Reconstruction Argumentative Analysis

“Much of the ensuing conflict over Reconstruction revolved around the problem, as Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois put it, of defining ‘what slavery is and what liberty is.’” This quote introduces the conflict between the North and the South about Reconstruction. Reconstruction happened after the Civil War between 1865 and 1876. During this time, there was much dispute over the ideas of Reconstruction. The South wanted to be able to rejoin the Union with very minimal punishment, whereas some of the North, especially the Radical Republicans, wanted harsh punishments for the South. Reconstruction was put into place in order to have the South follow what the North wanted. The North wanted equality of all people including, owning land, working …show more content…
Foner writes that “By 1866, a consensus had emerged within the Republican Party that the civil equality was an essential attribute of freedom...the newly empowered national state now sought to identify and protect the rights of all Americans.” This demonstrates that the Republican Party believed that there should be equality with all people. With the power that they had, they could now create an act in which all people would be declared equal. The Congress was able to do this as the Civil Rights Act states, “Be it enacted,...That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power...are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color...shall have the same right.” This act makes it possible for equal rights and for all people, excluding Natives. This means that the Republican Party was able to allow all people to be equal under the law. They were able to have enough power to do so and then this led to the passing of the 14th and 15th Amendments of all people are equal under the law and black suffrage respectively. Dunning could be supported by this document as he writes, “The rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment was considered as merely a dignified refusal by honorable men to be the instruments of their own humiliation and shame.” What Dunning is trying to say here is that he believed the 14th Amendment, which relates …show more content…
Foner believed that the South wanted to keep slave labor and was able to stay on the path of slavery with the Black Codes. He also believed that the blacks were free under the law, but did not have equal rights. Dunning on the other hand believed that the South was being punished for leaving the Union during the Civil War. He believed that the military was retribution and the new laws, acts, and amendments were completely unfair because no rational person would accept black equality. These different interpretations happen because of the social and political biases as well as the time period. The social aspects of these arguments are that people in the 1900s had different ideas than those of the 1990s. In the 1900s, there was a lot of racism and the Jim Crow laws were in effect. In the 1990s, the Civil Rights Movement had happened and there was now complete equality and mostly everything was now integrated. The political biases in the 1900s can see that the South really hated the Radical Republicans, while there are probably very minimal political bias, if any, in the 1990s. The time periods are completely different which also cause for different interpretations. This is why viewpoints can change as time passes as new ideas come into fruition and less biases are around. Reconstruction helped to shape the United States from the new laws, acts, and amendments to almost complete equality

Show More

Related Documents: Reconstruction Argumentative Analysis

Reconstruction Argumentative Analysis

Iraq: Gulf War and Bush Essay