Expert answer:Jim Crow, and the South after Reconstruction New,
Answer & Explanation:i need help with a history forum!OBECTIVE: READ AND ANSWER QUETIONS ONE AND TWO USING THE REQUIRED SOURCES FOR EACH QUETION.QUETION 1: What factors might have prevented the development of Jim Crow? Although this question is hypothetical, you need to base your assumptions on evidence from any of the documents in the Unit. USE Sources :DOC. 1 OR DOC.2QUESTION 2 : Was the South after Reconstruction New? USE Sources:People’s History- Chapter 9 OR DOC.1NOTE:
Make sure your comments are:
1. Supported
with credible evidence and specific facts.
You will lose points for vague or unsupported comments.
Be
specific in your writing.
Be sure to, include names and
examples that explain or add
to the conversation. This helps other readers follow your ideas and
tie them back to the discussion.
2. Use
at least two sources.
Cite
the source. You do not need a full citation. (See the examples
below)
A
Peoples History of the United States. (Peoples History, Chapter 1)
A
Patriot’s History of the United States, (Patriot’s History,
54-60)
3. Accurate, original, and relevanT to
the time period.
You
can make references to the present, but the focus of your comment
should be on the period.
doc_1….docxdoc_2.docxa_people_s_history__chapter_9.__doc.docx
doc_1….docx
doc_2.docx
a_people_s_history__chapter_9.__doc.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Report on Conditions in the South.
Carl Schurz
By December 1865, when Congress was gathering in Washington for a new session, Johnson had
declared that all the Confederate states but Texas had met his requirements for restoration. Newly
elected senators and congressmen from the former Confederacy had arrived to take seats in
Congress.
Johnson’s efforts to restore the South stalled. Congress exercised its constitutional authority to deny
seats to delegations from the South and launched an investigation into conditions there. In response
to a Senate resolution requesting “information in relation to the States of the Union lately in
rebellion,” Johnson painted a rosy picture: “In ‘that portion of the Union lately in rebellion’ the
aspect of affairs is more promising than, in view of all the circumstances, could well have been
expected. The people throughout the entire south evince a laudable desire to renew their allegiance
to the government, and to repair the devastations of war by a prompt and cheerful return to
peaceful pursuits. An abiding faith is entertained that their actions will conform to their
professions, and that, in acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the
United States, their loyalty will be unreservedly given to the government, whose leniency they
cannot fail to appreciate, and whose fostering care will soon restore them to a condition of
prosperity. It is true, that in some of the States the demoralizing effects of war are to be seen in
occasional disorders, but these are local in character, not frequent in occurrence, and are rapidly
disappearing as the authority of civil law is extended and sustained.”
Johnson’s message to the Senate was accompanied by a report from Major General Carl Schurz.
Among the subjects on which Schurz reported were whether southern whites had accepted defeat
and emancipation, and whether ex-slaves and southern Unionists were safe in the South and were
receiving fair treatment. Schurz’s report was apparently largely ignored by President Johnson, who
had assigned him to make the report but was not happy with what he said.
Schurz went to considerable lengths to get an accurate reading of attitudes in the South. He tried to
get a representative sample of people to interview in his three-month tour of portions of South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and gathered documentary evidence as well
as interviews. Then he tried to analyze his findings carefully and make recommendations on the
basis of those findings. Clearly, he believed that Reconstruction in the South involved more than the
restoration of civil government.
Sir: . . . You informed me that your “policy of reconstruction” was merely experimental, and that
you would change it if the experiment did not lead to satisfactory results. To aid you in forming
your conclusions upon this point I understood to be the object of my mission, . . .
condition of things immediately after the close of the war
In the development of the popular spirit in the south since the close of the war two well-marked
periods can be distinguished. The first commences with the sudden collapse of the confederacy
and the dispersion of its armies, and the second with the first proclamation indicating the
“reconstruction policy” of the government. . . . When the news of Lee’s and Johnston’s surrenders
burst upon the southern country the general consternation was extreme. People held their
breath, indulging in the wildest apprehensions as to what was now to come. . . . Prominent
Unionists told me that persons who for four years had scorned to recognize them on the street
approached them with smiling faces and both hands extended. Men of standing in the political
world expressed serious doubts as to whether the rebel States would ever again occupy their
position as States in the Union, or be governed as conquered provinces. The public mind was so
despondent that if readmission at some future time under whatever conditions had been
promised, it would then have been looked upon as a favor. The most uncompromising rebels
prepared for leaving the country. The masses remained in a state of fearful expectancy. . . .
Such was, according to the accounts I received, the character of that first period. The worst
apprehensions were gradually relieved as day after day went by without bringing the disasters
and inflictions which had been vaguely anticipated, until at last the appearance of the North
Carolina proclamation substituted new hopes for them. The development of this second period I
was called upon to observe on the spot, and it forms the main subject of this report.
returning loyalty
. . . [T]he white people at large being, under certain conditions, charged with taking the
preliminaries of “reconstruction” into their hands, the success of the experiment depends upon
the spirit and attitude of those who either attached themselves to the secession cause from the
beginning, or, entertaining originally opposite views, at least followed its fortunes from the time
that their States had declared their separation from the Union. . . .
I may group the southern people into four classes, each of which exercises an influence upon the
development of things in that section:
Those who, although having yielded submission to the national government only when obliged
to do so, have a clear perception of the irreversible changes produced by the war, and honestly
endeavor to accommodate themselves to the new order of things. Many of them are not free from
traditional prejudice but open to conviction, and may be expected to act in good faith whatever
they do. This class is composed, in its majority, of persons of mature age—planters, merchants,
and professional men; some of them are active in the reconstruction movement, but boldness
and energy are, with a few individual exceptions, not among their distinguishing qualities.
Those whose principal object is to have the States without delay restored to their position and
influence in the Union and the people of the States to the absolute control of their home
concerns. They are ready, in order to attain that object, to make any ostensible concession that
will not prevent them from arranging things to suit their taste as soon as that object is attained.
This class comprises a considerable number, probably a large majority, of the professional
politicians who are extremely active in the reconstruction movement. They are loud in their
praise of the President’s reconstruction policy, and clamorous for the withdrawal of the federal
troops and the abolition of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
The incorrigibles, who still indulge in the swagger which was so customary before and during the
war, and still hope for a time when the southern confederacy will achieve its independence. This
class consists mostly of young men, and comprises the loiterers of the towns and the idlers of the
country. They persecute Union men and negroes whenever they can do so with impunity, insist
clamorously upon their “rights,” and are extremely impatient of the presence of the federal
soldiers. A good many of them have taken the oaths of allegiance and amnesty, and associated
themselves with the second class in their political operations. This element is by no means
unimportant; it is strong in numbers, deals in brave talk, addresses itself directly and incessantly
to the passions and prejudices of the masses, and commands the admiration of the women.
The multitude of people who have no definite ideas about the circumstances under which they
live and about the course they have to follow; whose intellects are weak, but whose prejudices
and impulses are strong, and who are apt to be carried along by those who know how to appeal
to the latter. . . .
feeling towards the soldiers and the people of the north
. . . [U]pon the whole, the soldier of the Union is still looked upon as a stranger, an intruder—as
the “Yankee,” “the enemy.” . . .
It is by no means surprising that prejudices and resentments, which for years were so
assiduously cultivated and so violently inflamed, should not have been turned into affection by a
defeat; nor are they likely to disappear as long as the southern people continue to brood over
their losses and misfortunes. They will gradually subside when those who entertain them cut
resolutely loose from the past and embark in a career of new activity on a common field with
those whom they have so long considered their enemies. . . . [A]s long as these feelings exist in
their present strength, they will hinder the growth of that reliable kind of loyalty which springs
from the heart and clings to the country in good and evil fortune.
situation of unionists
. . . It struck me soon after my arrival in the south that the known Unionists—I mean those who
during the war had been to a certain extent identified with the national cause—were not in
communion with the leading social and political circles; and the further my observations
extended the clearer it became to me that their existence in the south was of a rather precarious
nature. . . . Even Governor [William L.] Sharkey, in the course of a conversation I had with him in
the presence of Major General Osterhaus, admitted that, if our troops were then withdrawn, the
lives of northern men in Mississippi would not be safe. . . . [General Osterhaus said]: “There is no
doubt whatever that the state of affairs would be intolerable for all Union men, all recent
immigrants from the north, and all negroes, the moment the protection of the United States
troops were withdrawn.” . . .
negro insurrections and anarchy
. . . [I do] not deem a negro insurrection probable as long as the freedmen were assured of the
direct protection of the national government. Whenever they are in trouble, they raise their eyes
up to that power, and although they may suffer, yet, as long as that power is visibly present, they
continue to hope. But when State authority in the south is fully restored, the federal forces
withdrawn, and the Freedmen’s Bureau abolished, the colored man will find himself turned over
to the mercies of those whom he does not trust. If then an attempt is made to strip him again of
those rights which he justly thought he possessed, he will be apt to feel that he can hope for no
redress unless he procure it himself. If ever the negro is capable of rising, he will rise then. . . .
There is probably at the present moment no country in the civilized world which contains such
an accumulation of anarchical elements as the south. The strife of the antagonistic tendencies
here described is aggravated by the passions inflamed and the general impoverishment brought
about by a long and exhaustive war, and the south will have to suffer the evils of anarchical
disorder until means are found to effect a final settlement of the labor question in accordance
with the logic of the great revolution.
the true problem—difficulties and remedies
In seeking remedies for such disorders, we ought to keep in view, above all, the nature of the
problem which is to be solved. As to what is commonly termed “reconstruction,” it is not only the
political machinery of the States and their constitutional relations to the general government, but
the whole organism of southern society that must be reconstructed, or rather constructed anew,
so as to bring it in harmony with the rest of American society. The difficulties of this task are not
to be considered overcome when the people of the south take the oath of allegiance and elect
governors and legislatures and members of Congress, and militia captains. That this would be
done had become certain as soon as the surrenders of the southern armies had made further
resistance impossible, and nothing in the world was left, even to the most uncompromising rebel,
but to submit or to emigrate. It was also natural that they should avail themselves of every
chance offered them to resume control of their home affairs and to regain their influence in the
Union. But this can hardly be called the first step towards the solution of the true problem, and it
is a fair question to ask, whether the hasty gratification of their desire to resume such control
would not create new embarrassments.
The true nature of the difficulties of the situation is this: The general government of the republic
has, by proclaiming the emancipation of the slaves, commenced a great social revolution in the
south, but has, as yet, not completed it. Only the negative part of it is accomplished. The slaves
are emancipated in point of form, but free labor has not yet been put in the place of slavery in
point of fact. And now, in the midst of this critical period of transition, the power which
originated the revolution is expected to turn over its whole future development to another
power which from the beginning was hostile to it and has never yet entered into its spirit, leaving
the class in whose favor it was made completely without power to protect itself and to take an
influential part in that development. The history of the world will be searched in vain for a
proceeding similar to this which did not lead either to a rapid and violent reaction, or to the most
serious trouble and civil disorder. It cannot be said that the conduct of the southern people since
the close of the war has exhibited such extraordinary wisdom and self-abnegation as to make
them an exception to the rule.
In my despatches from the south I repeatedly expressed the opinion that the people were not yet
in a frame of mind to legislate calmly and understandingly upon the subject of free negro labor.
And this I reported to be the opinion of some of our most prominent military commanders and
other observing men. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine circumstances more unfavorable for the
development of a calm and unprejudiced public opinion than those under which the southern
people are at present laboring. The war has not only defeated their political aspirations, but it
has broken up their whole social organization. . . .
In which direction will these people be most apt to turn their eyes? Leaving the prejudice of race
out of the question, from early youth they have been acquainted with but one system of labor,
and with that one system they have been in the habit of identifying all their interests. They know
of no way to help themselves but the one they are accustomed to. . . .
It is certain that every success of free negro labor will augment the number of its friends, and
disarm some of the prejudices and assumptions of its opponents. I am convinced one good
harvest made by unadulterated free labor in the south would have a far better effect than all the
oaths that have been taken, and all the ordinances that have as yet been passed by southern
conventions. But how can such a result be attained? The facts enumerated in this report, as well
as the news we receive from the south from day to day, must make it evident to every unbiased
observer that unadulterated free labor cannot be had at present, unless the national government
holds its protective and controlling hand over it. . . . One reason why the southern people are so
slow in accommodating themselves to the new order of things is, that they confidently expect
soon to be permitted to regulate matters according to their own notions. Every concession made
to them by the government has been taken as an encouragement to persevere in this hope, and,
unfortunately for them, this hope is nourished by influences from other parts of the country.
Hence their anxiety to have their State governments restored at once, to have the troops
withdrawn, and the Freedmen’s Bureau abolished, although a good many discerning men know
well that, in view of the lawless spirit still prevailing, it would be far better for them to have the
general order of society firmly maintained by the federal power until things have arrived at a
final settlement. Had, from the beginning, the conviction been forced upon them that the
adulteration of the new order of things by the admixture of elements belonging to the system of
slavery would under no circumstances be permitted, a much larger number would have
launched their energies into the new channel, and, seeing that they could do “no better,”
faithfully co-operated with the government. It is hope which fixes them in their perverse notions.
That hope nourished or fully gratified, they will persevere in the same direction. That hope
destroyed, a great many will, by the force of necessity, at once accommodate themselves to the
logic of the change. If, therefore, the national government firmly and unequivocally announces its
policy not to give up the control of the free-labor reform until it is finally accomplished, the
progress of that reform will undoubtedly be far more rapid and far less difficult than it will be if
the attitude of the government is such as to permit contrary hopes to be indulged in. . . .
immigration [and capital]
[The south would benefit] from immigration of northern people and Europeans. . . . The south
needs capital. But capital is notoriously timid and averse to risk. . . . Capitalists will be apt to
consider—and they are by no means wrong in doing so—that no safe investments can be made
in the south as long as southern society is liable to be convulsed by anarchical disorders. No
greater encouragement can, therefore, be given to capital to transfer itself to the south than the
assurance that the government will continue to control the development of the new social
system in the late rebel States until such dangers are averted by a final settlement of things upon
a thorough free-labor basis.
How long the national government should continue that control depends upon contingencies. It
ought to cease as soon as its objects are attained; and its objects will be attained sooner and with
less difficulty if nobody is permitted to indulge in the delusion that it will cease before they are
attained. This is one of the cases in which a determined policy can accomplish much, while a halfway policy is liable to spoil things already accomplished. . . .
negro suffrage
It would seem that the interference of the national authority in the home concerns of the
southern States would be rendered less necessary, and the whole problem of political and social
reconstruction be much simplified, if, while the masses lately arrayed against the government
are permitted to vote, the large majority of those who were always loyal, and are naturally
anxious to see the free labor problem successfully solved, were not excluded from all influence
upon legislation. In all questions concerning the Union, the national debt, and the future social
organization of the south, the feelings of the colored man are naturally in sympathy with the
views and aims of the national government. While the southern white fought against the Union,
the negro did all he could to aid it; while the southern white sees in the national government his
conqueror, the negro sees in it his protector; while the white owes to the national debt his defeat,
the negro owes to it his deliverance; while the white considers himself robbed and ruined by the
emancipation of the slaves, the negro finds in it the assurance of future prosperity and happiness.
In all the important issues the negro would be led by natural impulse to forward the ends of the
government, and by making his influence, as part of the voting body, tell upon the legislation of
the States, render the interference of the national authority less necessary.
As the most difficult of the pending questions are intimately connected with the status of the
negro in southern society, it is obvious that a correct solution can be more easily obtained if he
has a voice in the matter. In the right to vote he would find the best permanent protection
against oppressive class-legislation, as well …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades