Talk:Reconstruction era

Why a column for democratic control?

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)

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)

Supreme Court decisions and Northern resistance to Reconstruction

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)

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)

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)

Yes, but didn't the Supreme Court limit federal power specifically in terms of Reconstruction. The SC allowed Hayes to use the military to stop rioting strikers in Chicago, but the federal government was not allowed to stop the lynchings of blacks in the South. Wasn't that a double standard by the Supreme Court? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Combining Introduction and Overview

I propose that 'overview' is redundant when we already have an introduction. We could probably combine the two sections and save redundancy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkam136 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Racist/pro-KKK/one hundred year sources that should be in embarrassment to anyone that has edited this article.

Why does this article use literally one hundred year old sources that defend the KKK? Does the paragraph below sound like it is from a neutral reliable source??????????

"Such being the character of the negro government of South Carolina such the motives and conduct of its agents it naturally became stench in the nostrils of decent people and a disgrace to the country The Federal bayonets removed the power of the thieves the so called government fell to pieces of its own imbecility came to nought of its own all pervading corruption Negro domination had proven as well an injury to the black race as an to the white an experiment always doomed to failure the device of those who in the name of freedom and justice had inaugurated and sustained a government that was never worthy of the..."

That is a quote from the last paragraph of a book that is being used as a major source in one of the subsections of this article.

The presence of such sources in this article is an embarrassment to anyone who has ever edited this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Friedman (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've just edited it but don't feel at all embarrassed. I'd suggest that you try elaborating more and accusing less. It may depend on the context in which the source is used...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is just one of the major sources in the "Taxation during Reconstruction" subsection. Do you think that it is a reliable source???Lance Friedman (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't really identified it yet. Offering a paragraph of text that isn't in the article and expecting folks to figure out what you are talking about by playing guess the source isn't helping. Try actually identifying the source...Reynolds, Hollander or Lynch?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I already mentioned the subsection. This is the source is the pro-kkk 100 year old source that i quoted from: J. S. Reynolds, Reconstruction in South Carolina, 1865–1877 (Columbia, SC: The State Co., 1905), p. 329.

The quote was from the last paragraph of the last chapter of the book. I repeat, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE????????Lance Friedman (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)ra

What is being quoted is concerning taxation rates (and absolutely nothing to do with KKK)...are you stating those facts are wrong or more clearly are you presenting a different reliable source that calls this source into question for those facts?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am clearly stating that this 100 year old books defense of the KKK and obvious lack of neutrality calls into question anything that it says. Once again, ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO CLAIM THAT THIS RACIST 100 YEAR OLD BOOK IS A NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE???Lance Friedman (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you simply don't like it and don't have a source with which to rebut the source used in the article. If those numbers are accurate, your argument boils down to "yeah, but some dude in the KKK wrote it so it must be unreliable". You haven't offered the editors here any kind of editing suggestion or argument based in policy or logic. Have you tried to find a source to substitute in its place?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is being used in a correct manner. Foner's book, which is current, is used as a source that the mill rate increased during reconstruction. A source printed just after the end of the 19th century is used to illustrate that fact by showing mill rates over different years. Also, you need to show less agression. TFD (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. The book is a PhD dissertation that has been cited by over 100 books published since 2000 (says Google). The quotation in question is not used in the article and does not concern the topic at hand nor does it refer to the KKK. The rule of neutrality is a rule for Wiki editors, not for reliable secondary sources (nearly all of which indeed have strong opinions on Reconstruction). Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rjenson, You know as well as I do that there have been plenty of racist books published over the past 100 years. A book simply showing up a hundred times in a google search does NOT prove that anything that it says is accurate. And I do realize Foner is used as a source in the subsection. However, as far as I can tell there is no way to verify that any of his books back up anything that is said in the racist sources because no one has bothered to tell anyone which of his books they are referring to. I also do not think pro-SS sources would be used this was in an article talking about for example the Weimar Republic. So I do not see how you think pro-KKK are appropriate for this section??? The subsection and the article in general are clearly lacking in both accuracy and context and I am very curious how long this outdated material will last on wikipedia.Lance Friedman (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the issue is tax rates and the book is quastion was considered authoritative by Foner--and the Reynolds book was actually republished by Negro University Press in 1969. All scholars use it. Friedman has announces his own intense biases on his home page, where he says "Wikipedia is generally great, except for hot button topics which are typically dominated and controlled by a bunch of crazy right-wing thugs." This is a level of hatred and distrust that explains why Friedman sees Klansmen when historians talk about tax rates. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Such being the character of the negro government of South Carolina such the motives and conduct of its agents it naturally became stench in the nostrils of decent people and a disgrace to the country The Federal bayonets removed the power of the thieves the so called government fell to pieces of its own imbecility came to nought of its own all pervading corruption Negro domination had proven as well an injury to the black race as an to the white an experiment always doomed to failure the device of those who in the name of freedom and justice had inaugurated and sustained a government that was never worthy of the..." Rjenson, R U ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY that a hundred year old book that ends with that paragraph is a NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE??? These sources are appropriate neutral sources for an article on the reconstruction era? Should we pull out some of the other stuff that is in the book and put it in the article??? And please tell me in what Foner book or article does he praise or say any of these hundred year old books is an "authoritative" source?Lance Friedman (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not depend on "neutral" sources (there are very few on this topic). Instead Wikipedia depends on "reliable" secondary sources. A book like this one by Reynolds is judged "Reliable" when dozens of recent scholars cite the book(see this list from Google. As for being 100 years old-- yes that's what historians deal with: the topic is about 140 years old and Reynolds, a trained PhD scholar, used primary sources that he cites and which scholars like Foner consider accurate. "neutral" is a goal that Wiki editors like yourself should strive for. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that the book is reliable for the mill rates during Reconstruction and subsequent scholars have relied on that information, even though they have rejected the conclusions that Reynolds formed. TFD (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is not all that reliable for anything considering what it says about various topics. Regardless. we do not need to use out of print/one hundred year old racist/pro-KKK sources in this article. There are plenty of good modern non-racist/non pro-KKK sources that we could be using. ALL the books below are critically acclaimed by numerous mainstream sources. I do not understand why the books below are largely being ignored in favor of so many outdated pro-KKK apologist sources.

• The Wars of Reconstruction - The Brief, Violent History of America's Most Progressive Era
• Slavery By Another Name - The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II
• The Bloody Shirt - Terror After Appomattox
• The Fall of the House of Dixie - The Civil War and the Social Revolution That Transformed the South
• The Day Freedom Died - The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction
• Redemption - The Last Battle of the Civil War

Lance Friedman (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the formatting above but if it is unacceptable to anyone then please feel free to revert.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the much improved formatLance Friedman (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. You can see the linking usage here which may help you in your editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Engraving headlining this article

The racist cartoon that is at the top of this page? People can delay the deletion of the silly outdated racism that is in this article. But, eventually it is going to be corrected.Lance Friedman (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a cartoon, but an engraving – the common illustration method at the time, especially for newspapers and magazines. For example this 1871 Chicago fire image from Harper's Weekly. Photography was in its infancy at the time, using glass negatives. Books sometimes had "plates", but they took up an entire page. From Photoengraving: "Frederic E. Ives is usually credited with the first commercially successful process that was compatible with ordinary letterpress printing, so that halftone blocks could be printed along with blocks of text in books, periodicals and newspapers. His process came into widespread use during the 1890s, largely replacing the hand-engraved wood and metal blocks that had previously served to provide illustrations."

This is a typical magazine or newspaper illustration of the period, but if you can find a suitable replacement, by all means do so. Mojoworker (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a very famous illustration widely reprinted and circulated at the time to celebrate black voters and today is used in many textbooks and on the covers of major books like Foner's Reconstruction and Zuczek's Ency of Reconstruction. There is a hand-colored version (made at the time) that looks even better here. Calling it "racist" is ill-informed. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I looked more closely and it's an Alfred R. Waud engraving which, unsurprisingly, actually was from Harper's Weekly and happens to be featured on the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center website. Lance, I don't think it will be easy to find an improvement. Mojoworker (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I found the colorized version Harpers Weekly November 16, 1867 online Rjensen (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This color version of this pic is a big improvement. The features of some of the african-americans in the fuzzier black and white version of the pic seemed to me to be exaggerated for comic effect . I apologize for making a snap judgement. I still think it probably isn't the best pic to headline this article and also that the article needs more real life photographs as opposed to cartoons, portraits, and engravings. There is an abundance of wonderful real life photography from this time period.Lance Friedman (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)