Talk:Reconstruction era of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Archive 2 History of dominant edits to this and related articles 3 Merging Reconstruction in Georgia 4 When did Reconstruction start? 5 Illiteracy among whites in the South 6 Deletion of Foner material 7 How the article could be improved 8 Vandalizing

[edit] Archive

Archived old talk N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 15:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of dominant edits to this and related articles

A net search for rjensen or Richard Jensen, defender of, apologist for and writer of paean to Strom Thurmond [1], will turn up that he is both a Wiki editor and owner of a conservative list. On Wikipedia, rjensen often tries to hide that he is unabashedly right wing in political orientation under the guise of either "neutrality" or "scholarship". I believe his viewpoint should be included because Wikipedia is inclusive but that rjensen's actions in removing the work of other editors who represent opposing viewpoints should be firmly dealt with. Other Wiki editors need to bear in mind that when rjensen adds or edits copy, he adds the most conservative and often the most racially offensive references, text and photos he can find. This problem afflicts the entire discussion of Reconstruction after the Civil War and most articles that link to it where rjensen is very active. So there is an inbred bias in these articles that are fundamentally hostile to an honest assessment of the history of African American people and that are favorable to sources that have long been discredited by at least the last several generations of mainstream historians.

One of the most shocking abuses of Wikipedia editing by rjensen has occurred in the bio article on James Shepherd Pike in which rjensen all but erased the contributions, which were added, of Robert Franklin Durden, former chairman of the department of history at Duke University. The biography of Pike is fundamental to understanding Reconstruction.

Why is dishonest scholarship, such as this, on Wikipedia?

Durden wrote the definitive biography of James Shepherd Pike yet rjensen removed all references to Durden's work from the biographical article except the footnote, and one article available only by subscription.

On the cover of his book, Durden wrote that he was prompted to write his book James Shepherd Pike: Republicanism and the American Negro, 1850-1882 to answer this question: "how did James S. Pike come to write The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Government?" "The book, published in 1873, is a firey indictment of Radical Reconstruction and the Negro's role therein; indeed it is the verbal equivalent of Thomas Nast's bitterly satiric cartoons of the period." Why is this important? To understand the way the history of Reconstruction was written, one must go back to Pike's work of fiction (that paraded for a long time as history) and which influenced an entire generation of historians who subsequently influeneced the writing of textbooks in the United States for the first half of the 20th century.

Durden examined the original manuscripts and detailed how Pike had made up his version of Reconstruction. Durden's contribution is critical because it documents that Pike did not rely on facts. He made up and distorted his account.

Pike's fictions are the linchpin of many of the racist textbooks written about Reconstruction in the early 20th century, all now firmly rejected by mainstream historians, yet these are the texts that rjensen quotes extensively from on Wikipedia.

So while it disgusts me to see what Richard Jensen is trying to do to the article on Eric Foner, the contemporary historian known most widely for overturning the viciously racist accounts of Reconstruction history, it is not surprising. It is the reason for the distortions in a wide range of articles that link to the Reconstruction, articles that are more than mildly repulsive because they falsify the history of African Americans and the struggle for Civil Rights. The articles that rjensen dominates are unfair to all readers because they distort history in non-benign ways.

Aside from Foner's contributions, there is too much solid work done by entire recent generations of scholars on the facets of the history of Reconstruction and the civil rights movement for rjensen's versions to be taken seriously by serious scholars. Jensen pushes a viewpoint long ago discarded on the dust heap of falsified history. It is a shame rjensen has the time, in retirement, to work these articles nonstop day and night. Others have countered the narrow and racially biased viewpoint of this Energizer Bunny that champions the Dunning School which is based very much on the fictions written by James Shepherd Pike but few of us have the leisure of time to fight rjensen historical bigotry on Wikipedia in a sustained manner.

I will add that when I saw Richard Jensen's erasure of the contributions of Robert Franklin Durden, biographer of James Shepherd Pike, from the article on Pike, I greatly cut down on my contributions to Wikipedia in disgust.

Here's one of several examples from the history of that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Shepherd_Pike&diff=61529346&oldid=61220384

Do not take my word for this. Get a copy of Durden's book on Pike and decide for yourself. Skywriter 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate that I am not 'whistling Dixie,' I will add that the dominant photo, the largest cartoon in this Reconstruction article is deeply offensive to African Americans and most everyone else. Now I can hear rjensen defending its use and its size (!) with the claim that Eric Foner found and used it first. My reply is that Foner put it in context. The Reconstruction article does not do that, and all things considered, this graphic is both hostile to, and does violence to the history of African American people and it is not reflective of the work of Eric Foner, Richard Nelson Current, Robert Durden, Leon Litwack or the many other giants of Reconstruction scholarship in the second half of the 20th century. This article on Reconstruction and those that link to it are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and humiliating to African American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg&action=history

There were many graphics that Richard Jensen could have been chosen to be the centerpiece of the Reconstruction article. That Richard Jensen, owner and editor of the editor of Conservativenet, [2] chose and uploaded the most vile graphic he could find, tells volumes about the rjensen agenda.

Richard Jensen actually uploaded this piece of filth to a second article that linked to Reconstruction and I took it down.

I will add that I did quite a bit to try to correct rjensen's bias but do not have the night and day leisure that he devotes to these articles. Skywriter 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia. Having read the analysis of Reconstruction in "The Passage of the Republic" by William L. Barney (professor at UNC), I was shocked by Jensen's apparent distortion of facts. Can't we create a more objective and balanced article? Fairlane75 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Let's do it.Skywriter 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Foner is worth much more than a glance here.Jimmuldrow He sure is. Anyone have a plan for a revision? Skywriter 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a brief list of what needs to be done, based on my reading of William L Barney's description of Reconstruction. Sorry, but I don't have the time to read more sources:

The "phases" of Reconstruction as they are laid out in the article are wrong:

There was no "presidential Reconstruction" under Lincoln. Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Declaration, but whatever plans he had for the South could not be put into place because he was assassinated.

It needs to be explained what was and was not radical about Reconstruction, depending on different viewpoints

Andrew Johnson's presidentidal Reconstruction certainly not radical. It was probably more generous to the planters than what Lincoln would have done. Land was returned to the planters that would have been forfeited under the Confication Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862. There was no redistribition of land to the freedman.

The result of Johnson's presidential reconstruction (according to Barney) was that Reconstruction was never going to be as radical as the freedmen had hoped: "As a consequence of Johnson's programme, the most propitious moment for revolutionary change in the South had already passed by the time the "radical" policy of the North was set forth in 1867. (Passage of the Republic, p. 235)

Radical Reconstruction, legislated by Congress, did not really start in the South until 1868, when the planters had already regained control over their land over labor of the freedmen through the Black Codes. This "radical" Reconstruction was nonetheless "radical" because it gave blacks in the former Confederate states equal rights as citizens, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It needs to be stressed that it was Johnson's own ineptitude that eventually made "radical" reconstruction possible because his obstructions united the whole Republican party against him

Initially, Johnson's programme of presidential Reconsrction received wide support in the North. But because Johnson was such an inept politician, he managed to turn the Republican majority in Congress against his programme. Johnson openly defied this majority with his vetoes against an extension of the life of the Freedman's Bureau and his opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson vehemently opposed voting rights for the freedmen. His actions turned all Republicans, "moderate" and "radical", against him.

The complicated connections between the legacy of the Civil War, the free labor ideology of the Repulbicans and the question of white supremacy need to be explained

The Republicans in the North had become frustrated by the perceived arrogance of the South, as exemplified by the Black Codes of 1865. Southeners did not behave as if they had lost the war. The Black Codes conflicted with the free labor ideology of Republicans. Also, many former slaves in the South had been loyal soldiers to the Union, so Repbublicans believed they now deserved the protection of the law, and a minimum of civil rights.

It needs to be explained what was and was not "radical" about the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment disqualified from political office all prewar officals who had "betrayed" the Union and aided secession. The fourteenth amendment also gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment. Nonetheless it was also a compromise because voting rights for blacks were actively enforced and not fully secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Protecting suffrage was still left up to the states, not to the federal govermnment. Moreover, voting rights were not taken away from former Confederates, as radical Repulblicans had proposed.

It needs to be explained why the Fifteenth Amendment was passed

Southern leaders decided to oppose the Fourteenth Amendment, in hopes of eventually overturning congressional Reconstruction.

Repulbicans then passed the fifteenth Amendment. The fiteenth Amendment was even more "radical" because it gave voting rights to blacks outside of the former Confederacy too. This was controversial among Republicans, but they needed to do this to secure the black vote, in the former Confederacy as well as the border states. Yet not even the fifteenth amendment stated directly that all male citizens had a right to vote, it only stated that states had no right of dipriving male citizens of the vote on grounds "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

The different views of the meaning of Reconstruction need to be explained, with a lot more attention to African-American views.

With the ratification of the Fifteen Amendment, reconstruction was concluded, as far as the Northern middle class was concerned. For the freedman, it had only just begun. They had already built op a political class, registered as voters, and formulate a poltical agenda. They had to secure personal freedom, a minimum of economic independence from the planters, education for their children, and political participation to protect and expand their new rights.

The Freedman were barred from claiming the land of the planters, and were thus forced into sharecropping. For blacks and whites, sharecropping became an economic trap. But at first it was a real improvement over the near-slavery that planters had tried to enforce with the Black Codes.

More attention is needed on the socio-economic and cultural context that enabled the biracial coalition in the South that supported Reconstruction

To secure their gains, blacks were dependent on a coalition with white Republicans, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". When that coalition eventually broke down, black participation in Southern civic life ended, the Southern poor also lost influence, and the South became a de-facto one party region.

The success of Reconstruction was dependent on Northern-born Republicans. They had the capital to modernize the South and their free-labor ideology made it possible for these whites to partly transcend their racism and envision a society where blacks had an equal right to compete economically and participate politically. But these same assets were also their weaknesses. White Southeners resented these "carpetbaggers" because of their wealth, because they were the former enemy and because of these Republicans believed they were culturally superior. Most of all, they resented that the vote had been "given" to blacks, an affront to Southern white supremacy.

More attention to why exactly the biracial coalition broke down

The coalition between blacks, poor Southern whites and Northern investors did not hold long. Because of the emancipation, the Southern states had lost their main source of revenue, the slave tax. Total wealth in the South, heavily invested in slaves, also declined drastically. The former Confederacy also had to pay its wardebts to Northern bankers, which was a huge drain on resources. Another problem was that the war reduced land values by one-half.

Poor whites who supported the new Republican governments did so because they distrusted the dominant planter elite and because they wanted debt relief. Some planters also played important roles in the new goverments, hoping to emerge as the economic leaders of the New South.

The interests of the different groups in this coalition diverged. The new governments had to raise land taxes, which had been very low, to fund basic education for the freedmen so they could become literate. The tax burden fell mainly on whites, because the freedmen had hardly any property. But the main property of poor yeoman, their cattle, had been decimated by the war, so they could not afford much higher taxes and many could not maintain the economic self-sufficiency that had had before. Moreover, The economic elite among the Southern white Repblicans would not grant debt relief. They were unwilling to sacrifice their own economic interests.

The Republican coalition of whites and blacks broke apart. Whites were no longer willing to offer the freedmen any protection agains the violence of planters determined to regain control over the labor of the freedmen. The planters used the Klan subjugate the freedmen. Embitterd white farmers who had lost their land due to debts had a commonn interest in keeping the freedman from advancing economically.

The final blow to Reconstruction was the Panic of 1873.

The Democrats, lead by the majority of the planter elite, had already underminded the biracial coalition with terror, social ostracism, economic pressure. At the same time they had been asking for tax relief and a return to good goverment.

Between 1873 and 1878, a maor industrial depression took place. Railroad projects collapsed. Most Northern planters left. The depression also wiped out the Republican majority in the North. In return for Democratic support of the claim of Rutherford B. Hayes to the presidency in the disputed election of 1876, Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South.

It needs to be explained why the Northern middle class reconciled itself to the end of Reconstruction, and did not see that as a failure.

What was at stake were different definitions of freedom. The freedmen and poorer white farmers defined freedom in the traditonal sense as freedom from dependency through economic self-sufficiency. In contrast, the Northern middle class defined freedom as control of self, enabling one to compete in the market place.

For Republicans, Reconstruction was about defending the principle of equality before the law. For poor whites and blacks, this was only the beginning. They wanted legislation to protect their economic interests. This was unacceptable to Republicans Distrusting the poor, they readily accepted exaggerated claims of corruption in the Reconstruction governments. They also interpreted the terror campaigns directed against the freedmen as signs of the inevitable social disorder that occurs when the poor are allowed too much influence in government.

Another major contributor to the failure of Reconstruction was obviously white supremacy, which had become fused with the Protestant work ethic. By proclaiming their cultural superiority over blacks and other non-whites, whites legitimated their economic exploitation of them.

The above was added by 17:39, July 21, 2007 Fairlane75

In terms of why the Northern middle class reconciled itself to the end of Reconstruction, it's also useful to read David Blight's Race and Reunion: American Memory after the Civil War. The North and South were groping toward reconciliation, and race, as in the issue of freedmen, got pushed to the side. The financial panic of 1873 limited ability to conduct economic relief. It wasn't only about white supremacy. If we look at our own times and the war in Iraq, it's easy to see social change doesn't come easily. Aside from racial issues, people who had been in power in the South weren't going to readily give up social and political power just because they lost the overt war. Ku Klux Klan and other militia activity, even outlaws like Jesse James, were continuing the war by other means. People have a hard time maintaining expensive long distance commitments, too. I believe the US would have needed the resources, vision and administration of of an internal Marshall Plan to make Reconstruction work.--Parkwells 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see the above discussions and suggestions for changes. I've been very disturbed at the generally short and misleading sections on antebellum, Reconstruction and late 19th c. histories within southern state histories in Wikipedia. I think many of the history sections in general, at state, county and local levels, do not reflect the last three decades of scholarship about social history, including agency by African Americans, poor whites and immigrants. Many don't include basic facts as to population and demographics in the years before and after the Civil War, which would provide readers context for understanding what some of the competition and tensions were about.

All the Reconstruction sections in state histories also need to be edited and supplemented to reflect current scholarship. Reconstruction is more than a topic just in Military History. Through Reconstruction legislators in many states tried to expand suffrage not just to freedmen but to poor whites as well. In addition legislators during that era created and funded public school systems to benefit both blacks and whites, social welfare institutions such as orphans homes, asylums and reform to penal systems.

Another good source is W.E.B. Du Bois's Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880, published in 1935 and reprinted in paperback in 1998. While he received some positive critical attention at the time, his focus on facts rather than mythology was generally ignored by the white historical establishment, still under sway of the Dunning "school" at Columbia Univ. His work sounds contemporary as it took so long for the rest of us to catch up with him. I will try to make some basic contributions in the state sections. --Parkwells 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What you describe are welcome contributions. I will contribute also as time allows. Thanks for giving this some thought. This article is in great need of update to reflect modern scholarship, which turns what was previously known on its head.Skywriter 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Just deleted a quote by Fleming stated as being simply from an "historian" that claimed that one of the "good" effects of the KKK was that it provided women protection. This clearly refers to the mythology of the black rapist intent on destroying Southern white womanhood, which mythology of course also led to a large number of lynchings of innocent black men all over the South in the early 20th century. Not surprising that Fleming would write such a thing in 1907 but highly surprising to see the quote here on Wikipedia as if this were simply stated fact. In fact, much modern scholarship (see the book "Legacies of Lynching" or Jim Loewen's work) argues that the early KKK (and other similar groups) "quieted" Southern blacks (and white Republicans) by preventing them from voting and generally terrorizing them and their families. Runshan 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Reconstruction in Georgia

The Article Georgia during Reconstruction has a proposal to merge with this article. I do not think merging is a good idea. That article should contain more detail than this main article needs. How does the merge proposal get removed?--Kenmayer 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the state Reconstruction sections should be kept with the states (and probably cross-referenced) but they also need to be edited and supplemented to reflect current scholarship, rather than an old point of view in which Reconstruction had nothing but negative effects, and African Americans were never positive actors in their own history.--Parkwells 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did Reconstruction start?

I always thought Reconstruction was considered to have started after the Confederacy surrendered in 1865, at which point its former territory came entirely under Union control. What arguments are there then for stating that Reconstruction started in 1863? 195.73.22.130 12:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. While Lincoln and Johnson may have been planning ideas on what to do, most historians identify Reconstruction as starting after the end of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 marked the beginning of the end of slavery in the South, but most historians do not claim that was the beginning of Reconstruction. --Parkwells 13:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the leading historian is Foner, who starts in 1863. Lincoln had a full-fledged Reconstruction program underway inseveral states (Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas) in states that were mostly under Union control long before the war ended. Slavery ended in these areas before 1865. Rjensen 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The start of Reconstruction is often dated to 1865 by many reputable historians, but depending on the perspective you take you can date it back to 1863 (as Foner does).You can even argue that it did not fully start until 1868, when the new Republican state governments took over in the South and Radical Reconstruction became a fact on the ground. Í've rewritten the article to reflect this.195.73.22.130 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Sorry for not signing in Fairlane75 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illiteracy among whites in the South

If you want a citation, pls indicate that, but don't delete a statement simply for lack of citation. Illiteracy was high among whites in the SOUTH and many had not been regular voters. My statement was not about whites nationwide. At the time concerns were expressed about enfranchising illiterate freedmen, many white Southerners could not have passed literacy tests for voting either. Of course there were other conditions that made their experiences different. I've modified the statement about illiteracy while looking for a citation; I've seen it more than once in work about this period.--Parkwells 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I added figures from 1880, a few years after the end of Reconstruction, that put the literacy rate in perspective. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The illiteracy figures have been deleted as part of so-called "minor tweaks" by Rjensen. I strongly object because these figures were important, cited facts. They tell us a lot about the state of public education in the antebellum South. Expansion of education for both the Freedmen and poor whites was an important issue during Reconstruction. These figures show that not only the majority of blacks but also a considerable minority of whites in the South were illiterate. I also question the assertion that illiterate whites in the South knew more about Southern politics than free blacks and slaves because they could freely attend political rallies and could vote. It seems a rather broad generalization, and it therefore needs to be cited.Fairlane75 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

the article is about Reconstruction, not about antebellum society. The issue during Reconstruction was whether the ex-slaves knew enough about politics to vote in intelligent fashion. They did not have the experience whites had of participating for decades and reading speeches in newspapers or listening to speeches in person. citation: try The "The whole adult white male population was now directly involved in politics" (speaking of the South in the 1840s); parties used "the mass rally of the party faithful. Part entertainment, part information, all exhortation, these were large, often daylong affairs drawing people from all over a neighborhood... Two to three thousand people would show up for a congressional or gubernatorial rally, not only voters, but their families as well, who "expected to make a full afternoon or evening of it. They expected a featured speech to be partisan, stimulating, informative, entertaining -- and long." (p 56-7) The point was that a political education system had been in place for whites for many decades, and included illiterate whites. But there had been no political education system for the slaves. The American Political Nation, 1838-1893. by Joel H. Silbey 1991. Page 46. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue the article needs to address is what was salient for the people who legalized black voting rights (or opposed them). The two sources now cited in the article indicate that literacy, not democratic traditions, was considered as a negative which was outweighed by the positives for expanding voting to all males. If you have a source that says Sumner et al considered the traditions listed by Silbey, then that information should be added to, rather than substituted for, what is already in the article. In fact, however, it seems I recollect that it was the opponents of black suffrage that were more likely to emphasize the unpreparedness for the former slaves to participate in governing and voting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

was Carl Schurz in his Radical phase who said the ignorance of the freedmen did not matter because "practical liberty is a good school". Don't wait for the schools to be built said Schurz because the freedmen will need the ballot first in order to get schools. See W.E.B. Du Bois: A Reader online at p 180 Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven Hahn's Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Nation under Our Feet" (2004) demonstrated there was more political organization and communication within the slave communities than African Americans were given credit for, a factor that enabled them to mobilize rapidly after the war was over. They also had their own community leaders and enough sense to evaluate other people who wanted to lead them. If opponents to suffrage were so concerned about blacks' preparedness, they could have educated them and helped them prepare; instead they simply disfranchised them. Opponents had no interest in African Americans having any suffrage.--Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

the issue was a little more subtle. From an ideological point of view it was not whether the blacks were organized (they were) but whether freedmen supported republicnism, or whether they were being controlled and manipulated first by the carpetbaggers then by the black ministers. From a strategic point of view the blacks first expelled the scalawags (like Alcorn) then threw out the carpetbaggers by the 1870s, leaving them without any white allies. Look at the internal Republican wars in Alabama and Arkansas for famous examples. Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Foner material

Editor Colbuckshot has twice deleted material because it was attributed to Eric Foner, probably the leading historian today on Reconstruction. I have invited him to bring his claims of bias to this page for discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I received the following response from Colbuckshot on my talk page:

why do you keep goofing with it, that statement was from a controversial source for one, and for another, the statement is opinion, not all african-americans agree with you, suggest you discuss it if you are so determined.

P.S. why in the world do you care if lincoln was gay, hes been dead for at least 140 years, so what evidence does a few letters make, and you cant really judge that worth a darn if youve never met them. anyways, its still a sin even if he was gay, so it doesnt change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Foner's work is not controversial, but is recognized as a legitimate current source by the academc community. The statement in question that has now been deleted three times is:

However, the African-Americans who wanted their legal rights guaranteed by the Federal government were repeatedly frustrated for another 75 years; they considered Reconstruction a failure.

While Foner's analysis is enough to justify it being included in the article, I fail to see anything controversial about the statement -- Jim Crow was quite unpopular among African Americans by all accounts that I've read. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The following response was received on my talk page:

in regard to the 3RR thingy fully documented statement, the data is:

a) unproveable for all cases

b) WP:NPOV (neutral point of view - the authors opinion is not the only one, and cannot be proven fact)

c) leading literature, says who?, what defines the leeding work on that era, since that too cannot be proven

d) you too are guilty of WP:3RR, but beyond that, lets settle this before bugging admins

e) who makes you the authority on what comes or goes in an artical, the poor sucker above is proof of that, you don't have to bloody ask before editing, especially since your not even an admin. it sounds to me like you are dominating/hoarding control of artical, who do you think you are andrew jackson (kidding about the jackson thing, figured as a history buff youd get it (-: )

f) what makes your source neutral and what makes your declaration of its credibility credible

Colonel Buckshot, aka Otto Von Bismarck

P.S. i did revert the title from '1867 election' to 'Election of 1867', but i left the other alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In response, I provide excerpts from two scholarly reviews of the work.

Reviewed Work(s): Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. by Eric Foner Reviewer Michael Perman Reviews in American History, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Mar., 1989), pp. 73-78.

By 1982, he was contributing the essay on Re- construction for the important historiographical volume celebrating this jour- nal's tenth anniversary. He gave the Fleming lectures in southern history in 1982, which were later published as Nofhing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy. And now, with the appearance of Reconstrucfion: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, a massive volume of 690 pages, Foner has established himself as the leading authority on the Reconstruction period. This book is not simply a distillation of the secondary literature; it is a masterly account- broad in scope as well as rich in detail and insight. Foner's rapidly-acquired authority is based on two elements. The first is the extent and depth of his coverage of the literature in the field. Besides reading the significant secondary scholarship he has tracked down relevant articles in obscure journals, consulted innumerable Ph.D. dissertations, scoured the public record through official documents and newspapers, and has even car- ried out considerable archival research in the National Archives and in man- uscript collections of private correspondence. This meticulousness has en- abled him, not only to gain a remarkably thorough knowledge of the field, but to impart freshness and immediacy to his account because of his discovery of new and quotable first-hand observations and because of his close famil- iarity with the people and events of the period.

Reviewed Work(s): Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New American Nation Series. by Eric Foner Reviewer Leon F. Litwack The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 56, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 131-134.

The contrast between the silence that greeted Du Bois's scholarship and the critical acclaim lavished on Eric Foner's Reconstruction more than half a century later dramatizes significant changes in scholarly if not in public attitudes. The challenge Foner undertook was formidable enough to have frustrated several previous efforts, beginning with Howard K. Beale, to write this critical volume in the now thirty-five-year-old New American Nation Series. The long delay, as it turned out, was fortuitous. The task would be left to a new generation of historians, a generation raised in the throes of the civil rights revolution and sensitive to the need to give voice to men and women long excluded from studies of the American past. As a synthesis that rests on a quarter-century of new scholarship, Eric Foner makes no startling interpretive departures. But his command of the sources is extraordinary, and the story has never been told with such clarity, power, insight, and breadth of vision. What sets this book off most dramati- cally from its predecessors is the centrality assigned to the experiences, perceptions, and aspirations of black southerners. Foner has diligently searched out the blackvoice, both the leadership class and the common folk who seldom held office but who articulated in a variety of ways and often with considerable eloquence their concerns and feelings.

Now it’s your turn. You made the claim of bias -- anthing to offer besides your opinion? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How the article could be improved

On the whole this article is better than many featured articles. However there is need for improvement with respect of POV and inline citations.

• This article would benefit from more inline citations - at least one per paragraph should be sought.
• The article uses pejorative words such as carpetbagger. The use of such words when used quotations from cited sources is 100% acceptable; it is just about OK in paragraphs paraphrasing cited sources (i.e. there is an inline citation showing where it came from). Otherwise it should be avoided because it suggests bias against such people. It would also be best either to explain such terms using footnotes or references to other articles.

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing

Today when working on this, I noticed several areas with large blanks in the text, in which such terms as "KKK", "white militias" and "white supremacy" had been removed by vandals. --Parkwells (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)