Dbq Reconstruction

The Reconstruction debate has haunted historians since the process began. First, both politicians and citizens argued about how the ordeal should be carried out. Then, the historians analyzed and debated over the success of Reconstruction and the true motives of those who pushed for Reconstruction; for instance, questions regarding whether the radical Republicans really cared about obtaining freedoms for freed African Americans (rather than solely caring about revenge and power) and whether Reconstruction actually worked reigned. To answer such questions, various historians over time set forth different theories.
The first interpretation of Reconstruction was set forth by William Dunning in his work Reconstruction, Political and Economic

(1907). At this point in time, most Northern whites and most Southern whites believed that few divides between North and South remained, and both sides should attempt a genuine reconciliation. Further, most whites believed in the concept of “white superiority.” The Dunning school of thought played on this and described Reconstruction as a vindictive, Northern campaign that used “bayonet rule” or military rule to profit from the South and put “incompetent blacks” into positions of power. Essentially, Dunning saw Reconstruction as a corrupt system that harmed the South and resulted in increases in debt and taxation. The Dunning school gradually lost its credibility and was replaced by Du Bois’s interpretation of Reconstruction.
W.

E. B. Du Bois was a black scholar who was the first to challenge the Dunning school of thought in his 1935 book, Black Reconstruction. Du Bois believed that Reconstruction was a true effort (on both sides) to create a democratic society. He claimed that the misdeeds of the government, reaping profits for example, were exaggerated. For instance, Du Bois argued that the governments were so expensive and used so much money because they attempted to provide public education and other services on a scale that had never before been attempted. This theory lost its credibility due to Du Bois’s use of Marxist

ideology.
In the 1940s, C. Vann Woodward, David Donald, and Thomas Alexander brought forth a new theory of Reconstruction. This held that the South exaggerated their disadvantages, and the Radical Republicans were not entirely motivated by revenge and bias. Rather, these historians argued, they did genuinely want to mend the broken ties between North and South.
In the 1960s, John Hope Franklin in his work Reconstruction After the Civil War and Kenneth Stamp in his work The Era of Reconstruction set forth the revisionist view.

This argued that the Republicans, although not entirely innocent, had engaged in a genuine effort to solve the problem of race in the South by providing protections to the newly-freed. The Radicals were not solely motivated by immoral purposes. Further, these historians purported that there was no “black rule” as they had played only a small role in government, and there was corruption in both the North and the South. Finally, Reconstruction failed to gain true justice and freedom from discrimination for blacks.
The final theory of Reconstruction purported in Belz’s 1976 work, A New Birth of Freedom emphasized the positive aspects of Reconstruction such as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Belz argued that these amendments transferred the duty to protect the rights of citizens from the states to the federal

government.
The Dunning theory of Reconstruction is incorrect as it utilizes Southern pride to criticize the North and Reconstruction as corrupt institutions that harm the South and invade it for profit. This was simply not the case. Both the North and the South had corruption within the government (both had “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” who misused public funds), and both did genuinely try to fix the broken ties between North and South. The Radical Republicans were not solely actors of revenge. Du Bois’s theory is closer to reality. Government misdeeds occurred, but contrary to Du Bois’s theory, these misdeeds were not mostly due to the scale of Reconstruction itself. Furthermore, the theory set forth in the 1940s builds on Du Bois’s theory and coincides with the revisionist view. This theory holds that the South’s disadvantages were exaggerated, and the Radical Republicans were not entirely motivated by bias and vindictiveness. This is correct, but the South did experience some disadvantages such as higher taxes. Moreover, the revisionist view argued that the Radical Republicans genuinely tried to solve the problems in the South and reconcile with the South. Further, this view stated that there was corruption in both the North and the South, there was no “black rule,” and Reconstruction did fail to save blacks from discrimination. This revisionist view is the most accurate theory of Reconstruction as it recognizes the evils and benefits of Reconstruction. Corruption existed (politicians did indeed misuse money), and blacks were still discriminated against for decades, but politicians on both sides genuinely tried to reconcile both sides and create a truly democratic institution and united nation.