Texas Reconstruction In Virginia Summary

The historiography of Reconstruction often failed to acknowledge contributions made by black leaders. During the latter part of the twentieth century historians began to re-evaluate Reconstruction in the southern states to include progress of African-Americans. In “Local Black Leaders during Reconstruction in Virginia,” Richard Lowe examines southern communities and black leaders after the Civil War. He concentrates the essay on re-examining historians’ negative impact of black reconstruction and argues black leaders faced a heavy burden to ensure political advancement in the aftermath of war. In comparison, Barry Crouch’s “Unmanacling” Texas Reconstruction; A Twenty Year Perspective,” also examines reconstruction historiography and support

Lowe’s assertion pertaining to the success made by blacks in the years following the war. Both Crouch and Lowe agree much of Reconstruction history is one-sided and tends to downplay the contributions made by black leaders. Whether in Texas, Virginia or any other southern state, Reconstruction was standardized in a version which withstood the test of time. Lowe and Crouch analyzed the historiography of the Freedmen’s Bureau, government policies, and military influences that focused on the success of reconstruction and the significant contributions made by African-Americans.
Crouch acknowledged three phases of Reconstruction.

First, the Dunning which stressed Reconstruction as a southern misfortune. Second, the revisionist argument analyzing Reconstruction success and contributions made by black southern communities. Finally, the post-revisionist that stressed the conservation of nation and state programs enacted after the Civil War. He argues little change has occurred in the writing of Reconstruction in almost one-hundred years. However, by the 1960s historians began to analyze new material that forced a re-evaluation of Texas Reconstruction historiography especially the Texas occupation army and the Freedmen’s Bureau. Crouch offers information on both sides, for example, William L. Richter believed the occupational army created problems because of the psychological and cultural impacts they placed upon the citizens in Texas. Whereas, Robert W. Shook argues there were so few troops in Texas that they had very little impact on Reconstruction

policies.
Lowe on the other hand analyzes the Freedmen Bureau reports that identified local black leaders. He used the reports requested by assistant commissioner for Virginia, Orlando Brown as a tool to establish a profile of the black leaders during the Reconstruction era. The lists showed the literacy, occupation and residence which demonstrated their ability to hold a political office. The list also showed those black leaders considered “dangerous” radicals by the white minded conservatives. Studying the Freedmen Reports of black leaders during Reconstruction in Virginia proved the leadership skills many possessed during Reconstruction. Some of the men listed in the reports went on to serve in the State General Assembly. While others served in various county offices and city councils. Even though, political success did not appears in large numbers for many blacks’ advancements prior, during and after Reconstruction were evident in the reports. Although most men faced resistance that prevented them from reaching full potential, they still provided leadership to the black communities. Black leaders produced results beyond the political arena in areas such as educational and economic projects.
Furthermore, Lowe’s essay follows the revisionist argument by re-examining black leaders who progress failed to be recognized in past historical writings of Reconstruction.

For example, perception of many former slaves assumed they were illiterate, however, revisionist historians have demonstrated a large portion of postwar black leaders did have some level of education. Through census reports and the Freedmen reports revisionist have proven many black leaders were not only educated, they held respectable jobs and paid taxes. In Lowe’s examination of Virginia reconstruction, he analyzes literacy, skin color (mixed race) and whether freedom came before or after the Civil War to determine if these factors contributed to black progress. The evidence proved black leaders elected to the Virginia convention of 1867-68 were literate, of mixed race and freed before the

war.
In comparison, both historians examine key figures of black Reconstruction. Lowe presents his essay supporting a revisionist theory, whereas Crouch examines historians who have re-evaluated Reconstruction history and used the revisionist argument to support the impact of black leaders. In addition, both essays examine political figures previously failing to be recognized through other methods of historical works. In other words, history of the Southern states tended to omit any activities of Radicals. For example, Crouch discusses the neglected black groups that comprised the Republican Party. He acknowledges very little is known about the state and county black leaders in Texas simple because they did not advance to major political positions.
In conclusion, the essays are very similar in presenting the need for further studies into black influences during Reconstruction. Both Lowe and Crouch use numerous sources and remain unbiased while presenting an argument which favors essays and books to be written about black leaders and their progress, before, during and after Reconstruction. They have established a need to expand written history of Reconstruction to include a deeper examination of contribution made by black leaders. In addition, both historians supported the contributions made by the southern black communities during an era which struggled to recognize a new class of American citizen. As stated by Lowe, historians have always been interested in the black leaders of Reconstruction. However, early writers dismissed their achievements because they were viewed by society as uneducated and worthless, which contributed to a negative estimation of black Reconstruction. By debunking the previous historiography, modern historians were able to re-write black reconstruction and give credit to the men who influenced change in a difficult era of history.