Talk:Reconstruction era/Archive 2

Racist/pro-KKK/one hundred year sources that should be in embarrassment to anyone that has edited this article.
Why does this article use literally one hundred year old sources that defend the KKK? Does the paragraph below sound like it is from a neutral reliable source??????????

"Such being the character of the negro government of South Carolina such the motives and conduct of its agents it naturally became stench in the nostrils of decent people and a disgrace to the country The Federal bayonets removed the power of the thieves the so called government fell to pieces of its own imbecility came to nought of its own all pervading corruption Negro domination had proven as well an injury to the black race as an to the white an experiment always doomed to failure the device of those who in the name of freedom and justice had inaugurated and sustained a government that was never worthy of the..."

That is a quote from the last paragraph of a book that is being used as a major source in one of the subsections of this article.

The presence of such sources in this article is an embarrassment to anyone who has ever edited this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Friedman (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 January 2014 — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just edited it but don't feel at all embarrassed. I'd suggest that you try elaborating more and accusing less. It may depend on the context in which the source is used...

It is just one of the major sources in the "Taxation during Reconstruction" subsection. Do you think that it is a reliable source???Lance Friedman (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't really identified it yet. Offering a paragraph of text that isn't in the article and expecting folks to figure out what you are talking about by playing guess the source isn't helping. Try actually identifying the source...Reynolds, Hollander or Lynch?


 * I already mentioned the subsection. This is the source is the pro-kkk 100 year old source that i quoted from: J. S. Reynolds, Reconstruction in South Carolina, 1865–1877 (Columbia, SC: The State Co., 1905), p. 329.

The quote was from the last paragraph of the last chapter of the book. I repeat, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE????????Lance Friedman (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)ra — Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is being quoted is concerning taxation rates (and absolutely nothing to do with KKK)...are you stating those facts are wrong or more clearly are you presenting a different reliable source that calls this source into question for those facts?
 * I am clearly stating that this 100 year old books defense of the KKK and obvious lack of neutrality calls into question anything that it says. Once again, ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO CLAIM THAT THIS RACIST 100 YEAR OLD BOOK IS A NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE???Lance Friedman (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you simply don't like it and don't have a source with which to rebut the source used in the article. If those numbers are accurate, your argument boils down to "yeah, but some dude in the KKK wrote it so it must be unreliable". You haven't offered the editors here any kind of editing suggestion or argument based in policy or logic. Have you tried to find a source to substitute in its place?
 * The source is being used in a correct manner. Foner's book, which is current, is used as a source that the mill rate increased during reconstruction.  A source printed just after the end of the 19th century is used to illustrate that fact by showing mill rates over different years.  Also, you need to show less agression.  TFD (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD. The book is a PhD dissertation that has been cited by over 100 books published since 2000 (says Google).  The quotation in question is not used in the article and does not concern the topic at hand nor does it refer to the KKK. The rule of neutrality is a rule for Wiki editors, not for reliable secondary sources (nearly all of which indeed have strong opinions on Reconstruction). Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rjenson, You know as well as I do that there have been plenty of racist books published over the past 100 years. A book simply showing up a hundred times in a google search does NOT prove that anything that it says is accurate.  And I do realize Foner is used as a source in the subsection.  However, as far as I can tell there is no way to verify that any of his books back up anything that is said in the racist sources because no one has bothered to tell anyone which of his books they are referring to.  I also do not think pro-SS sources would be used this was in an article talking about for example the Weimar Republic.  So I do not see how you think pro-KKK  are appropriate for this section???   The subsection and the article in general are clearly lacking in both accuracy and context and I am very curious how long this outdated material will last on wikipedia.Lance Friedman (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the issue is tax rates and the book is quastion was considered authoritative by Foner--and the Reynolds book was actually republished by Negro University Press in 1969. All scholars use it. Friedman has announces his own intense biases on his home page, where he says "Wikipedia is generally great, except for hot button topics which are typically dominated and controlled by a bunch of crazy right-wing thugs." This is a level of hatred and distrust that explains why Friedman sees Klansmen when historians talk about tax rates.  Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Such being the character of the negro government of South Carolina such the motives and conduct of its agents it naturally became stench in the nostrils of decent people and a disgrace to the country The Federal bayonets removed the power of the thieves the so called government fell to pieces of its own imbecility came to nought of its own all pervading corruption Negro domination had proven as well an injury to the black race as an to the white an experiment always doomed to failure the device of those who in the name of freedom and justice had inaugurated and sustained a government that was never worthy of the..." Rjenson, R U ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY that a hundred year old book that ends with that paragraph is a NEUTRAL RELIABLE SOURCE???   These sources are appropriate neutral sources for an article on the reconstruction era?  Should we pull out some of the other stuff that is in the book and put it in the article???  And please tell me in what Foner book or article does he praise or say any of these hundred year old books is an "authoritative" source?Lance Friedman (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not depend on "neutral" sources (there are very few on this topic). Instead Wikipedia depends on "reliable" secondary sources. A book like this one by Reynolds is judged "Reliable" when dozens of recent scholars cite the book(see this list from Google.   As for being 100 years old-- yes that's what historians deal with: the topic is about 140 years old and Reynolds, a trained PhD scholar, used primary sources that he cites and which scholars like Foner consider accurate. "neutral" is a goal that Wiki editors like yourself should strive for. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the book is reliable for the mill rates during Reconstruction and subsequent scholars have relied on that information, even though they have rejected the conclusions that Reynolds formed. TFD (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It clearly is not all that reliable for anything considering what it says about various topics. Regardless. we do not need to use out of print/one hundred year old racist/pro-KKK sources in this article.  There are plenty of good  modern non-racist/non pro-KKK sources that we could be using.  ALL the books below are critically acclaimed by numerous mainstream sources.  I do not understand why the books below are largely being ignored in favor of so many outdated pro-KKK apologist sources.


 * The Wars of Reconstruction - The Brief, Violent History of America's Most Progressive Era
 * Slavery By Another Name - The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II
 * The Bloody Shirt - Terror After Appomattox
 * The Fall of the House of Dixie - The Civil War and the Social Revolution That Transformed the South
 * The Day Freedom Died - The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction
 * Redemption - The Last Battle of the Civil War

Lance Friedman (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the formatting above but if it is unacceptable to anyone then please feel free to revert.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the much improved formatLance Friedman (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. You can see the linking usage here which may help you in your editing.

Suggested Revision to the Historiography Section
At present, a paragraph in the historiography section reads:

"Re-establishment of white supremacy meant that within a decade white people forgot that blacks were creating thriving middle classes in many states of the South. African Americans' lack of representation meant that they were treated as second-class citizens, with schools and services consistently underfunded in segregated societies, no representation on juries or in law enforcement, and bias in other legislation."

I'd like to suggest we remove the portion that says "white people forgot that blacks were creating thriving middle classes" and reword it as follows:

"Re-establishment of white supremacy meant that within a decade African Americans were excluded from local governance in many states in the South."

Saying that "white people forgot" about black achievements seems more than a little inaccurate. More to the point, it takes away from what appears to me the central point of this paragraph--that African Americans were excluded from local governance with major implications for their civic standing. Would there be any objections to this?Snazzy236 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I implemented your suggestion. Please feel free to make more suggestions or changes to the article.  This article needs a ton of workLance Friedman (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Engraving headlining this article
The racist cartoon that is at the top of this page? People can delay the deletion of the silly outdated racism that is in this article. But, eventually it is going to be corrected.Lance Friedman (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a cartoon, but an engraving – the common illustration method at the time, especially for newspapers and magazines. For example this 1871 Chicago fire image from Harper's Weekly. Photography was in its infancy at the time, using glass negatives. Books sometimes had "plates", but they took up an entire page. From Photoengraving: "Frederic E. Ives is usually credited with the first commercially successful process that was compatible with ordinary letterpress printing, so that halftone blocks could be printed along with blocks of text in books, periodicals and newspapers. His process came into widespread use during the 1890s, largely replacing the hand-engraved wood and metal blocks that had previously served to provide illustrations." This is a typical magazine or newspaper illustration of the period, but if you can find a suitable replacement, by all means do so. Mojoworker (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a very famous illustration widely reprinted and circulated at the time to celebrate black voters and today is used in many textbooks and on the covers of major books like Foner's Reconstruction and Zuczek's Ency of Reconstruction.  There is a hand-colored version (made at the time) that looks even better here. Calling it "racist" is ill-informed.  Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I looked more closely and it's an Alfred R. Waud engraving which, unsurprisingly, actually was from Harper's Weekly and happens to be featured on the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center website. Lance, I don't think it will be easy to find an improvement. Mojoworker (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found the colorized  version Harpers Weekly November 16, 1867 online Rjensen (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This color version of this pic is a big improvement. The features of some of the african-americans in the fuzzier black and white version of the pic seemed to me to be exaggerated for comic effect .  I apologize for making a snap judgement.   I still think it probably isn't the best pic to headline this article and also that the article needs more real life photographs as opposed to cartoons, portraits, and engravings.  There is an abundance of wonderful real life photography from this time period.Lance Friedman (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The brightly colorized version shown above is flawed in that it removes the sleeve chevrons showing the rank of sergeant on the third man in line. The chevrons can be seen in the Harper's cover and in the black & white images. Where did the non-chevron version come from? Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln and Andrew Johnson described as pursuing the SAME "moderate" policy of Reconstruction. This seems misleading.
It seems misleading to describe Lincoln's pre-Reconstruction actions and attitudes toward a post-war South as the same "moderate" policy pursued by Andrew Johnson. Part of Lincoln's strategy to win the war and end the war was to defuse the Confederate cause by avoiding extreme policies and suggesting his administration would be generous and magnanimous, except on the battlefield, to the South if and when it surrendered. Did Lincoln articulate a complete Reconstruction policy before his assassination? There certainly was no such policy established in the six days between surrender and the President's assassination. But I can't believe Lincoln would have vetoed Congressional bills regarding reconstruction and then chosen to refuse to enforce those bills passed over his veto, contrary to his oath of office, as Johnson did.

American history has evolved with a powerful bias in favor of Lincoln and against Johnson, but with rather good reasons. The particulars of Lincoln's so-called reconstruction policy, as presented in this article are factual, but out of interpretive context. Much is made of Lincoln's early colonization ideas; too much. I do find it distasteful to conflate Lincoln's so called policy with Johnson's actions regarding Reconstruction, but this article seems to be written to put Andrew Johnson in the best possible light.

I am not an expert on the Civil War and its' aftermath, so I defer to those who are, to review this question and determine if this article presents this issue within the accepted main line of Lincoln / Civil War / Reconstruction scholarship.

I regret I am not going cite sources at this time. I am posting because this, admittedly controversial, question as presented seemed contrary to everything I have read over the years. I do realize this article has been extensively edited over the years.

David J Gill (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Presidents Lincoln and Johnson both stood in sharp opposition to Radical policies. Historians are unanimous that Lincoln was a far better politician than Johnson, and as a Republican Abe had very strong ties to the moderate elements in the GOP that Johnson lacked. Note that Lincoln also vetoed the main Radical program (Wade-Davis) and that his program a the Hampton Roads Conference in Feb 1865 was distinctly pro-South.  Of course the assassination not only removed Lincoln but also weakened the moderate position by greatly strengthening the vengeance theme that Lincoln rejected (Abe insisted on  "malice toward none" and "charity for all" that the Radicals rejected). Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not misleading, it is wrong. Lincoln was certainly a moderate Republican, but Johnson was a Democrat, vetoing and opposing anything that interfered with "state's rights." Saying that they were moderates is flat wrong, Johnson was a conservative to a fault. -magisternewell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magisternewell (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Johnson was all over the map. In most of 1865 the radicals really thought he was one of them.  In fact both he and Lincoln rejected most of the Radical positions on reconstruction. Rjensen (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Johnson was not exactly all over the map, unless you assume he is a Republican, which he never was. He was selected by Lincoln because he was the a war Democrat. If you look at the whole of Johnson's policies, they are pretty consistent with the "state's rights" bent of the Democratic party of the day. Lincoln worked with the radical republicans, Johnson quickly made it clear that he could not work with them.  Can we start talking about tweaking the wording of the first few sentences of the first paragraph?

magisternewell (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * a lot of Republicans (like Sumner and Logan) were ex-Democrats, so former party history was not a determining factor. Johnson did NOT "quickly made it clear" ... for as McKitrick shows, the break did not come until late-January to April 1866 (esp veto of civil rights bill), nearly one year after Lincoln's death. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But Johnson's party history was a determining factor. He ascended into power after congress had closed down shop and the break occurred shortly after congress passed the new laws they had spent some time debating.  So it was quick if you consider what was going on.  This is really a small point that you haven't really addressed, what makes you think Johnson was a moderate?  He was not a radical, that is clear, but his policies are far to the right of Lincoln. magisternewell (talk) 1:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Johnson's party history was a determining factor" -- that's odd because it was NOT a determining factor for so many other top politicians (look at top people who moved back and forth between parties...like Chase, Logan, Butler, Turnbull, Schurz, Stanton and Sumner). The break came about a year after Lincoln's death. That is a long time considering how fast events moved in wartime. Were his policies "far to the right of Lincoln"??? which policy? Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * His policies? The vetoes in particular, are enough, I think. He also dismantled some of the freedman's farms that were established under Lincoln's auspices, but I'd have to look them up in Foner to give you a clear description of that.  I was struck when I read your assertion and I'm giving you my two cents.  If you insist on keeping it in there, I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to change it on my own.  As far as Johnson's party history, it is perfectly possible for his to be important and for others' not to be, but I find it irrelevant to the main argument here, which is that Johnson was never a moderate.magisternewell (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's time to quote eight historians: 1) Smith in a new book argues that, "Johnson attempted to carry forward what he considered to be Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction." [] 2) Klose and Lader argue that Johnson "favored a moderate policy.... He proceeded, therefore, to carry out a policy very similar to Lincoln's."   3) McKitrick in his famous book says that in 1865 Johnson had strong support in the Republican Party, "It was naturally from the great moderate sector of Unionist opinion in the North that Johnson could draw his greatest comfort." []  4) Billington and Ridge say, " One faction, the Moderate Republicans under the leadership of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, favored a mild policy toward the South." [] 5) Lincoln biographers Randall and Current argue that: "It is likely that had he lived, Lincoln would have followed a policy similar to Johnson's, that he would have clashed with congressional Radicals, that he would have produced a better result for the freedmen than occurred, and that his political skills would have helped him avoid Johnson's mistakes." [from ] Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you could adjust the line to read like your first quote, that would be better. It suggests that Johnson pursued moderate policies early in presidential reconstruction and is a perfectly reasonable assertion.


 * The use of the term "moderate" in terms of reconstruction is not well defined and it seems to be used to describe anyone proposing leniency to the South. If that is what you mean when you use the term, then I suppose I do not disagree with you, I just wish it were better-defined.


 * The veto is a distinctly conservative act, however and should not be overlooked. It makes his appointments of former confederates and his policies shuttering freedmen-run plantations look a lot more suspect.

magisternewell (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2014 (PDT)


 * To suggest that Johnson took a "moderate" stance on reconstruction until his veto is generally understood. To assert that he "took the same path as Lincoln" is fine, as long as we make it clear that he did so until the veto.  To suggest that they had the same views is utterly false, however.


 * To call him moderate at all is misleading because he took the stance for very different reasons than Lincoln, which should be made clear. Initially, Johnson wanted to impose harsh terms on the southern aristocracy, who he believed responsible for the war, and put in place a new racist power structure of loyal whites.  When Grant informed him that he would not allow Johnson to try confederate generals due to his Appomattox agreement, this is when Johnson's policy switched, and even then begrudgingly.


 * By 1866, Johnson had declared war on the Radical Republicans and placed himself in an extreme and precisely opposite position against them. He refused to bring to bear federal charges against race riots sanctioned by elites in the south, he shuttered plantations that Lincoln had authorized for freedmen to start to transition from slavery to self-subsistence and began embarrassing himself on a tour around the country espousing his unpopular views.

magisternewell (talk) 09:00, 06 June 2014 (PDT)

Proposed edits: Grant's influence explaining Johnson's "moderate stance"
--Magisternewell (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC):The suggestions rampant in this article that Lincoln and Johnson had the same moderate views are wildly misleading. I propose removing all of them in the introduction and overview. In the presidential reconstruction section the quote can stay, but should be clarified by explaining that Johnson's moderation came only after a heated argument with Grant, who was effectively in command of the military at the time and had extensive political power. Johnson had been advocating harsh penalties for the Southern generals, but Grant insisted upon sticking to the terms of the Appomattox surrender agreement. Certainly by 1866, Johnson was busy vetoing congress left and right was no longer a "moderate" by any stretch of the imagination.


 * Johnson's moderation was a product of two factors, Grant's political power and his own views that the white aristocracy should be replaced by a government filled with white working class southerners. Johnson at no point advocated for the freedmen, either with voting rights, the freedman's bureau or the freedmen plantations that had been established.


 * As soon as these misleading elements are eliminated, I think the article will be greatly improved.

[magisternewell]

--Magisternewell (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first few paragraphs of the intro should be replaced by something like this:



From 1863 to 1865, Lincoln and Johnson in the early part of his term, took moderate positions designed to bring the South back to normal as quickly as possible. Johnson had advocated harsh penalties for confederates, especially wealthy ones whom he believed were responsible for the war. He was checked by Lieutenant General Grant, however, who reminded Johnson of the guarantees in the Appomattox agreement. Johnson agreed not to pursue federal prosecution for confederates, but would not relent so easily when congress passed the civil rights bill in 1866.

Johnson came up against Radical Republicans in 1866 when he vetoed the civil rights bill. Perhaps his strict Jeffersonian democratic principals governed his decision, in that he thought congress had no federal authority to force states to submit to such sweeping laws. On the other hand, Johnson's racism may have been the reason for his decision, revealed in a series of speeches in 1866 advocating white supremacy in the south and claiming that African-Americans were incapable of self-government.

Johnson's vetoes, his abortive speeches and his political miscalculation made room for the Radical Republicans. They checked his power; disallowing him from making political appointments with the tenure of office act and with a massive majority in congress were easily able to overturn his vetoes. --Magisternewell (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

General Bias?
I came to this article after doing some reading on Reconstruction from recent sources, hoping to get the general perspective and think about it in terms of the big picture. What I'm reading causes me to wonder if there's something of a general bias here. The topic is fraught with controversy, with many Americans holding strong opinions and a dramatic shift in the scholarship from the pro-Southern (and often openly racist) Dunning school that predominated in the first half of the twentieth century to the extraordinarily detailed recent studies by Foner and others.

Some obvious signs are:

Use of the terms "Carpetbaggers" and "Scalawags" outside of quotes in the introduction (paragraph 4) to describe Northerners who went South and Southern whites who supported Reconstruction policies. "Carpetbaggers" is first introduced in paragraph three, where it is placed in quotes and acknowledged as derogatory, but "Scalawags" doesn't even get that qualification. It's just the descriptive term for Southerners who wanted social change, according to this article.

The mention that Nelson Klose (coauthor of a textbook that is subsequently cited several times) compared African American freedmen to "children", which I discovered to be true:

"'The emancipation of the slaves uprooted hundreds of thousands of them and brought sudden freedom, for which they were unprepared. Their labor was lost and they created a social problem for themselves and for the South as they wandered about looking for food and trying, like children, to enjoy their new freedom.' (Klose and Lader, United States History, Since 1865, p. 5)"

This reference to freedmen as "children" has a pretty prominent place in paragraph two of the introduction. I have the strong impression from the historical research that we now have a much more detailed understanding of what happened in the South, which, given the vast numbers of people and places involved, couldn't reasonably be expected to fit in the above caricature of childlike, unprepared freedmen. It's clear, indeed, that many black leaders emerged and the fight they waged with entrenched views became quite intense.

Reading further in the textbook cited, which was first published back in 1965, I get the sense it has much in common with the Dunning School. Read a bit of the Dunning School wiki, and then compare to, say, the section of Klose's textbook on "Radical Reconstruction in Effect in the South" (pp. 15-16).

My question is, would the Dunning School be essentially a WP:fringe theory now, and, if so, would Klose and Lader be the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswanniii (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 April 2015‎
 * There is no general bias-- just a poorly chosen quotation from an old high school textbook. Citing the Klose and Lader textbook was a mistake (I replaced it with a better source) ---It was originally a high school study guide prepared by non-experts in the 1960s, and was not based on scholarship. As for "Scalawag" That is a standard term that is used today without quote marks. Foner, for example, writes in 2013: "Throughout the South, carpetbaggers and scalawags controlled the [Republican] party machinery. To appeal to white voters, party leaders kept blacks off the state ticket in every state except South Carolina and Louisiana." Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling Lincoln's policy of putting huge armies in the field and slaughtering the southern forces can hardly be called moderate. Sending Sherman through Georgia and the Carolinas can hardly be seen as moderate. I think calling a war president a moderate in his actions toward the South needs some adjustment. 14:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting huge armies in the field and shooting the other guy-- that's called warfare, and the Confederates did a very poor job in avoiding it. They could stop it instantly at any time and as late as February 1865 they refused. Sending Sherman through Georgia and the Carolinas with very little combat operation, killed very few people. It killed a lot of horses and mules but surely that is more moderate than killing a lot of Southerners. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Combining Introduction and Overview
I propose that 'overview' is redundant when we already have an introduction. We could probably combine the two sections and save redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkam136 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 July 2013‎

Radical Reconstruction
I have reverted your edit because all historians do not designate this period "Radical Reconstruction." Please see google's N-grams to see use of both terms between 1800 - 2008.


 * case-insensitive
 * not case-insensitive

Please use the body of text to describe the various designations, by contemporaries and the academic community, that have been used to designate this time period. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Congressional Reconstruction" has been out of favor for 100 years. Your data shows that "Radical" is the usual term. see text at footnote 96:  "Fellman (2003), pp. 301–310; Foner (1988) entitles his chapter 6, "The Making of Radical Reconstruction." Trefousse (1968) and Hyman (1967) put "Radical Republicans" in the title. Benedict (1974) argues the Radical Republicans were conservative on many other issues." these are leading scholars. "Radical" is not in any way "pov" -- it's the term used by the faction at the time and by scholars today.  "Radical" is the standard and most common scholarly term. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not see entries for Fellman (2003), Trefousse (1968), and Benedict (1974) in the "Bibliography" section.


 * Secondly, on 08:28, 11 October 2007 your edit changed the section title from "Congressional Reconstruction" to "Congress imposes Radical Reconstruction." That edit deleted a widely used and neutral term to describe this episode of Reconstruction.  That edit is also WP:POV.  Specifically, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."


 * Thirdly, it is also a basic element on Wikipedia to list alternatively used terms for a given topic. This period of Reconstruction has other terms that are used by the academic community to designate it. I've encountered radical reconstruction, congressional reconstruction, military reconstruction, and republican reconstruction as used terms.


 * Lastly, the term "Congressional Reconstruction" has not been "out of favor for 100 years." The case-sensitive term "Congressional Reconstruction" is clearly increasing in use relative to any other term employed.  Please right click both terms in the "case-insensitive" link to display all the case spellings for both terms.  The term "Radical Reconstruction" and "radical reconstruction" have been declining as the preferred term to designate this period during Reconstruction, since 1973 and 1968 respectively.  There does not appear to be a way to link to this graph.


 * Mitchumch (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is 1) mention "Congressional Recon" as an alternative and 2) restore cites to books that emphasize Radical role. Here are additional cites that have in turn been frequently cited by scholars (per google scholar): 1) "Preserving the Constitution: The Conservative Basis of Radical Reconstruction" article in The Journal of American History; 2) "Northeastern Business and Radical Reconstruction: A Re-Examination" in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review; 3) "Radical Reconstruction and the Property Rights of Southern Women" in The Journal of Southern History 4) book: Women's radical reconstruction: The freedmen's aid movement (University of Pennsylvania Press,); 5) book:  Racism, revolution, reaction, 1861-1877: the rise and fall of radical reconstruction (Pathfinder Press); 6) book: Blacks, carpetbaggers, and scalawags: The constitutional conventions of radical reconstruction (LSU Press). Rjensen (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Two Senses of Reconstruction?
Reconstruction begins after the war is over so there is no legitimacy in claiming that it began before April 1865. Lincoln certainly considered how to rebuild the nation and took steps toward that goal but that is not part of the Reconstruction period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baechter (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Confederate areas The war ended place by place at different times--when the Union Army moved in, Confederate authority vanished and so did slavery. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue is that the current date section is unreferenced. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 11:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK -- I added two cites. Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Reconstruction Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213062917/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317074540/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/25C3.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/25C3.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014083500/http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/cnsth10.htm to http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/cnsth10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924004559/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_11.html to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901093057/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/credits.html to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/credits.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107063310/http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/ to http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117023919/http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1733-1768.pdf to http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1733-1768.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816055749/http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/willis/Civil_War/tables/dateSecession.html to http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/willis/Civil_War/tables/dateSecession.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213110155/http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelapdex.htm to http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelapdex.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623150026/http://docsouth.unc.edu/holden/holden.html to http://docsouth.unc.edu/holden/holden.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409003247/http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/ to http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216125013/http://www.thomasnast.com/TheCartoons/NastCartoons.htm to http://www.thomasnast.com/TheCartoons/NastCartoons.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922211058/https://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/simkins.html to http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/simkins.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia Editors,

I have added an external link to the Reconstruction in Georgia article in the New Georgia Encylopedia. Disclosure: I'm an editor with the NGE, which is a project of Georgia Humanities in partnership with the University of Georgia Press and the University System of Georgia/GALILEO. Our articles are peer-reviewed and fact-checked by UGA reference librarians. Please feel free to remove if this addition violates the COI policy. Thanks for your help! Sldevine (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Add information about State constitutions being reformed twice
It seems that a critical part of the story is the re-writing of the Confederate States' constitutions following the war, then their subsequent re-writing starting in 1890 to reinstate restrictions on blacks and lower class whites. These developments are referred to in the article but not thoroughly described. For instance, "They created new state constitutions to set new directions for southern states." (citing Donald, Civil War and Reconstruction (2001)) and "From 1890 to 1908, southern states passed new constitutions and laws that disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites with new voter registration and electoral rules." (citing Feldman). In addition to those, Du Bois' and Pildes' books could provide good starting points for expanding on this topic. Or if relevant articles exist already, could someone add links to them? Inkwzitv (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Add link to new page about different terms
Do it Bob6667 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Creeping euphemisms in bibliography
The Robert Selph Henry work, discredited by modern historians, 'Henry, Robert Selph. The Story of Reconstruction (1938), popular' on the Reconstruction projects a sugar coated, apologist perspective. Yet, that is swept under the rug with the cryptic, 'popular' at the end of its inclusion in the bibliography.Dogru144 Dogru144 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Grant's presidential reconstruction
Doesn't Ulysses S. Grant, an effective civil rights executive president, deserve his own section, such as Johnson's and Lincoln's. Grant was President for eight years. He prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan and started the Department of Justice. Grant signed an equal rights law for blacks in Washington D.C. in addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Grant also tried to annex a mostly black nation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) into the United States. Additionally, the U.S. Congress both the Senate and House had elected blacks in office. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Section added.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Foner quote
Reconstruction was a "flat failure"? Blacks were elected to the Senate and House for the first time. Slavery is outlawed. Blacks get citizenship and the right to vote. Are these really "flat failures"? Foner seems to take highly negative view toward Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The view of Allen C. Guelzo (2018) pages 11-12 Reconstruction A Concise History should be added that Reconsctruction succeeded in four ways:
 * 1. Restored Federal Union
 * 2. Generous to South
 * 3. Blacks had property ownership
 * 4. Legal equality of all Americans by Citizenship Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Guelzo, Allen C. Reconstruction: A Concise History (2018), 180pp by a leading scholar Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made to the article per discussion. Foner quote moved to the failures section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)