Do you think Reconstructionists were really looking to help freedmen or did they have alterior motives?
Use the Varying Viewpoints from the end of Chapter 22 to help.
We've discussed the varying challenges during the post-Civil War era and how the federal government met some of those challenges. Based on that discussion and your readings, answer the following question:
Do you think Reconstructionists were really looking to help freedmen or did they have alterior motives? Use the Varying Viewpoints from the end of Chapter 22 to help.
20 Comments
Damesha Bailey
1/15/2012 03:37:50 am
I believe Reconstuctionist were looking to help freedmen because Susan B. Antony tried her hardest to fight for slave equality in life. along with Blanche K. Bruce, Hiram Revel who were black politician trying to get equality.
Reply
1/16/2012 01:02:25 am
I do not think that the Reconstructionists were really lokking to help freedmen but rather were doing anything they could to perserve the Union that had once been so strong. If they were really looking to help, they would not have installed the Black codes. Those codes put black people essentially back into slavery. Also, the Freedmen's Bureau would have been a lot more effective than it was. There were some Reconstructionists that really were looking out for the good of free men but i think most were more concerned about rebuiling their broken country.
Reply
Caitlin Bechtold
1/16/2012 06:06:18 am
I think that Reconstructionists had alterior motives due to their creation of the black codes. I think in this era people were trying to establish a commonwealth amongst all people yet actions speak louder than words and by creating "freedmen" you must keep them free not have a counter fit crime law against unemployment that sets them back into slavery. Politicians found any loophole they could to reduce reconstruction without truly saying they were anti-suffrage. Just like the Andy-veto, he had a chance to make a difference yet he decided to hide behind his rejection of the Civil Rights Bill by vetoing it. The Freedmen's Bureau was established half heartedly when it could have had the power to progress reconstruction. I think that reconstructionists spoke about freeing slaves yet neglected to act upon their words.
Reply
Rikki Dressman
1/16/2012 06:12:39 am
Reconstructionists were making decisions out of desperation, rather than helping the freedmen and women. The Union was in shambles, and the federal government did whatever they needed to put it back together. The Mississippi Vagrant Act reversed the idea of slaves being free, because after they left their former masters, they were unemployed, which was not allowed due to this law. Many were put on plantations to work off their fee for violating this law. It was a forever losing situaiton. Also, freedmen and women would have been better protected from the threats and violence they faced from the Ku Klux Klan. The government did not really aid the freedmen in this situation. The Klan would enter jails and beat former slaves to death. If you were a wealthy, black land owner, you were threatened and maybe killed. The Reconstruction was not meant to aid freedmen and women, but to merely glue the Union together again.
Reply
Sophia Perry
1/16/2012 06:19:37 am
I believe that Reonstructionists had alterior motives to helping freedmen. The majority wanted to Union to return to it's prewar state only with every previous slave free. The groups they established, such as the Freedmen's Bureau, were created but didn't actually address the issues at hand. To many gaps were left in laws that allowed angry southerners to create the Black Codes that put emancipated slaves back into their former work conditions, and often the same plantation they had been freed from. While there were several dedicated individuals, like the political figures Damesha mentioned, many people claimed to support the cause and then abandoned it when they realized how much work it would require. The 14th and 15th amendment could have been combined into one had government officials thought of problems that could occur.
Reply
Danielle Hyman
1/16/2012 06:59:12 am
I believe that most people who tried to help the freedmen had Ulterior motives. For example, carpetbaggers were northern politicians who benefited from the Civil War. No former confederate officials could hold office in the South, so there were not many candidates for office. Carpetbaggers moved to the South to easily gain government jobs.
Reply
I think that the reconstructionists had alterior motives. They weren't necessarily trying to help the freedmen as much as they were trying to save the union and they were trying to do that however possible. Since they weren't specifically trying to help the freedmen, that allowed things like the Mississippi Vagrant Act to be passed, because reconstructionists were focused more on other things.
Reply
Joy Kleisinger
1/16/2012 07:31:22 am
I think that the reconstructionists had alterior motives. They did not really care about the freedmen, but rather wanted to do just enough to appease people. There were many institutions which seemed like they were a good idea, such as the freedmen's bureau, but in practice they did not serve their purpose. There were also many laws passed that were bent on keeping freedmen in a state of slavey, such as the Mississippii Vagrant Act. These and many others are examples of why Reconstruction was not for the rights of freedmen, but rather an attemt to re-establish the union.
Reply
Felicia Pelfrey
1/16/2012 10:38:26 am
I believe the reconstructionists had ambiguous reasons. I do not think they cared about the freedmen, but were concerned that the Union was falling apart. To try to help resolve this they were willing to do whatever it took so that the Union could become stable as it once was. For example, Freedmen's Bureau came into play, but in reality that really did not benefit freedmen. It gave them an education, but nothing else. They were not worried about helping the freedmen, but was solely worried about preserving the Union. Although some activists and feminists took strikes and rebelled, the majority of the reconstructionists did not simply care.
Reply
Grace Thompson
1/16/2012 11:01:46 am
I think that they definitely had alterior motives. Some helped the freedmen because they were struggling to keep the Union whole. The Freedmen's Bureau seemed like a good idea but in practice it did nothing but barely educate the freedmen. Other Reconstructionalists passed laws to keep the freedmen in a state of slavery as long as possible. Others 'enslaved' with contracts like sharecropping agreements. Overall some did it because they were sympathetic towards the freedmen, others did it for the Union, and others wanted to enslave them once more.
Reply
Niko Carter
1/16/2012 12:03:48 pm
The Reconstructionists had alterior motives and did not act in freedmen and women's best interest. They did establish organizations like the Freedmen's Bureau but the positives were heavily dominated by the negatives. The Black Codes, for instance, kept freedmen in a state of oppression. The Ku Klux Klan violence continued and struck terror into the African American communties. The Mississippi Vagrant Act resembled a temporary slavery contract that forced unemployed freedmen back into the situation they were "freed" from. The Reconstructionalists' motives were based on the preservation of the Union and not toward the well-being of African Americans.
Reply
Kayla Clarice Johnson
1/16/2012 12:14:05 pm
There were definitely reconstructionists who had a genuine desire to help freedmen adapt to a better life after slavery. Some of these reconstructionists held the same views as abolitionists and believed that slavery was an evil institution. Without these people government programs, such as The Freedmen’s Bureau would not have existed in the first place. Although, fact tells us that there were also people who had other motives. One motive was to take financial advantage of the South’s devastation. Under the guise of programs such as The Freedmen’s Bureau, these politicians were able to defer money allocated for aid, into their pockets. Although there were some people who wanted to help, most of their positive works were overshadowed by those who wished to take advantage of the situation for personal gain. So not every reconstructionist had alternate motives hidden.
Reply
Dexter Smith
1/16/2012 01:23:51 pm
Following the Civil War, America had many problems to face and the task before the Reconstructionists was enormous. Their intentions were to establish the war torn South back to its previous state pre-Civil War. Reconstructionists attempted to "reconstruct" the South to what they wanted it to be but some of their attempts were meager. The Freedmen's Bureau was established. This organization's intentions were to help freed Blacks "get on their feet". The majority wanted to help the Freedmen but a few abused the system. These people who abused the system had alternative motives. For example, some people working with the Freedmen's Bureau would trick slaves into signing contracts putting them into states of slavery; they abused the system. Another way Reconstructionists used the idea of reconstruction for their benefit instead of the Freedmen's was Northerners went South to fill the empty political spots and earn money. Since political members of the Confederacy could not hold office, some selfish Northerners took advantage of this and figured they could get a political spot with ease. Cases such as this are examples of how reconstructionists had alternative motives but for the majority of them, they truly wanted to help the Freedmen and help stimulate the South.
Reply
John Dashner
1/16/2012 08:15:18 pm
Most reconstructionists definitely had ulterior motives, especially southern reconstrustionists who passed laws like the Black Codes to "help" freedmen but really they simply were finding loopholes to keep blacks in slavery. Some reconstructionists, like General Oliver Howard, genuinely supported freedmen and looked to see the end of racism and oppression. In short, some wanted to continue to oppress blacks and these people were mostly in the South. And some wanted to truly free the blacks and created organizations and federal bureaus to aid in doing so.
Reply
C. Biddle
1/17/2012 01:05:35 am
Although the North made an effort to help freed men and women, I feel like Reconstructionists altogether had alterior motives. The financial stability of the United States, post-war, was not in a substantial state of well-being. Both the North and South were in destructive positions, which influenced Reconstructionists to act upon need for the country. Although abolitionists such as Susan B. Anthony, Blanche K. Bruce, and Hiram Revel are examples of the successful uprising of the Black Community, the South's resistance to civil liberties of blacks overpowered these successes. The Black Codes, The Mississippi Vagrant Act, and the Ku Klux Klan are only a handful of laws/organizations designed to maintain some form of slavery in the South. If the protection of freed men and women was crucial to Reconstructionists, these laws would have been omitted by all means; however, the North had no succession when it came to preventing them. I feel that if Reconstructionists were committed to the protection of freed men and women, they would have gone to extreme circumstances to protect them, though that never happened. Obviously alterior motives impacted their perspective towards the country, whether it be financially or on a civil basis; in this case, financially.
Reply
1/17/2012 06:29:02 am
I agree with Joe that they did have alterior motives. They were trying to help the free men but they focused more of their attention on trying to perserve the Union. Laws like the Black codes and the Mississippi Vagrant Act would not have been passed if the reconstructionists were really trying to help the newly emancipated slaves.
Reply
I agree with Jon in that some reconstructionists were just looking for loopholes. They didn't really have the best in mind for the freedmen and that they were going to follow the law, but do everything they could to get away with everything that they could.
Reply
Danielle Hyman
1/17/2012 10:50:41 am
I agree with Joe that Reconstructionists did not attempt to repeal acts such as the Mississippi Vagrant Act that kept freedmen in a state of slavery. If they had no ulterior motives, which is spelled with a u and everybody spelled it wrong, then they would have made an attempt to prevent these laws from being passed. Rather than making an effort, they allowed the freedmen to be oppressed by such acts.
Reply
Grace Thompson
1/17/2012 11:25:13 am
I agree with Dexter that there were many people who would sign freedmen into contracts because they could take advantage of them. I also agree with the fact about how Northerners would fill the government seats in the South, which rendered true Southern beliefs unheard.
Reply
John Dashner
1/17/2012 12:41:15 pm
I completely agree with Ciara. It would be naive to say that the southern leaders did not have alterior motives while passing reconstruction acts. Blacks were being taken advantage of more than ever, and racism in a new severity was growing quickly.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2014
Categories
All
|