Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Reconstruction, Redemption, or Restoration?

Reconstruction policies took many forms in its ten-year duration.  And surely, it is important to distinguish between policies that were meant to restore political stability to the Union and those that brought rapid change (i.e. Civil Rights amendments).

What is undeniable, is that Reconstruction was an attempt to change society, even if critics argue it was a failed one.  Is Reconstruction the proper term?  Does the act of reconstruction imply that an institution is torn down and rebuilt from scratch?  Would a better word be redemption or maybe even restoration?

Pick a handful of specific examples from tonight's reading to help illustrate your point--occasionally are responses are on the vague side.

13 comments:

  1. I think the best word to use would be restoration. To me, reconstruction kind of sound like we are ripping down all that was build and starting from scratch. when we restore something, its almost like we are keeping the main structure, just cleaning up some of the scratches and dents to bring it back to a better state. And i think that is what our original mindset was. Like the article said, "the long war had contributed to a breakdown everywhere both in prevailing ethic norms and in the distinction between public and private spheres." And we had to restore these holes back to the original state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now that I think about it, reconstruction is indeed not the best word, because nothing was ever again as it was before war. The amendments were only some of the big changes, resulting in movements like the Ku-Klux-Klan.
    I think the word restauration matches very much the conditions in the South after the war. The biggest cities, Atlanta for example were only ruins. The article talks about a sum of 1 to 1.5 billion Dollars lost because of destroyed property. The South definitely had to be resaturated. The text also talks about the tax rate being raised between 1860 and 1870. “Tax rates in 1860 were three or four times what they had been in 1870”. This really shows that the whole country was struggling with the consequences of war.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think a better word would be Restoration. It is wrong to say that the way Southerners should be changed to fit the norms of the North. Having Slaves was a wrong-doing by America, and totally goes against the Declaration of Independence; "...that all men are created equal.". I don't believe that the North had any right to change and inherit the South economy or way of life, but they did have every right to emancipate slaves. Slavery was unjust and unfair to a lot of people and was against the Declaration of Independence. That was the only thing that should've been changed about the South, therefore "reconstruction" is too harsh of a term,

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not think "reconstruction" is the proper term term; yes, it does imply that an institution is torn down and rebuilt from scratch. However, I think reconstruction can apply in some cases. For example, Lincoln's first Attorney General, Edward Bates, stated that, "The demoralizing effect of this civil war is plainly visible in every department of life..." This implies that a lot of renovations were needed in order to recover; a reconstruction of society was needed. This so-called reconstruction was a failure in many aspects, such as how "15 years after the war ended, the literacy rate among southern whites had shown no noticeable gain, whereas 70% of southern blacks still could not read".

    I think that "redemption" is a better term for this era. It even says in the article how "The national government consequently turned its back as white southerners engaged in a process euphemistically labeled Redemption", and that "Redemption contributed to a nationwide resurgence of the new Democratic Party"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Dave in that restoration has connotations of fixing rather than rebuilding. Restoration, then, would have to be the term in which it should be described.
    The policies imposed did not break down and rebuild entirely, but to build upon what was already there. The Southerners just felt that they were having everything that they saw to be normal taken away from them and thus it caused tension between the two sides.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I dont think that the proper name for this era is reconstruction but the most appropriate name should be redemption. I think this because the south wasn't completely destroyed, but they parts that were broken need to be fixed. Many things such as the school system had to be fixed or even established in some cases in the south in order to bring the south back up to redeem themselves. By establishing a proper school and education system the ideas of the north can be taught and spread through the South. "By 1872 every southern state had established a school system, and generally these were more centrally administered and centrally funded than in the north, where local school districts played a larger role." another reason why i think this era should be called redemption is the fact that the south basically had a huge temper tantrum(given it was war and killing makes it even worse) and need to show that they can be accepted into the "playroom" that is the union. Reconstruction is the building up of a torn down structure, the south was not torn down, but severely broken and need to be helped back up and shown the path that is right and not the path they were shown.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think a better word for reconstruction is restoration. Reconstruction wasn't what they were doing; that implies, as others have said, that there wasn't anything in the first place. Restoration implies that, although they had horrible policies to begin with and were ruined at the end of the war, they still had the bones to become great and a vital part of the US.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am going to have to disagree with all of my classmates. I think the term reconstruction does suit what was occurring during this time period. In my opinion, Reconstruction means to build up what was already there and then adding some more things to try to make it better. Being built back up was the status quo of our country. The Amnesty Act of 1872 gave political rights back to the confederacy. Like we talked about yesterday, the Wade Davis Bill/10 % Plan were only issued to gain confederate sates back. It is as if they were reconstructing America back together and re-insertng the missing puzzle pieces. But, reconstruction also consists of adding new things. These "renovations" would be the policies toward the black population. The constitution was re-constructed with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that freed blacks from slavery, gave them the ability to vote and hold office. This cannot be described as "restoration" because restoring something implies that it was already there and these rights were not even close to what existed before the war.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think a better word to be used is "redemption". After the war, it is time for the North and South to redeem themselves. This includes economic, social, moral, and physical redemption. The South was not completely ruined, so I don't think a proper term is "reconstruction". The article aalso mentions "redemption" a few times. I think the United States needed to redeem themselves as an overall nation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe that it wasn't "tearing down" the current social ideals/terms. Therefore reconstruction is too harsh a term. i believe restoration would fit better because the were attempting to fix and improve something that was broken albeit already there. The union wasn't trying to create something from scratch nor did they. A perfect example of this is Atalanta which laid in ruins at the end of the war. It cost about 1.5 billion dollars to replace the city but they didn't build an entire new city in a completely different location; they restored what was left/already there. There are numerous other examples of this, but Atlanta is a great one to use because of its simplicity while still getting the point across.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reconstruction took place in the South because the foundation of its economic and social structures were destroyed because of emancipation. Therefore, all efforts made in the South by the Federal government could have had redeeming qualities in it, but the south was being reconstructed from to bottom up because 5 million people became their equals that they used to consider property. The text mentions that the thing Southerners hated the most was that blacks had the right to vote. For sometime, blacks had pretty equal rights and were able to take part in government. But if only equal rights were included in the Reconstruction it could be considered redemption because the South would be making up for its past sins. But Federal Government was pumping money into the south in the form of subsidies and other things. Railroads in the South were being funded by all tax payers.The north was trying to rebuild the South's economy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some how the way i see the situation would be better described as reconstruction than restoration. I think what america was trying to do is to achieve redemption through the reconstruction, but not restoration. Restoration means to rebuild something by copy what it was before 100 percent exactly the same, there would not be anything new or renovations. Restoration would be to torn down and rebuilt from scratch, and make some progress like 13th, 14th,and 15th amendments.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In conjunction with my classmates, the Reconstruction was not the appropriate name for the period of repairing the South. Reconstruction, out of context, suggests totally rebuilding and starting anew, but that is not the case during the Reconstruction period in the United States. Honestly, asking the South to become like the North, is totally ridiculous. The Southern people would completely fight that change, then entire way through. They had just fought a war over keeping their lifestyle, and now their worst nightmare is coming true. While the Southerners are against another war, they would still not allow their land to become an extension of the land that they seceded from.

    ReplyDelete