Talk:Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

First draft[edit]

This article draws together information which has been scattered among several articles (such as Poll tax not showing the relationship with Literacy test. Some info belongs here more than in other articles (such as in Jim Crow laws). More editing of this article will be needed before material can be removed from other articles. Edit away. (SEWilco 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I left the "under construction" banner up to indicate it is known that this article isn't quite complete yet. There are a bunch of adjustments to be made, many which will be obvious to all. Including some 1912 phrasing and a mixed bag of wikilinks. (SEWilco 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Construction banner removed. (SEWilco 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

1912 writing still evident in here[edit]

It needs to be updated. I replaced one "must" with a "had to". 204.52.215.107 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs good sources and citations[edit]

The article has many inaccuracies of time and fact. I've made some changes, but it needs extensive citations to support the constitutional changes and assessments of their impacts.--Parkwells (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs much more work[edit]

Article jumps around in time and concepts. Needs much more work.--Parkwells (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Title does not reflect content[edit]

Given the title of "Disfranchisement", some of the article seems oddly more directed at highlighting constitutional reforms in northern states that expanded suffrage. Whether or not that data is provided only for contrast, the section on Southern actions should come first. If the article is to be more general, maybe the title should be "Turn of the century state constitutions", but that does not focus enough on the severe problem of disfranchisement.--Parkwells (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the title implies that it ought to also deal with the disenfranchisement of former Confederates, which was a major part of Reconstruction, though later revoked. john k (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. It should really be "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction", since that is the intent. It was started by someone else. I took out the northern material as there was so much to deal with in the South in terms of disfranchising African Americans and poor whites, but never went back to the title. That's all I want to deal with at this point. Will have to think about the title.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that you brought this up, I really want to change the title to "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction". Do you know if there is a bot or a way to redirect, so that all the titles could be changed in references, or that references by the earlier title will go to the newly titled page? I hope not to have to do it one by one. --Parkwells (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How about I create another article entitled "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction" and move all this text to that? Then I could add a little material to make a stub article at "Disfranchisement after the Civil War" to apply to the Confederates. There would have to be some redirect at the Disambiguation page, but that can be arranged, I think. Other articles have evolved. Can't think of any other solution.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In progress[edit]

There is extensive documentation of the issues and facts discussed here, and I've been working to find sources - did not start the original article, but this is not original research. Please allow time for sourcing before deleting material. --Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Article could use an image of orderly black voting - I've seen one or more from contemporary Harper's Weekly articles. Help would be appreciated in locating one.--Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

..my finding of a little more info:[edit]

I found a 1949 edition of "The Encyclopedia Britannica, Junior", and under an essay titled, "Carpetbaggers", I read: "After the Civil War, black freedmen gained the right to vote, and white southerners lost their right to vote because they had participated in the secessionist rebellion. "Northern political and manufacturing interests ("carpetbaggers") came south to organize the new freedmen ex-slaves into voting blocks which might favor northern economic interests in the south. "Many Freedmen (even though maybe unable to read) were elected as community leaders after political campaigns financed by northern political and manufacturing interests. "Bankruptcies of southern families were common, and tensions grew. "One of the outcomes was the rise of the KKK, and a southern hatred of the north." Hmm, ..seems quite a subject! Why have I never heard of the "disenfranchisement" of the entire south? ..Why is this never mentioned in school? I abhor slavery, all political disenfranchisements, and all dishonest political maneuverings. We are a democracy, right? But this (new) information informs me a bit on why such dastardly things as KKK and segregation find their emotional underpinnings. It should be discussed as common knowledge. Especially since we already commonly discuss those terrible outcomes brought about by people's destructive and dishonorable responses to those pressures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcarp (talkcontribs) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The account above is rather biased and reflects inaccuracies of the Dunning "School" of history. Most Northerners who came to the South were veterans who bought land and hoped to make lives there. The US government temporarily prohibited former Confederates from voting, as they understandably did not want people elected who had just led the Civil War. This action is usually given plenty of discussion and is covered in the "Reconstruction era of the United States" article. It was not the only "reason" for the rise of the KKK and other paramilitary groups, however, as they were part of a widespread insurgency across the South as former Confederates refused to accept the results of the war. This article specifically relates to the later disfranchisement in the late 19th century of most blacks and many poor whites after Reconstruction. We probably need to change/move the title to make it more clear.--Parkwells (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Disfranchisement" or "disenfranchisement"?[edit]

This article is confusing because it uses the term "disfranchisement", rather than "disenfranchisement" (emphasis supplied) which is the more common term in American English.

Though the disfranchisement article makes it clear that both terms mean the same thing (I assume "disfranchisement" is preferred in "international" English), and the references for this article seem to prefer "disfranchisement", it should be compared to the felony disenfranchisement article which uses the latter term even though it's a worldwide treatment. As this article is specifically limited to U.S. history (in particular, the electoral portion of the Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Movement successfully overturned), it should use the preferred term in modern-day American English, "disenfranchisement". --RBBrittain (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary US sources (historians and lawyers) from which much of this article was drawn consistently use "disfranchisement". I believe we should keep the article that way.--Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Need to update map showing where 17-year-olds can register/vote in primaries[edit]

Virginia has long allowed a voter who is otherwise eligible and will be eligible with respect to age by the time of the next general election to register in advance and to vote in any intervening primary or special election. (Source: Constitution of Virginia, Art. II, Sec. 1, http://legis.state.va.us/Constitution/Constitution.htm)

Since the information is in a graphic which requires an outside program to edit it, I could not make this change. I hope that someone who can update it will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.129.215 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)