Talk:Reconstruction era

Archives
Untitled Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Reconstruction era of the United States → Reconstruction of the United States — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

era doesn't follow capitalization conventions, really doesn't do anything for the title (it is more commonly referred to as Reconstruction than the Reconstruction Era). Four characters we don't need. Nothing else is referred to as "Reconstrcution of the United States", so no ambiguity problem Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Without any further modification, the term "Reconstruction" could refer to the period of US history. However, a modified title such as "Reconstruction of the United States" is unusual. Adding the term "era" helps to clarify the meaning. older ≠ wiser 22:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual, and doesn't need to be clarified. "Reconstruction era of the United States" is a) more unusual than "Reconstruction of the United States); and b) Has four characters you don't need Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English, "Reconstruction of the United States" sounds unusual. If you can provide evidence that that exact phrase is what is most commonly used to refer to the era, then I'll defer. But otherwise is seems an ungrammatical and unusual title. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wah? Ungrammatical? It's just Noun+Prepositional Phrase: Reconstruction (noun) of (prep.) the (art.) United States (P. Noun). See here and here for my basis. It's exactly the same as the sentence "Construction of the Empire State Building began in 1930" without the verb and the second prepositional phrase (the stuff after began). I know Reconstruction might seem like an adjective, but it's really a noun like other -tion words. As a student of American history, I've heard Reconstruction used much more than Reconstruction Era; just add "of the United States" to the prevailing title to distinguish from other reconstructions Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify from what? ... well how about common English usage. There are lots of ways a page could be unambiguously titled on Wikipedia, but such idiosyncratic stylings are irrelevant if they do not match common usage. As I've already indicated above, I don't think the phrase "Reconstruction of the United States" is common or idiosyncratic. IMO, including the term "era", either capitalized or not, clarifies the title. older ≠ wiser 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Wiktionary is unacceptable as a reliable source. 23:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was using it in a grammatical sense Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth M. Stampp's important work on Reconstruction is titled "The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877". Eric Foner in the very first paragraph of his work "Reconstruction:America's Unfinished Revolution" refers to Reconstruction as "the violent, dramatic, and still controversial era that followed the Civil War." David Donald in "The Politics of Reconstruction, 1863-1867" refers to the "Reconstruction era" in the first paragraph of his work. Brooks Simpson in "The Reconstruction Presidents" in the first paragraph of the introduction refers to "Reconstruction, an era of American history." The suggested new name is historically inaccurate -- it was NOT the entire United States that was reconstructed but the rebellious states that were reconstructed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If "Reconstruction Era" were the prominent title, wouldn't Donald have called his work "The Politics of the Reconstruction Era" instead of the "Politics of Reconstruction". I don't see how the addition of era makes it any more or less accurate...it's a temporal rather than geographic reference Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The article covers the "Reconstruction era". Renaming it to something else is senseless. It might be better at Reconstruction Era (USA) or Reconstruction (USA) but "Reconstruction of the United States" makes no sense, since it could refer to the New Deal; or post Revolution period. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. As North Shoreman demonstrates, the standard usage among scholars is to put in the "Era". Lots of recent books can be added, such as The Crisis of the American Republic: A History of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era (1995) by Allen C. Guelzo; The Reconstruction Era (The Drama of African-American History series) by Bettye Stroud and Virginia Schomp (2006); Reconstruction Era Reference Library: Biography by Roger Matuz (2004); and Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era by Richard Zuczek (2006). ...Let me suggest the compromise: Capitalize Era in the title, thus following most books. "Reconstruction Era of the United States" Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Era of Good Feelings not Era of good feelings. It's Bronze Age, not Bronze age. It's Year of the Four Emperors, not Year of the four emperors. It's Year Without a Summer, not..., American Dream, not ... Reconstruction of the United States sounds like somebody's future project -- for the ENTIRE USA --JimWae (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The article covers the "Reconstruction era". Renaming it to something else is senseless. It might be better at Reconstruction Era (USA) or Reconstruction (USA) but "Reconstruction of the United States" makes no sense, since it could refer to the New Deal; or post Revolution period. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone cares, Reconstruction Era is currently a redirect (to this)...you could move it there. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Purple, are you so sure that simply "Reconstruction Era" can't possibly refer to anything else? I think it would be best if we left it as is, with both "Era" and "of the United States" in the title. That way, there can be absolutely no confusion. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From a purely technical view, Wikipedia has existed for 5-6 yrs. and nobody found any other uses for it... Water, I'm coming at this from a Common Name POV, in that I want to make titles shorter for easier navigation Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reconstruction Era" is a term used in the history of other countries after WW2 (Germany, Italy, Poland, etc), and also South Africa. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then thank you for volunteering to make it a disambiguation page, Jensen Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment in trying to close this. My sense after reading the discussion is that the objection may be mostly to the proposed name since there are several reconstruction eras in the US. There may even been consensus here to convert the current page to a dab page for the various eras. If my reading of the discussion is correct, then the question becomes what should the new article name be? I'm not seeing one above. So I was wondering if Reconstruction era of the United States (1863 - 1877) would work. From reading the article that seems to be a valid option. If this needs more discussion let me know and I'll relist this for another 7 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest "Reconstruction Era of the United States" works for all-- capital E in Era is the only change. (there is only one "Reconstruction Era" in US history.) Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That works if people have issues with the caps. I personally prefer simply "Reconstruction" - like "Dominion" there are other uses, but this is the predominant one - but am okay with giving due deference to Reconstruction (law) and whatever other countries may have articles in the name of anti-US-centrism. "Reconstruction of the United States" is clearly inappropriate and confusing. Recognizance (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Quite the opposite. There is only one Reconstruction in American history; the chief problem with the proposed name, is that it did not reconstruct the United States, but less than a dozen of the individual States. The proposed name is therefore inaccurate, but is not idiom; WP:AT opposes this, even more than it opposes tsunami being renamed tidal wave. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I came to close but decided to comment instead :) Shouldn't the title be Reconstruction Era (United States). The current title sounds a bit clumsy. Assuming that there are other countries with reconstruction eras and that Reconstruction Era would need to be disambiguated. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it is ambiguous; for what it's worth, Reconstruction Era redirects here, and I know of, and can find, no other candidate; it's an unusual term, for an almost unparallelled situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- The words "Reconstruction era" let the reader know that the article is on the civil war. "Reconstruction of the United States" is an odd sounding name because it implies that the entire United States was destroyed at some point. The current title is more precise. The name that you were suggesting sounds like something on the list of deleted articles with freaky titles called Collapse of the United States. As for the capitalization thing, it goes along with that policy that says only the first letter of article titles should be capitalized except proper nouns. However stupid the capitalization policy is, the word era should still be there. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- "Reconstruction era (United States)" would be all right, but I agree with others - have not seen this term widely used anywhere else and "Reconstruction of the United States" has the wrong sense. Also wish the capitalization policy were not so out of keeping with general usage.Parkwells (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Comment 'Reconstruction Era' is a proper noun. A proper noun is one that refers to a particular person, place or thing as this certainly does. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biased overall tone

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)

nonsensical unsigned comment

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)

Economy after the Civil War

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)

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)

I pared it down as befits a background section and added a

Further information: [[:History of the Southern United States#Material ruin|History of the Southern United States § Material ruin]]

flag to the article section you copied over in its entirety. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Long Introduction?

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)

I agree the introduction should be summarized. 74.42.182.5 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!!!???

IT'S TOO LONG! I CANNOT READ IT ALL! HELP ME! Ian.bjorn (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)!!!!!!!!!

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!!!???

IT'S TOO LONG! I CANNOT READ IT ALL! HELP ME! Ian.bjorn (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)!!!!!!!!!

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)

Or this. --Korruski^Talk 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Proposed edits

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)

what sources are you using? Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Congressional investigation (1871-1872)

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)

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)

Good edits Parkwells. I believe Forrest was the Klan's first overall leader, The Grand Wizard. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Etcheson source

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)

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)

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) The article states there was a failure, but does not define what the failure is. How does Etchison and Foner define failure in terms of Reconstruction? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Failure issue

Prokopowicz, is a Lincoln Scholar. Prokopowicz has a PH.D. from Harvard. He was taken out of the article as a source. Rjenson, was Prokopowicz taken out of the article because Reconstruction was outside his specialty? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Etchison and Foner are most emphatically not part of the Dunning school. Please read them. Prokopowicz was dropped because he had only a very brief discussion, as compared to the much more detailed sources listed at Dunning school. On Foner look at footnote 133 Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I read the Foner source correctly, then failure means the abandonment of blacks by the federal government. I believe failure needs to be defined in the article, since Foner and Etchison are not part of the Dunning School, yet, all three claim Reconstruction was a failure. Foner does mention there were accomplishments in Reconstruction. Does the article adequately define failure and give a distinction between Foner, Etchison, and Dunning? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

the section discusses the differing views of numerous scholars. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. McFeely addressed this issue by stating no permanent agency was set up specifically for Civil Rights. That article lists reasons for this "failure" as the Supreme Court decisions of 1880's, the reestablishment of conservative white planter class, and no specific agency to designed specifically for Civil Rights. However, the Department of Justice was a permanent agency made to tackle Civil Rights issues along with the Solicitor General. The term "failure" has not necessarily been defined. There is no mention of the Solid South being formed to block every piece of legislation designed to help African Americans, particularly the Dyer Anti lynching bill in 1921. Basically in the South, there was mob rule, meaning if the mob wanted to lynch someone, that person would be lynched. There was no deference to the courts. How is failure being defined in the article? Does failure automatically assume the myth [ref Prokopowicz, (2008), pp. 234, 235] that Southerners were the victims of the "evil" Radical Republicans?

The question is about Reconstruction and the section is fully sourced. If some RS says that Reconstruction was on the whole a success then it should be added. Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The goal of Reconstruction was to protect former African American slaves. Lack of enforcement and disrespect of the laws was why Reconstruction failed. However, in my opinion, the article is biased in that Dunning School appears to take precedence, where failure means that giving blacks rights is somehow fundamentally corrupt. Is this what the legacy section is implying? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dunning School is a mythical interpretation of the Reconstruction and does not address the actual legacy. Southerners barred blacks from taking federal office in the South. Mobs ruled the streets and the courts did nothing to stop lynching. The legacy of Reconstruction was lawlessness and mob rule. I believe this needs to be in the article. Rep. Dyer attempted to pass an anti-lynching bill but Southern Senators and Republican Borah stopped the passage of the bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen for the changes made to the Legacy section! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Era" capitalized in the title?

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)

Santo Domingo

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)

POV

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 {{Essay-like}} 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)

No objection to the changes you suggest above. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)