Download Rahul Jha

Rahul
AP US History
Mr. Bryant
Writing Lab Seven
The Civil War at last revealed competing sectional visions of nationalism. The South,
entwined as it was about the institution of Negro Slavery, steadfastly maintained the
conviction that their culture made them a separate nation, free from a Constitution that
“imperiled their continued existence as sovereign states” (Degler, Doc A). Developing
alongside this brand of nationalism was a Northern articulation that advocated the
preservation of the “eternal and indissoluble” Union. This conflict manifested itself in the
Reconstruction Era, strengthened by the phenomenon of Civil War; “bungling Northern
idealism,” insistent upon eradicating the specters of secessionism and slavery, battled
“intransigent Southern Conservatism” in its Revolutionary aims (Degler). Civil War and
Reconstruction brought about a ). The Civil War radicalized Northern sentiment, fueling the
Radical Republican “mission of reform” that attempted to assert federal supremacy and
black rights, but revitalized North-South tensions precluded success. .
From the blood of the Civil War arose a very new Union government, one premised
upon a newfound nationalism that envisioned a central government of significant power and
authority. The Union victory laid to rest qualms about the power of the federal government
to suppress secessionism, and ensured the continuation of Lincoln’s centralization. In the
last years of the War and throughout Reconstruction, the Federal government accordingly
moved to assert its control over the states, a control which many perceived to be integral to
restraining the states-rights legacy of the South that had manifested itself in Civil War.
Federal expenditures skyrocketed as new economic policies insistent upon nationalization,
such as the fazing out of state bank notes and more aggressive taxation, were implemented.
Senator John Sherman advocated this newfound centralization in a speech to Congress
regarding the new banking and currency systems, emphasizing its necessity; “The policy of
this country,” he insisted, “ought to be to make everything national as far as possible, to
nationalize our country so that we shall love our country” (Doc B).
The Reconstruction Era’s handling of slavery embodied this expansion of federal
authority. Radical Republicans seized control of Reconstruction, hoping to impose a social
and political revolution on the South that reflected the morality awakened by Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation. Arguments for slave rights abounded in Congress, especially in
the face of the unmitigated treason by the South. “If were are called on to do military duty
against the rebel armies in the field,” argued one African American petition, “why should we
be denied the same privilege of voting against rebel citizens at the ballot-box?” (Doc C).
A.R. Waud’s “The First Vote” and a freedmen petition in South Carolina advanced a similar
resolve, drawing from Sherman’s Special Order #15; “are not our rights as a Free people and
good citizens of those United States,” the petition pleaded, “to be considered before the
rights of those who were found in Rebellion against this good and just government?” (Doc
G, Doc E).
A flurry of Congressional activity accordingly ensued. The 13th Amendment
recognized slavery’s centrality to war, abolishing slavery throughout the states. The
Freedman’s Bureau and Civil Rights Bills similarly emphasized a Radical desire to protect the
Negro’s equality before the law, revealingly invoking federal power to accomplish their
means. The 14th and 15th Amendments solidified these aims, holding blacks to be equal in
civil rights and voting privileges with white men. Their ratification also reflected an
unprecedented use of federal power, embodied in the 14th Amendment’s “due process
clause,” which was most certainly aimed at the heart of Southern secessionist philosophy.
That Civil Rights of minorities were now a “federal matter” awakened much controversy
(conservative Republican Gideon Welles alleged that the federal government “had not the
authority” to “prescribe suffrage) but Republicans stood by their convictions; Senator
Morrill, for example, welcomed allegations of Revolution, saying that “we have
revolutionized this Constitution of ours… and every substantial change in the fundamental
constitution of a country is a revolution” (Doc D, F).
Reconstruction simultaneously infused a new vigor in North-South relations.
Southern resentment of Northern “Revolution” essentiallyessetnailly engendered the rise of
pockets of resistance throughout the South amid inflammatory propaganda, the most visible
manifestation of which was the Ku Klux Klan. The sectional tensions provoked further
displays of federal authority, but the Klan openly defied Grant’s Enforcement Acts and
Congress’s Ku Klux Klan Acts. Southerners increasingly rejected the federal government’s
power to impose social revolution, maintaining that the government’s usurpation of “the
duty of protecting life and property…is a distinct and well-marked novelty” (Doc H).
enforcement acsts, **DOC H
The inability of Radicals to translate their equalitarian ideals into reality through the
use of force blunted any of Reconstruction’s revolutionary potential (Degler). Neither the
North nor South, Degler notes, was capable of disenthralling themselves, but rather
continued to act within their historically determined attitudinal patterns. That both North
and South simultaneously began to deem Reconstruction “closed” prior to the full
achievement of freedmen’s rights emphasized a growing resolve, particularly as the specter
of Civil War faded, contrary to Radical Republican ideals and insistent upon full restoration
of the Union. Fredrick Douglas warned of such a potential to restrain the effects of the
“Revolution.” “If war amongst whites brought peace and liberty to blacks,” he said, “what
will peace amongst whites bring?”
The failure of the Enforcement Acts indeed foreshadowed an inevitable return to
Southern conservatism. The Freedman’s Bureau, while perhaps the most successful of
Reconstruction measures, ultimately perpetuated a growing debt amongst free blacks; the
failure of land redistribution programs strengthened this phenomenon. Judical conservatism
simultaneously restrained the impact of legislation measures, in both the political and social
spectrums. The Cruickshank and Slaughterhouse US Supreme Court cases aggressively
attacked the authority of both the 14th and 15th Amendments; Slaughterhouse severely limited
the 14th Amendment’s potential for securing and protecting rights of black citizens, while
Cruickshank maintained that the duty of protecting citizen’s equal rights rests alone with the
states. A movement towards segregation accordingly occurred in the face of the reduced
impact of Reconstruction measures; the Atlanta Compromise and Plessy vs Fergurson
proved powerful embodiments of and indeed impetus for a return to black inferiority,
opening the way for a deluge of segregation statues which soon separated the races in
Southern life (Degler). The progressive solidification of a caste place for blacks elucidated a
fundamental truth; the Radical Republican “mission of reform,” through revolutionary in its
aims, failed to impart a lasting transformation in the structure of the South.
Your grade, based on the A.P. US HISTORY GRADING GUIDELINES 2005-06 = 9
8-9
-sophisticated thesis, which includes analysis of both how and why events occurred
-thesis development throughout the essay
-well selected evidence, thorough coverage, accurate information
-inclusion of all required time periods and/or categories
-clear, concise, accurate language
Your grade, based on the A.P. US HISTORY GRADING GUIDELINES 2005-06 = 9
8-9
-sophisticated thesis, which includes analysis of both how and why events occurred
-thesis development throughout the essay
-well selected evidence, thorough coverage, accurate information
-inclusion of all required time periods and/or categories
-clear, concise, accurate language