Reconstruction Period

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,169
Sydney
Nathan Bedford Forrest during the reconstruction was a fascinating case
to get some electoral leverage he invented a grand army who didn't exist , his name was enough to make it rise ,
much to his surprise , then disgust
he invested his energy in railways and promoted racial tolerance
 
Oct 2016
139
Ashland
Short answer: 'cause it was so damn ugly.
Why?
Bear in mind that Lincoln, self-righteous and envious of the Southern Aristocracy as he was, had no intention of absolutely destroying the South nor granting citizenship to the masses of freed slaves. (The Emancipation Proclamation only freed those in states that remained in rebellion.) Those poor folks' lives had meaning to New England Radicals mostly as a convenient casus belli and little planning had been done for their welfare or the effects of the introduction of scads of them all at once into an economic system for which they were not qualified. Liberia was about the best that the Union had in store for them. (Even that pipe-dream was better than what eventuated, whose effects are yet felt.)After his assassination, the Radicals in Congress hastened to impose their own Draconian agenda.

So we have the spectacle of uneducated freed slaves placed into State Legislatures (easily done when the white majority is disenfranchised) and performing a notably humorless parody of a revenge-filled minstrel show at the expense of their former owners. (The like of which we have been spared from witnessing until this latest House of Representatives where bullying, hate-filled shouting was recently directed at the acting Homeland Security Director by Elijah Cummings. Sho come a fur piece, ain't we? )
Naturally, White Southerners resented such actions and, denied legal recourse, formed militias such as the KKK to protect what remained of their property and their lives. By means of these groups; by dint of enduring privation for decades as they scrimped and saved to rebuild their homes and cities; in spite of military occupation and the inherent difficulty of absorbing the thousands of impecunious, illiterate and (oh, yes) unemployed former slaves---- they succeeded.

Reconstruction finally ended. The wounds inflicted remain and will, so long as History is remembered.
That's a major part of what it's for, right? To recall disasters (such as Reconstruction, not to mention the Civil War itself) which happened, so that they are not allowed to reoccur?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
1,216
Queens, NYC
The KKK was not protecting property rights or the lives of the Whites (in the sense that they warded off death-dealing measures). It was acting to impose racial segregation against Blacks; plain and simple.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,478
South of the barcodes
Naturally, White Southerners resented such actions and, denied legal recourse, formed militias such as the KKK to protect what remained of their property and their lives. By means of these groups; by dint of enduring privation for decades as they scrimped and saved to rebuild their homes and cities; in spite of military occupation and the inherent difficulty of absorbing the thousands of impecunious, illiterate and (oh, yes) unemployed former slaves---- they succeeded.
If the answer is the KKK you've misunderstood the wrong question.

Particularly since their definition of black seemed to wander to include Italians and any other catholics, whites with the wrong sort of politics and people who didn't vote as expected.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
Bear in mind that Lincoln, self-righteous and envious of the Southern Aristocracy as he was, had no intention of absolutely destroying the South nor granting citizenship to the masses of freed slaves.
And where would I learn more about that?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,425
If the answer is the KKK you've misunderstood the wrong question.

Particularly since their definition of black seemed to wander to include Italians and any other catholics, whites with the wrong sort of politics and people who didn't vote as expected.
The KKK didn't get interested in Catholics until the 1920s. The Reconstruction KKK had Catholic and Jewish members. In fact a large percentage of its members were Catholic in Catholic areas along the Gulf Coast.

In 1891, 11 members of a Mafia gang were lynched in New Orleans for the murder of the sheriff. There is no indication the KKK was involved and obviously the lynchings were motivated by more than ethnicity. New Orleans was a majority Catholic city.

The KKK did kill and terrorize white Republicans during Reconstruction.

KKK terror did play a role in ending Reconstruction and restoring white rule. Sanders is repeating the traditional southern history view of Reconstruction, which is totally different from the standard view today.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
The KKK didn't get interested in Catholics until the 1920s.
The KKK was also interested in the Prohibition movement, which had somewhat a Catholic-Protestant divide to it. The Anti-Saloon League, for example, was Protestant dominated. I don't think the Saloon keepers in NYC and Boston were generally Protestant.

Sanders is repeating the traditional southern history view of Reconstruction, which is totally different from the standard view today.
If the OP is right, and there is a lack of interest, you may have pointed to the reason. It's politicized to this day. I like your rhetoric, two views: southern and standard. Does that make truth a third option?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,425
The KKK was also interested in the Prohibition movement, which had somewhat a Catholic-Protestant divide to it. The Anti-Saloon League, for example, was Protestant dominated. I don't think the Saloon keepers in NYC and Boston were generally Protestant.
The early 20th century KKK was anti-Catholic. The Reconstruction KKK had nothing to do with religious or ethnic issues.

Baptists and Methodists didn't believe in drinking. In general, Prohibition was not favored by members of other religions.

If the OP is right, and there is a lack of interest, you may have pointed to the reason. It's politicized to this day. I like your rhetoric, two views: southern and standard. Does that make truth a third option?
It's very politicized. The arguments Sanders gave were used to justify Jim Crow. Now blacks have political rights and so on, and radical Reconstruction is viewed favorably, and it is argued by some that it didn't go far enough.