Reconstruction era of the United States

In the history of the United States, "Reconstruction" refers to the period during and after the Civil War, between 1863 and 1877, when the U.S. focused on abolishing slavery, destroying all traces of the Confederacy, and "reconstructing" both the South and the Constitution. "Reconstruction" is also the common name for the general history of the post-Civil War era in the U.S. between 1865 and 1877. Discussions of reconstruction within the national government began earlier: as soon as the war began in 1861, Lincoln and his people talked about how to end the war. Under Abraham Lincoln, presidential reconstruction began in each state as soon as federal troops controlled most of the state. The usual ending date is 1877, when the Compromise of 1877 saw the collapse of the last Republican state governments in the South, although some historians stretch the era to the 1890s.^[1]

Reconstruction addressed how secessionist Southern states would regain self-government and seats in Congress, the civil status of the leaders of the Confederacy, and the Constitutional and legal status of Freedmen (the freed slaves). After the Civil War, violent controversy erupted throughout the South over how to tackle such issues, as former Confederates organized in paramilitary groups to resist defeat, including secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The Constitutional Amendments and legislative reforms that laid the foundation for the most radical phase of Reconstruction were enacted from 1865 until 1871. By the 1870s, Reconstruction had made some progress in providing the Freedmen with equal rights under the law, and Freedmen were voting and taking political office. Republican legislatures, coalitions of whites and blacks, established the first public school systems in the South. Beginning in 1874, however, there was a rise in white paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and Red Shirts, whose political aim was to drive out the Republicans. They also disrupted organizing and terrorized blacks to bar them from the polls.^[2] From 1873 to 1877, conservative white Democrats (calling themselves "Redeemers") regained power in state elections throughout the former Confederacy. Several states retained for many years constitutions which had been rewritten during Reconstruction. Others used separate legislation to overturn some Reconstruction measures.

In 1877, President Rutherford Hayes withdrew federal troops, causing the collapse of the last three remaining Republican state governments. Starting in 1890, 13 years after Reconstruction ended, southern states used disfranchising statutes and constitutions to put in place devices, such as poll taxes, literacy tests and the use of whites-only primaries, and through extralegal means, which prevented most blacks from voting.^[3][4] By 1900 Southern white Democrats established a one-party rule and enforced a system of racial segregation that continued in varying degrees throughout the South into the 1960s.

Bitterness from the heated partisanship of the era lasted well into the 20th century. But in other ways, whites in the North and South undertook reconciliation, which reached a height in the early 20th century.^[5] This reconciliation coincided with the nadir of American race relations. During this period there were increased lynchings and violence, especially in the South; an increase in racial segregation throughout America, and disfranchisement of most African-Americans in the South. Laws were different in each state, but most embodied the same kinds of restrictions for blacks . Commonly, codes compelled freedmen to work. In many states, if unemployed, blacks faced the potential of being arrested and charged with vagrancy. Many of those that did work had their day regulated. Codes dictated their hours of labor, duties, and often assigned to them as agricultural workers or

Passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were constitutional legacies of Reconstruction. These amendments established the rights on which blacks and their white allies later based extensive litigation, leading to US Supreme Court rulings starting in the early 20th century that struck down disfranchising provisions. In addition, the Civil Rights Movement contributed to passage of legislation in the mid-1960s to protect civil and voting rights, and to additional constitutional amendments to protect and expand the franchise.

The phases of Reconstruction

Reconstruction is broken down into three phases.^[6] Presidential Reconstruction, 1863-1866 was controlled by presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, with the goal of quickly restoring harmony and reuniting the country. This was consistent with Lincoln's primary concern in fighting the Civil War: to preserve the Union. This first phase began with the Emancipation Proclamation. After Lincoln was assassinated, the task of rebuilding the south was left to Johnson, formerly a Southern Democrat but now an independent. He appointed white leaders as governors of the southern states. Johnson clashed frequently with the Radical Republicans who came to power in Congress in the 1866 elections; because of his resistance to harsh Reconstruction measures, they had him impeached on a legal technicality; he was acquitted.^[7] The second phase, "Congressional Reconstruction," operated after 1866; this period is often called "Radical Reconstruction" or "Black Reconstruction" because of the influence of Radicals in Washington and the dominance of black voters in the South. ^[8]

Supported by the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, in 1868 new state governments came to power in the former Confederacy which were based on a Republican coalition of freedmen, carpetbaggers (recent immigrants from the North), and scalawags (native white Southerners). In the third phase of Reconstruction, Redemption, 1873-1877, white Southern conservatives and Democrats (calling themselves "Redeemers") defeated the Republicans and regained control of each southern state. In 1877, Republican President Rutherford Hayes withdrew federal troops, causing the collapse of the remaining three Republican state governments, marking the end of Reconstruction.

1863-1866: The Problem of Restoring the South to the Union

A political cartoon of Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln, 1865, entitled "The Rail Splitter At Work Repairing the Union." The caption reads (Johnson): Take it quietly Uncle Abe and I will draw it closer than ever. (Lincoln): A few more stitches Andy and the good old Union will be mended.

During the Civil War, the Radical Republican leaders argued that slavery and the Slave Power had to be permanently destroyed, and that all forms of Confederate nationalism had to be suppressed. Moderates said this could be easily accomplished as soon as Confederate armies surrendered and the Southern states repealed secession and accepted the 13th Amendment—most of which happened by December 1865.^[9]

President Abraham Lincoln was the leader of the moderate Republicans and wanted to speed up Reconstruction and reunite the nation as painlessly and as quickly as possible. Lincoln formally began Reconstruction in late 1863 with his Ten percent plan, which went into operation in several states but which Radicals opposed. Lincoln vetoed the Radical plan, the Wade-Davis Bill of 1864, which was much more strict than the Ten-Percent Plan. The opposing faction of Radical Republicans were skeptical of Southern intentions and demanded more stringent federal action. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner led the Radical Republicans.

Radical Republican Charles Sumner argued that secession had destroyed statehood alone but the Constitution still extended its authority and its protection over individuals, as in the territories. Thaddeus Stevens and his followers viewed secession as having left the states in a status like new territories. The Republicans sought to prevent Southern politicians from "restoring the historic subordination of Negroes." Since slavery was abolished, the three fifths compromise no longer applied to counting the population of blacks. After the 1870 census, the South would gain numerous additional representatives in Congress, based on the population of freedmen.^[10] One Illinois Republican expressed his fears that if the South were allowed to simply restore its previous established powers, that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation".^[11]

Upon Lincoln's assassination in April 1865, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, who had been elected with Lincoln in 1864 on the ticket of the National Union Party as the latter's vice president, became president. Johnson rejected the Radical program of harsh, lengthy Reconstruction and instead appointed his own governors and tried to finish the process of reconstruction by the end of 1865. By early 1866, full-scale political warfare existed between Johnson (now allied with the Democrats) and the Radicals; he vetoed laws and issued orders that contradicted Congressional legislation.^[12]

Congress rejected Johnson's argument that he had the war power to decide what to do, since the war was over. Congress decided it had the primary authority to decide how Reconstruction should proceed, because the Constitution stated the United States had to guarantee each state a republican form of government. The Radicals insisted that meant Congress decided how Reconstruction should be achieved. The issues were multiple: who should decide, Congress or the president? How should republicanism operate in the South? What was the status of the Confederate states? What was the citizenship status of men who had supported the Confederacy? What was the citizenship and suffrage status of freedmen?^[13]

The election of 1866 decisively changed the balance of power, giving the Republicans two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, and enough votes to overcome Johnson's vetoes. They moved to impeach Johnson because of his constant attempts to thwart radical Reconstruction measures, by using the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was acquitted by one vote, but he lost the influence to shape Reconstruction policy.^[14]

Republicans established military districts in the South and used Army personnel to administer the region until new governments loyal to the Union could be established. While temporarily suspending the ability to vote of an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 white men who had been Confederate officials or senior officers, they granted full citizenship and suffrage to former slaves.^[15]

With the power to vote, freedmen started participating in politics. While many slaves were illiterate, educated blacks (including escaped slaves) moved down from the North to aid them, and natural leaders also stepped forward. They elected both white and black men to represent them in constitutional conventions. A Republican coalition of freedmen, southerners supportive of the Union (derisively called scalawags by white Democrats), and northerners who had migrated to the South (derisively called carpetbaggers - some of whom were returning natives, but were mostly Union veterans), organized to create constitutional conventions. They created new state constitutions to set new directions for southern states.^[16]

Loyalty issue

A loyalty issue emerged in the debates over the Wade-Davis Bill of 1864. Wade-Davis required voters to take the "Ironclad Oath", swearing that in the past they never had supported the Confederacy or been one of its soldiers. With malice towards none, Lincoln ignored the past and looked to the future, asking only that voters swear to future support of the Union. The Radicals lost support following Lincoln's pocket veto of the Wade-Davis Act. They regained strength after Lincoln's assassination in April 1865.

Suffrage issue

Monument in honor of the Grand Army of the Republic, organized after the war.

Congress had to consider how to bring southern states back into the Union. Suffrage for ex-Confederates was one of two main concerns. First, each side tried to keep the other from voting. It was a question of whether to allow some or all ex-Confederates to vote. The moderates wanted virtually all of them to vote, but the Radicals resisted this. They repeatedly tried to impose the Ironclad oath, which would effectively have allowed no former Confederates to vote. Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania proposed, unsuccessfully, that all ex-Confederates lose the right to vote for five years. The compromise that was reached disfranchised many ex-Confederate civil and military leaders. No one knows how many temporarily lost the vote, but one estimate was 10,000 to 15,000.^[17]

Second (and closely related to discussions about disfranchising ex-Confederates) was the issue of whether freedmen should be allowed to vote. The issue was how to receive the four-million former slaves as citizens. If they were to be fully counted as citizens, some sort of representation for apportionment of seats in Congress had to be determined. Before the war, the population of slaves had been counted as three-fifths of a comparable number of free whites. By now having the benefit of four million freedmen counted as full citizens, the South would gain additional seats in Congress. If blacks were denied the vote and the right to hold office, then only whites would represent them. Many conservatives (including most white southerners, northern Democrats, and some northern Republicans) opposed black voting. (Some northern states that had referendums on the subject about the same time limited the ability of their own small populations of blacks to vote. That was not the same issue as Congress faced with the South.)

Lincoln had supported a middle position to allow some black men to vote, especially army veterans. Johnson also believed that such service should be rewarded with citizenship. Lincoln proposed giving the vote to "the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks."^[18] In 1864, Governor Johnson said, "The better class of them will go to work and sustain themselves, and that class ought to be allowed to vote, on the ground that a loyal negro is more worthy than a disloyal white man."^[19] As President in 1865, Johnson wrote to the man he appointed as governor of Mississippi, recommending, "If you could extend the elective franchise to all persons of color who can read the Constitution in English and write their names, and to all persons of color who own real estate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, and pay taxes thereon, you would completely disarm the adversary [Radicals in Congress], and set an example the other states will follow."^[20]

Senators Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and Thaddeus Stevens, leaders of the Radical Republicans, were initially hesitant to enfranchise the largely illiterate ex-slave population. Sumner preferred at first impartial requirements that would have imposed literacy restrictions on both blacks and whites. He believed, however, that he would not succeed in passing legislation to disfranchise illiterate whites who already had the vote.^[21]

(Oddly enough, from 1890-1908 southern states passed new constitutions and statutes that disfranchised tens of thousands of poor whites as well as most blacks with new voter registration and electoral rules. Anxious not to have to contend again with coalitions between poor whites and blacks as arose in the 1890s, Democrats disfranchised both in most southern states. In Alabama, for instance, they reduced the franchise for poor whites, whereas the state had been established with universal white suffrage in 1819. From 1900-1903 the white vote went down by more than 40,000, although the population increased. By 1941, 600,000 poor whites in Alabama had been disfranchised, compared to 520,000 blacks.)^[22]

In the South, many poor whites were illiterate. In 1880, for example, the white illiteracy rate was about 25% in Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia; and as high as 33% in North Carolina. This compares with the 9% national rate and a black rate of illiteracy that was over 70% in the South.^[23] By 1900, with emphasis within the black community on education, however, the majority of blacks had achieved literacy.^[24]

Sumner soon concluded that "there was no substantial protection for the freedman except in the franchise." This was necessary, he stated, "(1) For his own protection; (2) For the protection of the white Unionist; and (3) For the peace of the country. We put the musket in his hands because it was necessary; for the same reason we must give him the franchise." The support for voting rights was a compromise between moderate and Radical Republicans.^[25]

The Republicans believed that the best way for men to get political experience was to be able to vote and to participate in the political system. They passed laws allowing all male freedmen to vote. In 1867, black men voted for the first time. Over the course of Reconstruction, more than 1,500 Negroes held public office in the South. They did not hold office in numbers representative of their proportion in the population, but often elected whites to represent them. (The question of women's suffrage was also debated but was rejected.)

Johnson's presidential reconstruction: 1865–66

Northern anger over the assassination of Lincoln and the immense human cost of the war led to vengeful demands for harsh policies. Vice President Andrew Johnson had taken a hard line and spoke of hanging rebel Confederates, but when he succeeded Lincoln as President, Johnson took a much softer line, pardoning many Confederate leaders and ex-Confederates.^[26] Jefferson Davis was held in prison for two years, but other Confederate leaders were not. There were no treason trials. Only one person—Major Henry Wirz, the commandant of the prison camp in Andersonville, Georgia—was executed for war crimes.

In March 1865, Congress had established the Freedmen's Bureau. The Bureau provided food, clothing, and fuel to destitute former slaves and white refugees, as well as advice on negotiating labor contracts. It attempted to oversee new relations between freedmen and their former masters. It did not, as later myths said, promise 40 acres and a mule.^[27]

Although resigned to the abolition of slavery, many ex-Confederates were not willing to accept the social changes nor political domination by former slaves. The defeated were unwilling to acknowledge that their society had changed. In the words of Benjamin F. Perry, President Johnson's choice as the provisional governor of South Carolina: "First, the Negro is to be invested with all political power, and then the antagonism of interest between capital and labor is to work out the result."^[28]

However, the fears of the mostly conservative planter elite and other leading white citizens were partly assuaged by the actions of President Johnson, who ensured that a wholesale land redistribution from the planters to the freedman did not occur. President Johnson ordered that confiscated or abandoned lands administered by the Freedman's Bureau would not be redistributed to the freedmen but be returned to pardoned owners. Land was returned that would have been forfeited under the provisions of the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862.

The position of the Freedmen in 1865-66 and the enactment of Black Codes

a Harper's Magazine political cartoon alleging Klan and White League opposition to Reconstruction

Southern state governments quickly enacted the restrictive "black codes". However they were abolished in 1866 and seldom had effect because the Freedman's Bureau (not the local courts) handled the legal affairs of freedmen.

The Black Codes indicated the plans of the southern whites for the ex-slaves.^[29] The freedmen would have more rights than did free blacks before the war, but they still had only a limited set of second-class civil rights, no voting rights, and, since they were not citizens, they could not own firearms, serve on a jury in a lawsuit involving whites or move about without employment.^[30] The Black Codes would limit blacks' ability to control their own employment. The Black Codes outraged northern opinion. They were overthrown by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that gave the Freedmen full legal equality (except for the right to vote).^[31]

The freedmen rejected gang labor work patterns that had been used in slavery; with the strong backing of the Freedman's Bureau they forced planters to bargain for their labor. Such bargaining soon led to the establishment of the system of sharecropping, which gave the freedmen greater economic independence and social autonomy than gang labor. However, because they lacked capital and the planters continued to own the means of production (tools, draft animals and land), the freedmen were forced into producing cash crops (mainly cotton) for the land-owners and merchants, and they entered into a crop-lien system. Widespread poverty, disruption to an agricultural economy too dependent on cotton, and the falling price of cotton, led within decades to the routine indebtedness of the majority of the freedmen, and poverty by many planters.^[32]

Northern officials gave varying reports on conditions for the freedmen in the South. One harsh assessment came from Carl Schurz, who reported on the situation in the states along the Gulf Coast. His report documented dozens of extra-judicial killings and claimed that hundreds or thousands more African Americans were killed.^[33]

The number of murders and assaults perpetrated upon Negroes is very great; we can form only an approximative estimate of what is going on in those parts of the South which are not closely garrisoned, and from which no regular reports are received, by what occurs under the very eyes of our military authorities. As to my personal experience, I will only mention that during my two days sojourn at Atlanta, one Negro was stabbed with fatal effect on the street, and three were poisoned, one of whom died. While I was at Montgomery, one negro was cut across the throat evidently with intent to kill, and another was shot, but both escaped with their lives. Several papers attached to this report give an account of the number of capital cases that occurred at certain places during a certain period of time. It is a sad fact that the perpetration of those acts is not confined to that class of people which might be called the rabble. Carl Schurz, "Report on the Condition of the South", December 1865 (U.S. Senate Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Congress, 1st session).

The report included sworn testimony from soldiers and officials of the Freedman's Bureau. In Selma, Alabama, Major J.P. Houston noted that whites who killed 12 African Americans in his district never came to trial. Many more killings never became official cases. Captain Poillon described white patrols in southwestern Alabama "who board some of the boats; after the boats leave they hang, shoot, or drown the victims they may find on them, and all those found on the roads or coming down the rivers are almost invariably murdered. The bewildered and terrified freedmen know not what to do--to leave is death; to remain is to suffer the increased burden imposed upon them by the cruel taskmaster, whose only interest is their labor, wrung from them by every device an inhuman ingenuity can devise; hence the lash and murder is resorted to intimidate those whom fear of an awful death alone cause to remain, while patrols, Negro dogs and spies, disguised as Yankees, keep constant guard over these unfortunate people."

Moderate responses

In response to the Black codes and worrisome signs of Southern recalcitrance, the Radical Republicans blocked the readmission of the ex-rebellious states to the Congress in fall 1865. Congress also renewed the Freedman's Bureau, but Johnson vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill in February 1866. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, leader of the moderate Republicans, took affront at the black codes. He proposed the first Civil Rights Law, because the abolition of slavery was empty if "laws are to be enacted and enforced depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen... A law that does not allow a colored person to go from one county to another, and one that does not allow him to hold property, to teach, to preach, are certainly laws in violation of the rights of a freeman... The purpose of this bill is to destroy all these discriminations." ^[34]

The key to the bill was the opening section:

"All persons born in the United States ... are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery ... shall have the same right in every State ...to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Congress quickly passed the Civil Rights bill; the Senate on February 2 voted 33–12; the House on March 13 voted 111–38.

Johnson vetoes; Republicans rally against him

Although strongly urged by moderates in Congress to sign the Civil Rights bill, Johnson broke decisively with them by vetoing it on March 27. His veto message objected to the measure because it conferred citizenship on the Freedmen at a time when eleven out of thirty-six states were unrepresented and attempted to fix by Federal law "a perfect equality of the white and black races in every State of the Union." Johnson said it was an invasion by Federal authority of the rights of the States; it had no warrant in the Constitution and was contrary to all precedents. It was a "stride toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the national government."^[35]

The debate over reconstruction and the Freedman's Bureau was nationwide. This 1866 Pennsylvania election poster alleged that Freedman's Bureau money was being lavished on lazy freedmen at the expense of white workers.^[36]

The Democratic Party, proclaiming itself the party of white men, north and south, supported Johnson.^[37] However the Republicans in Congress overrode his veto (the Senate by the close vote of 33:15, the House by 122:41) and the Civil Rights bill became law. Congress also passed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill over Johnson's veto.

The last moderate proposal was the Fourteenth Amendment, whose principal drafter was Representative John Bingham. It was designed to put the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution, but it went much further. It extended citizenship to everyone born in the United States (except visitors and Indians on reservations), penalized states that did not give the vote to Freedmen, and most importantly, created new federal civil rights that could be protected by federal courts. It guaranteed the Federal war debt would be paid (and promised the Confederate debt would never be paid). Johnson used his influence to block the amendment in the states since three-fourths of the states were required for ratification. (The amendment was later ratified.) The moderate effort to compromise with Johnson had failed, and a political fight broke out between the Republicans (both Radical and moderate) on one side, and on the other side, Johnson and his allies in the Democratic party in the North, and the conservative groupings (which used different names) in each southern state.

Congress imposes Radical Reconstruction: 1866–73

Republicans in Congress took control of Reconstruction policies after the election of 1866. Johnson ignored the policy mandate, and he openly encouraged southern states to deny to ratify the 14th Amendment. (Except for Tennessee, all former confederate states did just that, as did the border states of Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky.) Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, and the Republican faction that called themselves "radicals" led efforts to extend suffrage to freedmen. They were generally in control, although they had to compromise with the moderate Republicans. (The Democrats in Congress had almost no power.) Historians generally refer to this period as Radical Reconstruction.^[38]

The South's white leaders, who regained power in the immediate postwar era before the vote was granted to the freedmen, renounced secession and slavery, but not white supremacy. People who had previously held power were angered in 1867 when new elections were held. New Republican lawmakers were elected by a coalition of white Unionists, freedmen and northerners who had settled in the South. Some leaders in the South tried to accommodate to new conditions.

Constitutional amendments

Three new Constitutional amendments were adopted. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and was ratified in 1865. The 14th Amendment was rejected in 1866 but ratified in 1868, guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, except Native Americans and women, and granting them federal civil rights. The 15th Amendment passed in 1870, decreeing that the right to vote could not be denied because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The amendment did not declare the vote an unconditional right and only prohibited these specific types of discrimination while specific electoral policies were determined within each state.

Statutes

Congress clarified the scope of the federal writ of habeas corpus to allow federal courts to vacate unlawful state court convictions or sentences in 1867 (28 U.S.C. § 2254).

Military reconstruction

With the Radicals in control, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts in 1867. The first Reconstruction Act placed ten Confederate states under military control, grouping them into five military districts:^[39]

• First Military District: Virginia, under General John Schofield
• Second Military District: The Carolinas, under General Daniel Sickles
• Third Military District: Georgia, Alabama and Florida, under General John Pope
• Fourth Military District: Arkansas and Mississippi, under General Edward Ord
• Fifth Military District: Texas and Louisiana, under Generals Philip Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock

Tennessee was not made part of a military district (having already been readmitted to the Union), and therefore federal controls did not apply.

The ten Southern state governments were re-constituted under the direct control of the United States Army. One major purpose was to recognize and protect the right of African Americans to vote.^[40] There was little or no fighting, but rather a state of martial law in which the military closely supervised local government, supervised elections, and tried to protect office holders and freedmen from violence.^[41] Blacks were enrolled as voters; former Confederate leaders were excluded for a limited period.[Foner 1988 p 274–5] No one state was entirely representative. Randolph Campbell describes what happened in Texas:^[42]

The first critical step … was the registration of voters according to guidelines established by Congress and interpreted by Generals Sheridan and Griffin. The Reconstruction Acts called for registering all adult males, white and black, except those who had ever sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in rebellion.… Sheridan interpreted these restrictions stringently, barring from registration not only all pre-1861 officials of state and local governments who had supported the Confederacy but also all city officeholders and even minor functionaries such as sextons of cemeteries. In May Griffin … appointed a three-man board of registrars for each county, making his choices on the advice of known scalawags and local Freedman's Bureau agents. In every county where practicable a freedman served as one of the three registrars.… Final registration amounted to approximately 59,633 whites and 49,479 blacks. It is impossible to say how many whites were rejected or refused to register (estimates vary from 7,500 to 12,000), but blacks, who constituted only about 30 percent of the state's population, were significantly overrepresented at 45 percent of all voters. ^[43]

All Southern states were readmitted to representation in Congress by the end of 1870, the last being Georgia. All but 500 top Confederate leaders were pardoned when President Grant signed the Amnesty Act of 1872.

Re-admission to representation in Congress

• Tennessee - July 24, 1866
• Arkansas - June 22, 1868
• Florida - June 25, 1868
• North Carolina - July 4, 1868
• South Carolina - July 9, 1868
• Louisiana - July 9, 1868
• Alabama - July 13, 1868
• Virginia - January 26, 1870
• Mississippi - February 23, 1870
• Texas - March 30, 1870
• Georgia - July 15, 1870

African American officeholders

Republicans took control of all Southern state governorships and state legislatures, leading to the election of numerous African-Americans to state and national offices, as well as to the installation of African-Americans into other positions of power. About 137 black officeholders had lived outside the South before the Civil War. Some had escaped from slavery to the North and returned to help the South advance in the postwar era. Many of them had achieved education and positions of leadership elsewhere. Other African American men who served were leaders in their communities, including a number of preachers. As was the case in white communities, all leadership did not depend on wealth and literacy.^[44]

Source: Rhodes (1920) v 6 p. 199; no report on Arkansas

There were very few African Americans elected or appointed to national office. African Americans voted for white candidates as well as for blacks. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote, but did not guarantee that the vote would be counted or the districts would be apportioned equally. As a result, even states with majority African American population often only had one or two African American representatives in Congress, with the exception of South Carolina. At the end of Reconstruction, four of its five Congressmen were African American.

Public schools

W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the first historians to document the freedmen's deep commitment to education and demonstrated that African Americans played a critical role in establishing universal public education as fundamental to southern state constitutions during congressional Reconstruction.^[46] Many slaves had taken risks to learn to read although forbidden to do so by law; African Americans started "native schools" before the end of the war; Sabbath schools were another widespread means freedmen created for teaching literacy.^[47] When they gained suffrage, black politicians took this commitment to public education to state constitutional conventions.

African Americans and white Republicans joined to build education at the state level. They created a system of public schools, which were segregated by race everywhere except New Orleans. Most blacks approved the segregated schools because they wanted to control education for their children, the schools provided jobs for black teachers, and kept their children in a much safer learning environment. In general, elementary and a few secondary schools were built in the cities. But the South had relatively few cities.

In the rural areas the public school was often a one-room affair that attracted about half the younger children. The teachers were poorly paid, and their pay was often in arrears.^[48] Conservatives contended the rural schools were too expensive and unnecessary for a region where the vast majority of people were cotton or tobacco farmers. They had no vision of a better future for their residents. One historian found that the schools were less effective than they might have been because of "poverty, the inability of the states to collect taxes, and inefficiency and corruption in many places prevented successful operation of the schools."^[49]

1868 Republican cartoon identifies Democratic candidate Horatio Seymour (right panel) with KKK violence and with Confederate soldiers (left panel)

Numerous private academies and colleges for Freedmen were established by northern missionaries. Every state created state colleges for Freedmen, such as Alcorn State University in Mississippi. The state colleges created generations of teachers who were critical in the education of African American children.

In 1890, the black state colleges started receiving federal funds as land grant schools.^[50] They received state funds after Reconstruction ended because, as Lynch explains, "there are very many liberal, fair-minded and influential Democrats in the State who are strongly in favor of having the State provide for the liberal education of both races."^[51]Before this period, however, planters had opposed public education for freedmen and underfunded schools.

Railroad subsidies and payoffs

Every Southern state subsidized railroads, which modernizers felt could haul the South out of isolation and poverty. Millions of dollars in bonds and subsidies were fraudulently pocketed. One ring in North Carolina spent $200,000 in bribing the legislature and obtained millions in state money for its railroads. Instead of building new track, however, it used the funds to speculate in bonds, reward friends with extravagant fees, and enjoy lavish trips to Europe.^[52] Taxes were quadrupled across the South to pay off the railroad bonds and the school costs. There were complaints among taxpayers, because taxes had historically been very low, since there was so little commitment to public works or public education. Taxes historically had been much lower than in the North, reflecting a lack of public investment in the communities.^[53] Nevertheless thousands of miles of lines were built as the Southern system expanded from 11,000 miles (17,700 km) in 1870 to 29,000 miles (46,700 km) in 1890. The lines were owned and directed overwhelmingly by Northerners. Railroads helped create a mechanically skilled group of craftsmen and indeed broke the isolation of much of the region. Passengers were few, however, and apart from hauling the cotton crop when it was harvested, there was little freight traffic.^[54] As Franklin explains, "numerous railroads fed at the public trough by bribing legislators...and through the use and misuse of state funds." The effect, according to one businessman, "was to drive capital from the State, paralyze industry, and demoralize labor."^[55]

Taxation during Reconstruction

Reconstruction changed the tax structure of the South. In the U.S. from the earliest days until today, a major source of state revenue was the property tax. In the South, wealthy landowners were allowed to assess the value of their own land. These assessments were almost valueless and the pre-war tax rate was almost nothing. Pre-war southern states did not educate their citizens or build and maintain any infrastructure. State revenues came from fees and from sales taxes on slave auctions. ^[56] Some states assessed property owners by a combination of land value and a capitation tax, a tax on each worker employed. This tax was often assessed in a way to discourage a free labor market, where a slave was assessed at 75 cents, while a free white was assessed at a dollar or more, and a free African American at $3 or more. Some revenue also came from poll taxes. These taxes were more than poor people could pay, with the designed and inevitable consequence that they did not vote.

During Reconstruction, new spending on schools and infrastructure, combined with fraudulent spending and a collapse in state credit because of huge deficits, forced the states to dramatically increase property tax rates. In places, the rate went up to ten times higher—despite the poverty of the region. The infrastructure of much of the South--roads, bridges, and railroads--scarce and deficient as it was--had been destroyed during the war. In part, the new tax system was designed to force owners of large estates with huge tracts of uncultivated land either to sell or to have it confiscated for failure to pay taxes.^[57] The taxes would serve as a market-based system for redistributing the land to the landless freedmen and white poor.

Here is a table of property tax rates for South Carolina and Mississippi. Note that many local town and county assessments effectively doubled the tax rates reported in the table. These taxes were still levied upon the landowners' own sworn testimony as to the value of their land, which remained the dubious and exploitable system used by wealthy landholders in the South well into the 20th century.

Now that they were called upon to pay a tax on their property, angry plantation owners revolted, and the conservatives shifted their focus away from race to taxes.^[58] Former Congressman John Lynch, a black Republican leader from Mississippi, concluded, "The argument made by the taxpayers, however, was plausible and it may be conceded that, upon the whole, they were about right; for no doubt it would have been much easier upon the taxpayers to have increased at that time the interest-bearing debt of the State than to have increased the tax rate. The latter course, however, had been adopted and could not then be changed."^[59]

Views of conservatives in the South

The white Southerners who lost power reformed themselves into "Conservative" parties that battled the Republicans throughout the South. The party names varied, but by the late 1870s, they simply called themselves "Democrats." Historian Walter Lynwood Fleming describes mounting anger of Southern whites: "The Negro troops, even at their best, were everywhere considered offensive by the native whites... The Negro soldier, impudent by reason of his new freedom, his new uniform, and his new gun, was more than Southern temper could tranquilly bear, and race conflicts were frequent." ^[60]

While both the planter-business class and the common farmer class of the South both opposed black suffrage, they did so for different reasons. These common farmers were now competing economically with the recently freed blacks and wanted to keep them inferior. They opposed black suffrage for racial reasons. On the other hand, the planter-business class opposed black suffrage for economic reasons, not racial reasons. Any laboring class, no matter what race, given universal suffrage could lead to an attack on the property that the planter class loved so much. These conservatives felt that their property interests were now in danger because the laboring class was ignorant and would vote to raise taxes significantly. After being faced by these taxes, the planter-business class thought that by teaming up with the blacks they could lift the tariffs and further their own political agendas. The Democrats nominated blacks for political office as well as tried to steal other blacks from the Republican side. But when these attempts to combine with the blacks failed, the planters joined the common farmers in simply trying to displace the Republican governments. ."^[61]

Fleming is a typical example of the conservative pro-white interpretation of Reconstruction. His work defended some roles of the KKK but denounced its violence; Fleming accepted as necessary the disenfranchisement of African Americans because he thought their votes were bought and sold. Fleming described the first results of the movement as "good" and the later ones as "both good and bad." According to Fleming (1907) the KKK "quieted the Negroes, made life and property safer, gave protection to women, stopped burnings, forced the Radical leaders to be more moderate, made the Negroes work better, drove the worst of the Radical leaders from the country and started the whites on the way to gain political supremacy." The evil results, Fleming said, was that lawless elements "made use of the organization as a cloak to cover their misdeeds... the lynching habits of today [1907] are largely to conditions, social and legal, growing out of Reconstruction."^[62]

Ellis Oberholtzer (a northern scholar) in 1917 explained:^[63]

Outrages upon the ex-slaves in the South there were in plenty. Their sufferings were many. But white men, too, were victims of lawless violence, and in all portions of the North as well as in the late "rebel" states. Not a political campaign passed without the exchange of bullets, the breaking of skulls with sticks and stones, the firing of rival club-houses. Republican clubs marched the streets of Philadelphia, amid revolver shots and brickbats, to save the negroes from the "rebel" savages in Alabama... The project to make voters out of black men was not so much for their social elevation as for the further punishment of the Southern white people—for the capture of offices for Radical scamps and the entrenchment of the Radical party in power for a long time to come in the South and in the country at large."

Reaction by conservatives included the formation of violent secret societies, especially the Ku Klux Klan. Violence occurred in cities and in the countryside between white former Confederates, Republicans, African-Americans, representatives of the federal government, and Republican-organized armed Loyal Leagues. The victims of violence were overwhelmingly African Americans, although white supporters were also attacked.

Redemption 1873-77

Republicans split nationally: Election of 1872

As early as 1868 Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a leading Radical during the war, concluded that:

"Congress was right in not limiting, by its reconstruction acts, the right of suffrage to whites; but wrong in the exclusion from suffrage of certain classes of citizens and all unable to take its prescribed retrospective oath, and wrong also in the establishment of despotic military governments for the States and in authorizing military commissions for the trial of civilians in time of peace. There should have been as little military government as possible; no military commissions; no classes excluded from suffrage; and no oath except one of faithful obedience and support to the Constitution and laws, and of sincere attachment to the constitutional Government of the United States."^[64]

By 1872, President Grant had alienated large numbers of leading Republicans, including many Radicals by the corruption of his administration and his use of federal soldiers to prop up Radical state regimes in the South. The opponents, called "Liberal Republicans", included founders of the party who expressed dismay that the party had succumbed to corruption. They were further wearied by the continued insurgent violence of whites against blacks in the South, especially around every election cycle, which demonstrated the war was not over and changes were fragile . Leaders included editors of some of the nation's most powerful newspapers. Charles Sumner, embittered by the corruption of the Grant administration, joined the new party, which nominated editor Horace Greeley. The badly organized Democratic party also supported Greeley.

Grant made up for the defections by new gains among Union veterans, as well as strong support from the "Stalwart" faction of his party (which depended on his patronage), and the Southern Republican parties. Grant won a smashing landslide, as the Liberal Republican party vanished and many former supporters—even ex-abolitionists—abandoned the cause of Reconstruction.^[65]

Republican coalition splinters in South

In the South, political–racial tensions built up inside the Republican party. In 1868, Georgia Democrats, with support from some Republicans, expelled all 28 black Republican members (arguing blacks were eligible to vote but not to hold office.) In several states the more conservative scalawags fought for control with the more radical carpetbaggers and usually lost. Thus, in Mississippi, the conservative faction led by scalawag James Lusk Alcorn was decisively defeated by the radical faction led by carpetbagger Adelbert Ames. The party lost support steadily as many scalawags left it; few new recruits were acquired. Meanwhile, the freedmen were demanding a bigger share of the offices and patronage, thus squeezing out their carpetbagger allies.^[66] Finally some of the more prosperous freedmen were joining the Democrats, as they were angered at the failure of the Republicans to help them acquire land.^[67]

Although historians such as W.E.B. Du Bois looked for and celebrated a cross-racial coalition of poor whites and blacks, such coalitions rarely formed in these years. With long-term agricultural problems, there was an alliance later in the century between Populists and Republicans whose coalition won control in several states, especially in 1894. White Democrats reacted by creating more legislative and constitutional barriers to voter registration and voting by poor whites and blacks.^[68]

Writing in 1915 and demonstrating contemporary biases about Reconstruction, Congressman Lynch explained that,

"While the colored men did not look with favor upon a political alliance with the poor whites, it must be admitted that, with very few exceptions, that class of whites did not seek, and did not seem to desire such an alliance."

Lynch explained that poor whites resented the job competition from freedmen. Furthermore, the poor whites

"with a few exceptions, were less efficient, less capable, and knew less about matters of state and governmental administration than many of the ex-slaves.… As a rule, therefore, the whites that came into the leadership of the Republican party between 1872 and 1875 were representatives of the most substantial families of the land."^[69]

Thus, the Democrats encouraged the poor whites to ally with them over race. They became bitterly opposed to black Republicans. As is noted in Redeemers below, elite white Democrats subverted any coalition threat to their control by passage of statutes and new constitutions from 1890-1908 that effectively disfranchised most blacks and hundreds of thousands of poor whites.^[70]

Democrats try a "New Departure"

A Republican Form of Government and No Domestic Violence
by Thomas Nast
A political cartoon about the (Wheeler) Compromise in Louisiana
published in Harper's Weekly
March 6, 1875

By 1870, the Democratic–Conservative leadership across the South decided it had to end its opposition to Reconstruction as well as to black suffrage in order to survive and move on to new issues. The Grant administration had proven by its crackdown on the Ku Klux Klan that it would use as much federal power as necessary to suppress open anti-black violence. The Democrats in the North concurred. They wanted to fight the Republican Party on economic grounds rather than race. The New Departure offered the chance for a clean slate without having to refight the Civil War every election. Furthermore, many wealthy landowners thought they could control part of the newly enfranchised black electorate to their own advantage.

Not all Democrats agreed; an insurgent element continued to resist Reconstruction no matter what. Eventually, a group called "Redeemers" took control of the party in the states.^[71] They formed coalitions with conservative Republicans, including scalawags and carpetbaggers, emphasizing the need for economic modernization. Railroad building was seen as a panacea since northern capital was needed. The new tactics were a success in Virginia where William Mahone built a winning coalition. In Tennessee, the Redeemers formed a coalition with Republican governor DeWitt Senter. Across the South some Democrats switched from the race issue to taxes and corruption, charging that Republican governments were corrupt and inefficient. With continuing decrease in cotton prices, taxes squeezed cash-poor farmers who rarely saw $20 in currency a year but had to pay taxes in currency or lose their farm.

In North Carolina, Republican Governor William Woods Holden used state troops against the Klan, but the prisoners were released by federal judges. Holden became the first governor in American history to be impeached and removed from office. Republican political disputes in Georgia split the party and enabled the Redeemers to take over.^[72]

In the lower South, violence continued and new insurgent groups arose. The disputed election in Louisiana in 1872 found both Republican and Democratic candidates holding inaugural balls while returns were reviewed. Both certified their own slates for local parish offices in many places, causing local tensions to rise. Finally Federal support helped certify the Republican as governor, but the Democrat McEnery in March 1873 brought his own militia to bear in New Orleans, the seat of government.

Slates for local offices were certified by each candidate. In rural Grant Parish in the Red River Valley, freedmen fearing a Democratic attempt to take over the parish government reinforced defenses at the Colfax courthouse in late March. White militias gathered from the area a few miles outside the settlement. Rumors and fears abounded on both sides. William Ward, an African-American Union veteran and militia captain, mustered his company in Colfax and went to the courthouse. On Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, the whites attacked the defenders at the courthouse. There was confusion about who shot one of the white leaders after an offer by the defenders to surrender. It was a catalyst to mayhem. In the end, three whites died and 120-150 blacks were killed, some 50 while held as prisoners. The disproportionate numbers of black to white fatalities and documentation of brutalized bodies are why contemporary historians call it the Colfax Massacre rather than the Colfax Riot, as it is known locally.^[73]

This marked the beginning of heightened insurgency and attacks on Republican officeholders and freedmen in Louisiana and other Deep South states. In Louisiana Judge T.S. Crawford and District Attorney P.H. Harris of the 12th Judicial District were shot off their horses and killed from ambush October 8, 1873 while going to court. One widow wrote to the Department of Justice that her husband was killed because he was a Union man and "...of the efforts made to screen those who committed a crime..." {US Senate Journal January 13, 1875, pp.106-107}.

In the North, a live-and-let-live attitude made elections more like a sporting contest. But in the Deep South, many white citizens had not reconciled themselves to the defeat of the war or the granting of citizenship to freedmen. As an Alabama scalawag explained, "Our contest here is for life, for the right to earn our bread...for a decent and respectful consideration as human beings and members of society."^[74]

Panic of 1873 weakens Republican Party

The Panic of 1873 hit the Southern economy hard and disillusioned many Republicans who had gambled that railroads would pull the South out of its poverty. The price of cotton fell by half; many small landowners, local merchants and cotton factors (wholesalers) went bankrupt. Sharecropping, for both black and white farmers, became more common as a way to spread the risk of owning land. The old abolitionist element in the North was aging away, or had lost interest, and was not replenished. Many carpetbaggers returned to the North or joined the Redeemers. Blacks had an increased voice in the Republican Party, but across the South it was divided by internal bickering and was rapidly losing its cohesion. Many local black leaders started emphasizing individual economic progress in cooperation with white elites, rather than racial political progress in opposition to them, a conservative attitude that foreshadowed Booker T. Washington.^[75]

Nationally, President Grant took the blame for the depression; the Republican Party lost 96 seats in all parts of the country in the 1874 elections. The Bourbon Democrats took control of the House and were confident of electing Samuel J. Tilden president in 1876. President Grant was not running for re-election and seemed to be losing interest in the South. States fell to the Redeemers, with only four in Republican hands in 1873, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina; Arkansas then fell after the Brooks-Baxter War in 1874.

Paramilitary groups allied with Democratic Party

Political violence had been endemic in Louisiana, but in 1874 the white militias coalesced into paramilitary organizations such as the White League, first in parishes of the Red River Valley. It was a new organization that operated openly and had political goals: the violent overthrow of Republican rule and suppression of black voting. White League chapters soon rose in many rural parishes, receiving financing for advanced weaponry from wealthy men. In one example of local violence, the White League assassinated six white Republican officeholders and five to twenty black witnesses outside Coushatta, Red River Parish in 1874. Four of the white men were related to the Republican representative of the parish.^[76]

Later in 1874 the White League mounted a serious attempt to unseat the Republican governor of Louisiana, in a dispute that had simmered since the 1872 election. It brought 5000 troops to New Orleans to engage and overwhelm forces of the Metropolitan Police and state militia in an effort to turn Republican Governor William Kellogg out of office and seat McEnery. The White League took over and held the state house and city hall, but they retreated before the arrival of reinforcing Federal troops. Kellogg had asked for reinforcements before, and Grant finally responded, sending additional troops to try to quell violence throughout plantation areas of the Red River Valley, although 2,000 troops were already in the state. ^[77]

Similarly, the Red Shirts, another paramilitary group, arose in 1875 in Mississippi and the Carolinas. Like the White League and White Liner rifle clubs, these groups operated as a "military arm of the Democratic Party", to restore white supremacy.^[78]

Democrats and many northern Republicans agreed that Confederate nationalism and slavery were dead—the war goals were achieved—and further federal military interference was an undemocratic violation of historic Republican values. The victory of Rutherford Hayes in the hotly contested Ohio gubernatorial election of 1875 indicated his "let alone" policy toward the South would become Republican policy, as indeed happened when he won the 1876 Republican nomination for president.

An explosion of violence accompanied the campaign for the Mississippi's 1875 election, in which Red Shirts and Democratic rifle clubs, operating in the open and without disguise, threatened or shot enough Republicans to decide the election for the Democrats. Republican Governor Adelbert Ames asked Grant for federal troops to fight back; Grant initially refused, saying public opinion was "tired out" of the perpetual troubles in the South. Ames fled the state as the Democrats took over Mississippi.^[79]

This was not the end of the violence, however, as the campaigns and elections of 1876 were marked by additional murders and attacks on Republicans in Louisiana, North and South Carolina, and Florida. In South Carolina the campaign season of 1876 was marked by murderous outbreaks and fraud against freedmen. Red Shirts paraded with arms behind Democratic candidates; they killed blacks in the Hamburg and Ellenton, SC massacres; and one historian estimated 150 blacks were killed in the weeks before the 1876 election across South Carolina. Red Shirts prevented almost all black voting in two majority-black counties.^[80] The Red Shirts were also active in North Carolina.

Election of 1876

Reconstruction continued in South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida until 1877. The elections of 1876 were accompanied by heightened violence across the Deep South. A combination of ballot stuffing and intimidating blacks suppressed their vote even in majority black counties. The White League was active in Louisiana. After Republican Rutherford Hayes won the disputed U.S. Presidential election of 1876, the national Compromise of 1877 was reached.

The white Democrats in the South agreed to accept Hayes's victory if he withdrew the last Federal troops. By this point, the North was weary of insurgency. White Democrats controlled most of the Southern legislatures and armed militias controlled small towns and rural areas. With the white Democrats' passage of disfranchising constitutions and statues, African Americans who wanted to exercise their legal rights were repeatedly thwarted by white Democrats for most of the next 75 years. They considered Reconstruction a failure because the Federal government withdrew from enforcing their ability to exercise their rights as citizens.^[81]

Redeemers and disfranchisement

Further information: Disfranchisement after the Civil War

Further information: Jim Crow laws

The end of Reconstruction marked the beginning of a period, 1877–1900, in which white legislators passed laws and new constitutions that created barriers to voter registration and voting for African-Americans and poor whites, ushering in the nadir of American race relations. White Democrats also passed Jim Crow laws imposing segregation in public facilities and transportation, as well as other restrictions on blacks. In the 1880s and 1890s, the Populist Party in some cases allied with black Republicans. Faced with this threat, white Democrats moved to reduce the franchise among both groups. State legislatures passed laws directed at reducing voting by blacks and illiterate whites, chiefly by creating new requirements for voter registration. "It was the very success of interracial coalitions that catalyzed the disfranchisement movement among the previously ruling white class."^[82]

From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, ten of the eleven states of the Confederacy passed new constitutions or amendments that created new requirements for voter registration, such as poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, grandfather clauses and residency requirements. The effect on black disfranchisement was immediate and devastating. Hundreds of thousands of African Americans were removed from voter registration rolls across the South and effectively disfranchised. Tens of thousands of poor whites were also disfranchised. One-party rule under white Democrats was established. ^[83][84] In both cases, disfranchisement lasted until deep into the 20th century.

Reconstruction civil rights legislation was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Most notably, the court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), that the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power only to outlaw public, rather than private, discrimination. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the court went further, ruling that state-mandated segregation was legal as long as the law provided for "separate but equal" facilities.

African Americans immediately started raising legal challenges to disfranchisement. Early challenges taken to the Supreme Court over Mississippi's constitutional voter registration requirements, Williams v. Mississippi (1898), and Alabama's disfranchising provisions, Giles v. Harris (1903), were unsuccessful, which encouraged other states to adopt similar provisions. Booker T. Washington, better known for his public position as an accommodationist, used his political contacts to raise funds and arrange representation for several of these legal challenges.^[85]

In 1909 the interracial National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was established. Soon it began to participate in legal challenges, and established its Legal Defense Fund as a separate organization. In 1915, in Guinn v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the grandfather clause was unconstitutional in Oklahoma. This was the first case in which the NAACP had filed a brief with the Supreme Court. Other states using the grandfather clause also had to repeal it, but states quickly developed new measures for continuing disfranchisement. The NAACP proceeded with litigation challenging disfranchising provisions on a case by case basis and slowly accumulated some victories.

When the Supreme Court ruled white primaries unconstitutional in Smith v. Allwright (1944), civil rights organizations rushed to register African-American voters. By 1947 the All-Citizens Registration Committee (ACRC) of Atlanta managed to get 125,000 voters registered in Georgia, raising black participation to 18.8% of those eligible, from 20,000 on the rolls in 1940.^[86] Georgia, among other Southern states, passed new legislation (1958) to once again repress black voter registration. It was not until African-American leadership gained passage of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 that all American citizens regained the ability to exercise their suffrage, first gained by African Americans after the Civil War.

Legacy and historiography

The interpretation of Reconstruction has swung back and forth several times. Nearly all historians, however, have concluded it was a failure.^[87] Some of the repercussions of this failure could be felt all the way through the civil rights movement. In the 1865-75 period, most writers took the view that the ex-Confederates were traitors and Johnson was their ally who threatened to undo the Union's Constitutional achievements. In the 1870s and 1880s many writers argued that Johnson and his allies were not traitors but blundered badly in rejecting the 14th Amendment and setting the stage for Radical Reconstruction. ^[88]

Booker T. Washington, who grew up in West Virginia during Reconstruction, concluded that, "the Reconstruction experiment in racial democracy failed because it began at the wrong end, emphasizing political means and civil rights acts rather than economic means and self-determination."^[89] His solution was to concentrate on building the economic infrastructure of the black community, in part by his leadership of Tuskegee Institute. However, historians have discovered that Washington also used his significant resources and called on northern allies to secretly provide financing and representation in numerous lawsuits that challenged Southern segregation restrictions and constitutional disfranchisement, as in Alabama's Giles v. Harris (1903) and Giles v. Teasley (1904).^[90]

In popular literature two novels by Thomas Dixon—The Clansman and The Leopard's Spots: A Romance of the White Man's Burden — 1865–1900—romanticized white resistance to Northern/black coercion, hailing vigilante action by the KKK. Other authors romanticized the benevolence of slavery and the happy world of the antebellum plantation. These sentiments were expressed on the screen in D.W. Griffith's anti-Republican 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation.

The Dunning School of scholars based at the history department of Columbia University analyzed Reconstruction as a failure, at least after 1866, for quite different reasons. They claimed that it took freedoms and rights from qualified whites and gave them to unqualified blacks who were being duped by corrupt carpetbaggers and scalawags. As one scholar notes, "Reconstruction was a battle between two extremes: the Democrats, as the group which included the vast majority of the whites, standing for decent government and racial supremacy, versus the Republicans, the Negroes, alien carpetbaggers, and renegade scalawags, standing for dishonest government and alien ideals. These historians wrote literally in terms of white and black."^[91]

In the 1930s, "revisionism" became popular among scholars. As disciples of Charles A. Beard, revisionists focused on economics, downplaying politics and constitutional issues. They argued that the Radical rhetoric of equal rights was mostly a smokescreen hiding the true motivation of Reconstruction's real backers. Howard Beale argued Reconstruction was primarily a successful attempt by financiers, railroad builders and industrialists in the Northeast, using the Republican Party, to control the national government for their own selfish economic ends. Those ends were to continue the wartime high protective tariff, the new network of national banks, and to guarantee a "sound" currency. To succeed the business class had to remove the old ruling agrarian class of Southern planters and Midwestern farmers. This it did by inaugurating Reconstruction, which made the South Republican, and by selling its policies to the voters wrapped up in such attractive vote-getting packages as northern patriotism or the bloody shirt. Historian William Hesseltine added the point that the Northeastern businessmen wanted to control the South economically, which they did through ownership of the railroads.^[92] However, historians in the 1950s and 1960s refuted Beale's economic causation by demonstrating that Northern businessmen were widely divergent on monetary or tariff policy, and seldom paid attention to Reconstruction issues.^[93]

The black scholar W.E.B. Du Bois, in his Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880, published in 1935, compared results across the states to show achievements by the Reconstruction legislatures and to refute claims about wholesale African-American control of governments. He showed black contributions, as in the establishment of universal public education, charitable and social institutions, and universal suffrage as important results, and he noted their collaboration with whites. He also pointed out that whites benefited most by the financial deals made, and he put excesses in the perspective of the war's aftermath. He noted that despite complaints, several states kept their Reconstruction constitutions for nearly a quarter of a century. Despite receiving favorable reviews, his work was largely ignored by white historians.

In the 1960s, neoabolitionist historians emerged, led by John Hope Franklin, Kenneth Stampp and Eric Foner. Influenced by the Civil Rights Movement, they rejected the Dunning school and found a great deal to praise in Radical Reconstruction. Foner, the primary advocate of this view, argued that it was never truly completed, and that a Second Reconstruction was needed in the late 20th century to complete the goal of full equality for African Americans. The neo-abolitionists followed the revisionists in minimizing the corruption and waste created by Republican state governments, saying it was no worse than Boss Tweed's ring in New York City.^[94]

Instead they emphasized that suppression of the rights of African Americans was a worse scandal and a grave corruption of America's republican ideals. They argued that the real tragedy of Reconstruction was not that it failed because blacks were incapable of governing, especially as they did not dominate any state government, but that it failed because whites raised an insurgent movement to restore white supremacy. White elite-dominated state legislatures passed disfranchising constitutions from 1890-1908 that effectively barred most blacks and many poor whites from voting. This disfranchisement affected millions of people for decades into the 20th century, and closed African Americans and poor whites out of the political process in the South.^{[95] [96]}

Re-establishment of white supremacy meant that within a decade, people forgot that blacks were creating thriving middle classes in many states of the South. African Americans' lack of representation meant they were treated as second-class citizens, with schools and services consistently underfunded in segregated societies, no representation on juries or in law enforcement, and bias in other legislation. It was not until the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of Federal legislation that African Americans regained their suffrage and civil rights in the South, under what is sometimes referred to as the "Second Reconstruction."

More recent work by Nina Silber, David Blight, Cecelia O'Leary, Laura Edwards, LeeAnn Whites, and Edward J. Blum, has encouraged greater attention to race, religion, and issues of gender while at the same time pushing the "end" of Reconstruction to the end of the nineteenth century, while monographs by Charles Reagan Wilson, Gaines Foster, W. Scott Poole have offered new views of the southern "Lost Cause".

Reconstruction State-by-state – Significant dates

Only Georgia has a separate article about its experiences under Reconstruction. The other state names below link to a specific section in the state history article about the Reconstruction era.

See also

• List of African-American officeholders during Reconstruction
• Carpetbagger
• Disfranchisement after the Civil War
• Dunning School
• Freedman
• Freedmen's Bureau
• History of the Southern United States
• Jim Crow laws
• Neoabolitionists
• Redeemers
• Redemption (United States history)
• Radical Republican
• Scalawag
• Second Reconstruction
• Second Redemption
• Third Party System
• Voting rights in the United States
• Matthew Butler, involved in Hamburg Massacre of 1876.
• Benjamin Tillman, involved in Hamburg Massacre of 1876.
• Andrew Jackson Houston, organized the Travis Rifles to "protect" post-Reconstruction Texas Democrat Government.
• Edward Douglass White- member of the White League of Louisiana-later a US Supreme Court Justice

Notes

References

• Barnes, William H., ed. History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States. (1868) useful summary of Congressional activity.
• Barney, William L. Passage of the Republic: An Interdisciplinary History of Nineteenth Century America (1987). D. C. Heath ISBN 0669047589
• Berlin, Ira, ed. Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861–1867 (1982), 970 pp of archival documents; also Free at Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom, and the Civil War ed by Ira Berlin, Barbara J. Fields, and Steven F. Miller (1993)
• Blaine, James.Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860 (1886). By Republican Congressional leader
• Donald, David H. et al. Civil War and Reconstruction (2001), standard textbook
• Fitzgerald, Michael W. Splendid Failure (2007) Historical analysis of the Reconstruction and politics involved. ISBN 978-1-56663-734-3
• Fleming, Walter L. Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational, and Industrial 2 vol (1906). Uses broad collection of primary sources; vol 1 on national politics; vol 2 on states
• Ford, Lacy K., ed. A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction. (2005). 518 pp
• Memoirs of W. W. Holden (1911), North Carolina Scalawag governor
• Hyman, Harold M., ed. The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, 1861-1870. (1967), collection of long political speeches and pamphlets.
• Lynch, John R. The Facts of Reconstruction. (New York: 1913)Full text online One of first black congressmen during Reconstruction.
• Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction (1875), large collection of speeches and primary documents, 1865-1870, complete text online. [The copyright has expired.]
• Palmer, Beverly Wilson and Holly Byers Ochoa, eds. The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens 2 vol (1998), 900pp; his speeches plus and letters to and from Stevens
• Palmer, Beverly Wilson, ed/ The Selected Letters of Charles Sumner 2 vol (1990); vol 2 covers 1859-1874
• Pike, James Shepherd, The prostrate state: South Carolina under negro government (1874)
• Reid, Whitelaw. After the war: a southern tour, May 1, 1865 to May 1, 1866. (1866) by Republican editor
• Charles Sumner, "Our Domestic Relations: or, How to Treat the Rebel States" Atlantic Monthly September 1863, early Radical manifesto

Newspapers and magazines

• DeBow's Review major Southern conservative magazine; stress on business, economics and statistics
• Harper's Weekly leading New York news magazine; pro-Radical
• Nast, Thomas. magazine cartoons pro-Radical editorial cartoons
• Primary sources from Gilder-Lehrman collection
• The New York Times daily edition online through ProQuest at academic libraries

Bibliography

• for more detailed list see Reconstruction: Bibliography

Surveys

• Ayers,Edward L. The Promise of the New South: Life After Reconstruction (1992) ISBN 0-19-503756-1
• Donald, David H. et al. Civil War and Reconstruction (2001), standard textbook
• Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt. Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880 (1935), 1998 edition reissued with introduction by David Levering Lewis ISBN 0-684-85657-3.) Counterpoint to Dunning School explores the economics and politics of the era from Marxist perspective
• Du Bois, W.E.B. "Reconstruction and its Benefits," American Historical Review, 15 (July, 1910), 781—99 JSTOR
• Dunning, William Archibald. Reconstruction: Political & Economic, 1865-1877 (1905). "Explicitly identified the granting of full Negro citizenship as Reconstruction's central flaw." After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, "all the forces that made for civilization were dominated by a mass of barbarous freedmen."
• Fitzgerald, Michael W. Splendid Failure: Postwar Reconstruction in the American South. (2007), 234 pp. isbn 978-1-56663-734-3.
• Walter Lynwood Fleming The Sequel of Appomattox, A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States(1918). Dunning School
• Foner, Eric and Mahoney, Olivia. America's Reconstruction: People and Politics After the Civil War. ISBN 0-8071-2234-3, short well-illustrated survey.
• Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (1988) ISBN 0-06-015851-4. Pulitzer-prize winning history and most detailed synthesis of original and previous scholarship.
• Ford, Lacy K., ed. A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction. Blackwell, (2005). 518 pp
• Franklin, John Hope. Reconstruction after the Civil War (1961), University of Chicago Press, 280 pages. ISBN-10: 0226260798. Explores the brevity of the North’s military occupation of the South, limited power of former slaves, influence of moderate southerners, flaws in constitutions drawn by Radical state governments, and reasons for downfall of Reconstruction.
• Litwack, Leon. Been in the Storm So Long (1979). Won Pulitzer Prize for history, based on 1930s interviews with former slaves and diaries and accounts written by former slaveholders, none previously examined by earlier scholars.
• Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. A History of the United States since the Civil War. Vol 1 and vol 2 (1917). Based on Dunning School research
• Perman, Michael. Emancipation and Reconstruction (2003).
• Randall, J. G. The Civil War and Reconstruction (1953).
• Rhodes, James G. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896. Volume: 6. (1920). 1865-72. Narrative by Pulitzer prize winner; argues Reconstruction was a political disaster because it violated the rights of white Southerners.
• Schouler, James. History of the United States of America: Under the Constitution vol. 7. 1865-1877. The Reconstruction Period (1917) online
• Stalcup, Brenda. ed. Reconstruction: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press: 1995). Text uses primary documents to present opposing viewpoints.
• Stampp, Kenneth M. The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (1967); short survey
• Trefousse, Hans L. Historical Dictionary of Reconstruction Greenwood (1991), 250 entries
• Williams, T. Harry. "An Analysis of Some Reconstruction Attitudes" The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Nov., 1946), pp. 469-486. JSTOR

National politics; Constitutional issues

• Belz, Herman. Emancipation and Equal Rights: Politics and Constitutionalism in the Civil War Era (1978) pro-moderate. online edition
• Belz, Herman. A New Birth of Freedom: The Republican Party and Freedman's Rights, 1861-1866 (2000) pro-moderate.
• Benedict, Michael Les. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1999), pro-Radical. online edition
• Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving the Constitution: The Conservative Bases of Radical Reconstruction," Journal of American History vol 61 #1 (1974) pp 65-90, online in JSTOR
• Blight, David. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (2000). Examines national memory of Civil War, Reconstruction, and Redemption, North-South reunion, and the retreat from equality for African Americans.
• Blum, Edward J. "Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and American Nationalism, 1865-1898" (2005).
• Donald, David Herbert. Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man (1970), Pulitzer prize winning biography
• Dunning, William A. "The Constitution of the United States in Reconstruction" in Political Science Quarterly Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec., 1887), pp. 558-602 JSTOR
• Dunning, William A. "Military Government in the South During Reconstruction" Political Science Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1897), pp. 381-406 JSTOR
• Gambill, Edward. Conservative Ordeal: Northern Democrats and Reconstruction, 1865-1868. (1981). Political history of Democratic Party unable to shed its Civil War label of treason and defeatism, even as it successfully blocked a few elements of Radical Reconstruction.
• Gillette, William. Retreat from Reconstruction, 1869-1879. Louisiana State University Press: 1979. Traces failure of Reconstruction to the power of Democrats, administrative inefficiencies, racism, and lack of commitment by northern Republicans.
• Harris, William C. With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union (1997) portrays Lincoln as opponent of Radicals.
• Hyman, Harold M. A More Perfect Union (1975), constitutional history of Civil War & Reconstruction.
• McLaughlin, Andrew. A Constitutional History of the United States (1935) Pulitzer Prize; ch 45-47 are on Reconstruction online version
• McKitrick, Eric L. Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (1961) portrays Johnson as weak politician unable to forge coalitions.
• McPherson, James M. The Abolitionist Legacy: From Reconstruction to the NAACP (1975) (ISBN 0-691-10039-X)
• Simpson, Brooks D. Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861-1868 (1991).
• Pildes, Richard, "Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon", Constitutional Commentary, 17 (2000).
• Stryker, Lloyd Paul; Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage 1929. pro-Johnson
• Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography (1989)
• Trefousse, Hans L. Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian (1997)

South: regional, state & local studies

• Brown, Canter Jr. Florida's Black Public Officials, 1867-1924
• Campbell. Randolph B. Grass-Roots Reconstruction in Texas, 1865-1880 (1998)
• Coulter, E. Merton. The Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky (1926)
• Coulter, E. Merton. The South During Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (1947). Dunning School. region-wide history
• Donald, David H. "The Scalawag in Mississippi Reconstruction," The Journal of Southern History Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov., 1944), pp. 447-460 JSTOR
• Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt "The Freedmen's Bureau," (1901)
• Ebner, David, and Larry Langman, eds. Hollywood's Image of the South: A Century of Southern Films Greenwood Press. 2001. Ch 9-10 on Reconstruction and KKK.
• Fischer, Roger. The Segregation Struggle in Louisiana, 1862-1877. (University of Illinois Press: 1974) Study of free persons of color in New Orleans who provided leadership in the unsuccessful fight against segregation of schools and public accommodations.
• Fitzgerald, Michael W. Urban Emancipation: Popular Politics in Reconstruction Mobile, 1860–1890. (Louisiana State University Press, 2002. 301 pp. ISBN 0-8071-2837-6.)
• Fitzgerald, Michael R. "Radical Republicanism and the White Yeomanry During Alabama Reconstruction, 1865-1868." Journal of Southern History 54 (November 1988): 565-96. Online at JSTOR
• Fleming, Walter L. Walter Lynwood Fleming Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama 1905.
• Foner, Eric. Freedom's Lawmakers: A Directory of Black Officeholders During Reconstruction (Revised edition, LSU Press, 1996) biographies of more than 1,500 officeholders.
• Garner, James Wilford. Reconstruction in Mississippi (1901), Dunning School online edition
• Hamilton, Peter Joseph. The Reconstruction Period (1906), full length history of era; Dunning School approach; 570 pp; chapters on each state
• Harris, William C. The Day of the Carpetbagger: Republican Reconstruction in Mississippi (1979) online edition
• Holt, Thomas. Black over White: Negro Political Leadership in South Carolina During Reconstruction. (University of Illinois Press: 1977). Black elected officials, their divisions, and battles with white governors who controlled patronage and their ultimate failure.
• Kolchin, Peter. First Freedom: The Responses of Alabama's Blacks to Emancipation and Reconstruction. (Greenwood Press: 1972) Explores black migration, labor, and social structure in the first five years of Reconstruction.
• Morrow, Ralph E. "Northern Methodism in the South during Reconstruction." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Sep., 1954), pp. 197-218. in JSTOR
• A. B. Moore, "Railroad Building in Alabama During the Reconstruction Period" The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Nov., 1935), pp. 421-441. JSTOR
• Olsen, Otto H. ed., Reconstruction and Redemption in the South (1980), state by state, neoabolitionist
• Perman, Michael. The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879. University of North Carolina Press. 1984. detailed state-by-state narrative of Conservatives
• Ramsdell, Charles W., "Presidential Reconstruction in Texas ", Southwestern Historical Quarterly, (1907) v.11#4 277 - 317.
• Ramsdell, Charles William. Reconstruction in Texas. Columbia University Press, 1910. Dunning school
• Reynolds, John S. Reconstruction in South Carolina, 1865—1877, Negro Universities Press, 1969
• Rubin, Hyman III. South Carolina Scalawags (2006)
• Russ, Jr., William A. "The Negro and White Disfranchisement During Radical Reconstruction" The Journal of Negro History Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 1934), pp. 171-192 JSTOR
• Russ, Jr., William A. "Registration and Disfranchisement Under Radical Reconstruction," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 2 (Sep., 1934), pp. 163-180 JSTOR
• Simkins, Francis Butler, and Robert Hilliard Woody. South Carolina during Reconstruction (1932), revisionist (Beardian) school
• Stover, John F. The Railroads of the South, 1865-1900: A Study in Finance and Control (1955)
• Summers, Mark Wahlgren. Railroads, Reconstruction, and the Gospel of Prosperity: Aid Under the Radical Republicans, 1865-1877 (1984)
• Taylor, Alrutheus A., Negro in Tennessee 1865-1880 (1974) ISBN 0-87152-165-2
• Taylor, Alrutheus, Negro in South Carolina During the Reconstruction (AMS Press: 1924) ISBN 0-404-00216-1
• Taylor, Alrutheus, The Negro in the Reconstruction Of Virginia (The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History: 1926)
• Taylor, A. A. "The Negro in South Carolina During the Reconstruction" The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 9-11 (1924-1926) (multi-part article) JSTOR full text
• Trelease, Allen W. White Terror: The Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, (Louisiana State University Press: 1971, 1995). detailed treatment of the Klan, and similar groups.
• Wharton, V. L. "The Race Issue in the Overthrow of Reconstruction in Mississippi," Phylon (1940-1956) Vol. 2, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1941), pp. 362-370 in JSTOR
• Wiggins, Sarah Woolfolk. The Scalawag in Alabama Politics, 1865-1881 (1991)
• Woody, R. H. "The Labor and Immigration Problem of South Carolina during Reconstruction" The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 18, No. 2 (Sep., 1931), pp. 195-212 JSTOR

External links

• Reconstruction: The Second Civil War 2004 PBS film and transcript connecting the replacement of Civil Rights with segregation at the end of 19th century Reconstruction with 1960s Civil Rights Movement.
• Guide to Reconstruction History links to primary and secondary sources
• PBS' American Experience: Reconstruction Historians Eric Foner, David Blight, and Ed Ayers discuss "Civil Rights During Reconstruction"
• Proclamation of August 1866, declaring the Insurrection at an end.
• Lincoln and Freedom: Reconstruction
• Reconstruction in Mississippi by Donald J. Mabry
• "Reconstruction Historiography: A Source of Teaching Ideas" by Robert P. Green, Jr. (1991)
• In-depth timeline of Reconstruction
• W. S. Simkins, "Why the Ku Klux," 4 The Alcalde (June 1916): 735-748. online

United States topics History Timeline Pre-Columbian · Colonial era (Thirteen Colonies) · Declaration of Independence · American Revolution · Territorial acquisitions · American Civil War · Reconstruction era · African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) · World War I · Great Depression · Home front during World War II · Cold War · Korean War · African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) · Second-wave feminism · Vietnam War · Post-Cold War (1991-present) · War on Terrorism By topic Demographic · Technological and industrial · Military · Postal Federal government     Law Constitution Bill of Rights Separation of powers Federalism Law Enforcement Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Congress House of Representatives Senate Executive President/Vice President Executive Office of the President Cabinet/Executive departments Independent agencies Policies Federal courts Supreme Court Courts of appeals District courts Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) National Security Agency (NSA) Military Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Coast Guard Politics State governments  · Local governments  · Elections (Electoral College) · Political ideologies · Political divisions · Political parties (Democratic Party · Republican Party · Third parties) · Political status of Puerto Rico · Red states and blue states · Political scandals · Uncle Sam Geography Cities, towns and villages · Counties · Extreme points · Islands · Mountains (Appalachian · Rocky) · National Park System · Regions (New England · Mid-Atlantic · Southern · Midwestern · Great Plains · Northwestern · Southwestern) · Rivers (Mississippi · Missouri · Colorado) · States · Territory · Water supply and sanitation Economy Banking · Communications · Companies · Federal Reserve System · Insurance · Standard of living (Personal income · Household income · Income inequality · Homeownership) · Tourism · Transportation (Passenger vehicles · Trucking industry · Interstate Highway System · Highways · Airports · Railroads) · U.S. dollar · Wall Street Society Adolescent sexuality · Crime · Demographics · Education · Health insurance · Health care · Public holidays · Languages (American English · Spanish) · Media · People · Incarceration · Religion · Social class (American Dream · Affluence · American middle class · Poverty · Educational attainment · Professional and working class conflict) · Sports Culture Architecture · Cuisine · Dance · Fashion · Flag · American literature (Folklore · Poetry · Transcendentalism · Harlem Renaissance · Beat Generation) · Music (American classical music · American folk music · American popular music · Jazz) · Radio · Television / Cinema (Hollywood) · Visual arts (Abstract expressionism) Issues Abortion · Affirmative action · American exceptionalism · Anti-Americanism · Capital punishment · Drug policy / Prohibition · Energy policy · Environmental movement · Gun politics · Health care reform · Human rights · Immigration (United States–Mexico barrier · Third Border Initiative) · Obesity · Racism · Same-sex marriage Portal