleveland, 1907), II, p. 328 
I hope this was not an intentional deletion but I fear it is.  
I will make this point again. The views of the deeply racially prejudiced historians at the turn of the twentieth century are overly represented in this article. The many articles and books written in the last 50 years pointing out the errors of the Dunning School, intentional and otherwise in the flawed history books they wrote-- are all but ignored in this article, or are used to make minor points. 
The recent edit deleting Franklin's views (that had been published in two history books) continues the flavor of this article that is openly hostile to research findings by contemporary historians on southern whites, northerners and African Americans et al. A continuation of the personal POV that supports the Dunning School historians who have long been rejected by most scholars is unacceptable and pushes a repugnant and discredited viewpoint that is also filled with factual error. 
I plan to introduce Franklin's criticism of Fleming and if it is deleted, it is cause to take this long-troubled article to arbitration. Skywriter 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skywriter included a partial quote from Fleming which he took from Franklin. I simply provided the entire quote from Fleming and dropped the Franklin link as unnecessary. None of Franklin's words were omitted.  The issue here is that Fleming reported what he saw as the good and evil points of reconstruction. We do not want to distory what Fleming said--and in this case I actually read Fleming but I do not believe Skywriter has read Fleming. Rjensen 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skywriter decided that Fleming's views should be presented. OK I agree--but I added the full quote and not a partial excerpt. Skywriter did not quote Fleming directly he used a quote from a book by Franklin., That suggests he reads Franklin and not Fleming--was that deduction false? I suggest that Skywriter has not read the scholars he likes to denounce, but relies on Franklin. Who knows he might discover that Fleming actually knows the material very well. I have not suppressed any scholar--I was the one who added nearly all of the bibliography for example, trying to include all viewpoints as is required by Wikipedia. And previously I added some quotes from Franklin as well. As for my own views on Reconstruction, I have not given them out. I am trying to keep personal POV out of this. (since my expertise was challenged let me add that I took a PhD at Yale under C. Vann Woodward, and would like to ask Skywriter where he was educated in Southern history.)Rjensen 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: I believe there should be a section devoted to the devastated economy and infrastructures in the South after at the beginning of the section.  This could give better insight into the African American and White labor disputes and racist attitudes. Any suggestions. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I added a detailed report, with citations. More should be added on health conditions and death rates. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I pared it down as befits a background section and added a  flag to the article section you copied over in its entirety. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks RJensen for adding the section!  That was fast.  I found a good list of the economic costs both direct and indirect for the Union and the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy after the Civil War 

message: for some reason following the cival war the reconstruction era began and changed the live of fellow american citizens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.186.233 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsensical unsigned comment 

message: It seems to me that the introduction is too long. At first glance, it seems to be one of the articles with no sections. I suggest shortening it. 67.170.103.34 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the introduction should be summarized. 74.42.182.5 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Introduction? 

message: IT'S TOO LONG! I CANNOT READ IT ALL! HELP ME! Ian.bjorn (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has short versions at History of the United States (1865–1918) and at History of the Southern United States#Reconstruction (1863-1877)Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this. --KorruskiTalk 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: This article could be longer!  The reason why there is so much material is because there was so much resistance to Reconstruction in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.  There was also  a Congressional war with President Johnson and massive material destruction that took place in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously? SERIOUSLY!!!??? 

message: Suggested Moves
I was thinking of adding under the section of material devastation some discussion of urban experiences of freedpeople.  This addition would give a more complete picture of life in the Reconstruction era,   Also, I wanted to include a section on the legalization of slave unions after the section on the Louisana 10% plan.  Also, in the black codes section I was thinking of adding a section on the gendered nature of discrimination in the South during this period.  These changes would include more of the social history of the U.S. during this period and give a fuller picture of the history of Reconstruction.  Please let me know if you have any comments.Amherstory (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: what sources are you using? Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as its in accord with the five pillars. Two things to pay special attention to are reliable sources and neutral point of view. If you're bashful about your first contributions, add just one piece at a time and see how it goes, or as some new editors like to do it, be bold and go for it. Jojalozzo 10:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What legislation legalized slave unions?  Was this federal or state legislation and when was this legislation passed? In the current article there is no mention of actual specific legislation passed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think each state passed laws--eg Tennessee in 1866 had a new law that said "That all free persons of color who were living together as husband and wife in this State while in a state of slavery are hereby declared to be man and wife, and their children legitimately entitled to an inheritance in any property heretofore acquired, or that may hereafter be acquired, by said parents, to as full an extent as the children of white citizens are now entitled by the existing laws of this State." online Rjensen (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: My concern is that these laws apparently were passed after President Lincoln. The Tennessee law was passed in 1866. Maybe this segment belongs under the Johnson Presidency section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since these laws were passed by states, rather then federal or presidential authority, maybe the slave union information needs to be a seperate section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edits

message: Any objection into putting a paragraph section on the extensive Congressional investigation on the status of Reconstruction states? This section could be put right after the Grant: the Radical President section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nathan B. Forrest didn't found the KKK, but by the 1870s, he was supposedly had been elected the Grand Wizard or whatever the top title was. It was founded in TN by a group of younger men, all Confederate veterans, and independent chapters sprang up across the South. Parkwells (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits Parkwells.  I believe Forrest was the Klan's first overall leader, The Grand Wizard. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional investigation (1871-1872) 

message: Did Etcheson take a survey of historians that Reconstruction was a failure?  I believe there is an element of POV and myth creating.  How is failure defined? Are historians siding with the Dunning School? Is Etcheson part of the Dunning school? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Etchison reviewed all the major studies by recent scholars before coming to her conclusion. Likewise Foner reaches the same conclusion.  The debate is about what caused the failure. Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Etchison and Foner are part of the Dunning School.(Correction: Etchison and Foner are not part of the Dunning School.) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etcheson source 

message: Could President Grant's annexation attempt of Santo Domingo be considered Reconstruction Policy?  Grant had wanted a stronghold statehood for African Americans in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santo Domingo 

message: While some sections are balanced in presenting and documenting opposing viewpoints, the overall tone and certain entire sections are biased in favor of the perspective of aggrieved Southern white opponents of Reconstruction.  Pejorative terms like scalawags and carpetbaggers are employed as if they were not derogatory.  (The Wikipedia entry for "scalawag" reads as if written by the editor of this article.)  The oversimplified conclusion that everyone agrees that Reconstruction was a failure is supported by sections that suggest that white Southerners were oppressed and that giving civil rights and power to blacks was unfair to non-"scalawag" whites.  There is a big difference between a "failure" caused by those who fought and sabotaged it, and a "failure" because the objectives and methods employed were unjust.  The fact that some historians employ scalawag and carpetbagger throughout their discussions of Reconstruction reflects their own bias or poor judgment.  It is no excuse for doing so here.  This article should give a clear portrait of the forces in conflict and their respective goals.  Scalawag and carpetbagger should be used only when explaining what one group called another, and the derogatory nature of the terms made abundantly clear. The fact that one group in the conflict initiated terrorist campaigns against the others should be made more central to the story.  The consequences of the resulting defeat of Reconstruction should end the article, not the misleading claim that there is consensus over its "failure."    --Lastudies (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased overall tone 

message: There is a lot of opinion adjectives injected into the introduction that I've noticed so far. For example:
* "In furious battles" -> "In battles"
* "the president prevailed" -> "the president succeeded"
* "commenced in earnest" -> "commenced"
* "Lincoln's lenient policies" -> "LIncoln's policies"
* etc...
Perhaps the more appropriate tag would be the  template. But I wasn't sure what constituted as essay-like. I don't have enough time to fix the article myself so I'll only make the changes that I pointed out. Devourer09 (t·c) 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to the changes you suggest above. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep up the good work. I'll also give it a once-over. Jojalozzo 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I think "era" should be lower case in the title. It was capitalized in March 2011 without discussion or objection as far as I can see. Jojalozzo 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "era" is a noun that means a series of years from a fixed point in time.  I do not believe the word "era" has to be capitalized.  I believe lower case is appropriate for the article. Possibly editor consensus is needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: publishers use it both ways. I prefer the capitalized "Era" because "Reconstruction Era" is the name of a specific event like the "Second World War" (it's never "2nd world war). Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Era" capitalized in the title? 

message: I have put in the reference desk a topic of discussion over whether President Johnson was planning a military overthrow of the Radical Government for not allowing Southern States to be readmitted. Here is the link. Andrew Johnson overthrow plot
Source: Badeau (1887), Grant in peace: From Appomattox to Mount McGregor, p. 50-52 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Johnson and overthrow plot 

message: I've made changes to the Lede to try to indicate those events that took place well after Reconstruction - namely, passage of the disfranchising constitutions, 1890-1900s. I don't think we should go too far in including all the post-Reconstruction events as part of this era, or it will be too confusing. There is already so much to cover within the timeframe. Freedmen did not lose all their political power by 1877; they were electing the peak number of black local officeholders in the 1880s in many states, and elected five blacks to the US Congress in the last decade of the 19th century. The key to their second-class status was their disfranchisement achieved by whites near the turn of the century, which completed what state legislatures had started by restrictive voter registration and other rules. The political struggle continued in the 1880s and 1890s; in many states, a biracial coalition of Republicans and Populists controlled some state legislatures in the 1890s. Parkwells (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Parkwells, the article mentioned the "second class status" of blacks in the South after Reconstruction. The above discussion was concerned that mentioning lynchings needed to be included, since there was mob rule after the U.S. military left the Southern States. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: what happened in the 1890s long AFTER Reconstruction is a famous story, but it does not belong in the lede of this article. And certainly speculation about what might have happened regarding manufacturing if history had been different is not part of the lede, which is designed to summarize the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - was just working first with what was already there; did not add the quote on manufacturing or data on late 19th c. Agree that the later stuff should be deleted.Parkwells (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick to topic and era

message: This article states Blacks were treated as second class citizens after Reconstruction. What about all the lynchings of blacks from 1882 to 1964 in the Reconstructed states.  Doesn't this need to be mentioned? I would say blacks had no rights and were subject to an extreme violent deaths in  the Reconstructed states. Second class citizens may be an understatement. Source: Lynchings: By State and Race, 1882-1968. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the lynchings were fought by the Progressives and declined dramatically by the 1920s. After 1900 lynchings mostly happened in rural areas with little or no law enforcement (they were rare in towns and cities where they were police). In the towns and cities the police & courts did protect the blacks from vigilantes. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: watch the POV. "sporting event" is at the same level of accuracy as the lynched men being rapists. The Southern Whites were the ones who put a stop to it. The question is what the RS say about citizenship and they use "second class citizen"  as in  and the 3900 texts in a google search Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: don't mix up mob violence in defiance of state law, and legal citizenship. As for legal status the Southern legislatures, courts and political system gave the blacks 2nd class status, and that came after Reconstruction ended. That's what the RS say. Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Does lynching need to be mentioned in the article or that the Southern State governments failed to protect the rights of African Americans after Reconstruction?  The article mentions Reconstruction as a failure, but was the aftermath of removing the troops is not mentioned as a failure since their were no laws that protected blacks from being lynched. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynchings 

message: This section has gotten all mixed up - to evaluate the historiography, I think the discussion  should follow as the works were written - chronologically. In addition, I don't think it's the place for a discussion of Harris' journalism, which was not historiography, but an effort to influence current society of his time. Under Grady's editorship, he wrote mostly AFTER Reconstruction. Nor do I think the historiography section is the place for discussion of Birth of a Nation in its various forms, which were mostly 20th c. works, if part of a cultural legacy. I've put that content in a sub-section called "In popular culture". Also the section related to Lerone Bennett, Jr's book does not adequately represent Eric Foner's review. It is difficult to know what the original editor of the content on Bennett intended. It's a recent book that joined many works (including Bennett's own earlier writing) in saying that Lincoln had some racist views, but that's not news.Parkwells (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the changes on the Bennett section. It still seems out of place; I think it belongs more in an article on Lincoln than in this one and would like to delete the paragraph altogether. Thoughts? Parkwells (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

text: This has been mentioned before, but the Dunning school's purpose was to denigrate Ulysses S. Grant and Reconstruction.  If this is true on face value alone, then does the the Dunning school need to be considered historical corruption? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dunning schools purpose was not to attack Grant (as president)--it was not necessary for every historian in those days (and until recently) attacked Grant. In fact the Dunning School seldom wrote about Grant. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick to other historians' arguments in RS with Dunning and his representatives; Du Bois marshaled facts in his book on Reconstruction, as have Foner and others. Labelling a group of historians as "historically corrupt" is POV and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most historians reflect their times. Parkwells (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Why has Grant's Administration been ignored for so long by historians? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum on corruption, but to me, it implies events within the political realm: payoffs, favors, bribes. Again, please go to RS. I seem to recall Grant's administration being accused of corruption, in the classical political sense, and think it has been covered by historians, perhaps not recently. The question is - how did his administration compare to others of the times, and to events at the state government level, not just what we think of it today. That is, it has to be evaluated on more than one level, just as historians more recently have compared Jefferson to his cohort in terms of his actions related to slavery. for example, in Grant's time, the use of patronage was much more widespread and people found that acceptable as part of the system -except, of course, when their own people weren't getting the benefit of patronage. Postmaster appointments were classic for setting up local patronage systems, as apparently they could hire supporters as workers.Parkwells (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I am not talking financial corruption, rather, the corruption of neglect, political and media suppression, in historical perspectives. To have such a one sided view of Reconstruction as the Dunning school is corruption, Radical Republicans were the evil bad guys and conservative planter Democrats were the political good guys. Are historians on such a high pedestal that they are untouchable? I know this is off the subject. A modern example would be how Dumas Malone got CBS to cancel a miniseries that suggested Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemings. Isn't that corruption, having complete control of a network, sqashing Chase-Riboud's account of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings? [Kuhn (2010), p.74]. More recently, CBS also cancelled a mini series on The Reagans in November 2003. Modern text books rarely put President Grant in any positive manner. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy and historiography

message: Was President Johnson a moderate or a conservitive in terms of Reconstruction? According to Woodward-McFeely (1974) President Johnson did everything he could to dismantle Reconstruction and his impeachment had to do with his resistance to Radical Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson as a moderate 

message: Was Lincoln neutral on the slavery issue? I am not sure if this article addressed that issue. He stated he desired to save the Union with or without freeing the slaves. That would imply that he did not have any moral obligation to end slavery. Lincoln opposed the spread of slavery into other states or territories on economic grounds. Does this issue belong in the Lincoln and slavery article or can this be mentioned in this article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With the Letter Lincoln replied to an Open Editorial in Greeley's New York Tribune in which Greeley wrote "On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one... intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel... that the rebellion, if crushed tomorrow, would be renewed if slavery were left in full vigor... and that every hour of deference to slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union." see Horace Greeley, "A Prayer for Twenty Millions," New York Tribune, August 20, 1862 in "Dear Mr. Lincoln: Letters to the President" Edited by Harold Holzer (Southern Illinois University Press; 1st edition (January 20, 2006)), p. 160-161
(emphasis added) If this quote is not already in the article, perhaps it should be added? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the quote is being misread. He says that in his official capacity as president he has certain restraints but personally he wants to end slavery. Furthermore those presidential restraints could and did change a few weeks after his letter with the preliminary Emanc Proc. It's very dangerous to use primary sources-- Wiki rules say to use reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Lincoln worked very hard in 1861-62 to get slavery abolished in DC (success) and in border states (they refused). Slavery was indeed legitimate and hat was not an issue outside small abolitionist circles. The issue was ending it peacefully. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln and slavery 

message: The article does look imposing without any sort of infobox or image montage at the top of the page. Any ideas for what to include?
Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I tried this once, however, other editors apparently viewed there was no image that adequately depicts Reconstruction. The photo that shows the destruction of Charlottesville Charleson in my opinion was a good photo for an comprehensive view of Reconstruction, however, other editors did not desire this. What photos, Zaldax, did you have in mind? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that the Charleston image was taken before Recon really began. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks Rjensen. One option that I thought would be was to show black men at the voting poll in 1867. Lincoln was martyred because he said he believed in limited suffrage for black soldiers.  All of the turmoil that surrounded Reconstruction concerned blacks voting or holding office. This is only a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a good illustration--there is a colorized version (done at the time for sale as a lithograph) of it that is quite dramatic.Rjensen (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I could not find a colored version of the illustration at the Library of Congress.  Would the Black and White version do? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image montage? 

message: Here would be a potential infobox. I did not want to just place one in the article without editor approval. Please make any changes where needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: One of your tables that mentions dates that states left the union, were readmitted, etc. also has a column for when Democratic control was achieved. Why?
Lincoln was a Republican, so are you trying to show when the 'other side' took control? What is the purpose of that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.134.209 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is on Reconstruction. Democrats at that time were a conservative party that did not accept African American citizenship and attempted to disenfranchise blacks throughout the South. The Democratic Party threatened a second civil war in 1876 because as conservatives, they could not accept blacks in public office or any other public place. Ulysses S. Grant and a Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 giving blacks access to public accommodations. After Reconstruction ended blacks were lynched and segregated from the white community in the South. The Democratic Party fought Reconstruction or Civil Rights up until the 1960's. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a column for democratic control? 

message: I believe there needs to segments on Northern resistance and Supreme Court decisions that ended Reconstruction or the effects of Reconstruction laws and Constitutional Amendments. In addition to Southern resistance, the Supreme Court narrowly defined the Constitution in terms of Reconstruction. The North, by 1874, was not in any way concerned with the enforcement of black civil rights. Are there enough sources for these segments? Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article tends to associate the end of Reconstruction only with Southern conservative resistance. However, the Supreme Court and lack of empathy from the north, created resistance the enforcement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the big issue was : why should the US army be used as a partisan political weapon in state politics? Answer 1): the war is not really over and we have to keep fighting the Confederate enemy; Answer 2) the war is over and it's time for civilian rule. Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court decisions and Northern resistance to Reconstruction