Summary Of Reconstruction Fail In The United States

Immediately after the war ended, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that the majority of the nation’s slave population should be set free. Two years after signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln announced the Ten-Percent Plan, which required 10 percent of a Confederate state’s voters to pledge an oath of allegiance to the Union. However, on July 2, 1864, Radical Republicans from the House and Senate considered Lincoln’s Ten-Percent plan to be too lenient on the South, passing down the Wade-Davis Bill that required 50 percent of white males in rebel states to swear a loyalty oath to the constitution. Instead, Lincoln pocket-vetoed the bill, and as a result the Wade-Davis Bill was never …show more content…
What If It Had Succeeded?”. In this case, Ms. Barmell expresses her opinion about why Reconstruction didn’t succeed in the U.S. Barmell addresses that many American schools were taught about the positive side of Reconstruction, how Abraham Lincoln ended slavery and the Union Army won the Civil War. However, not many individuals were taught about Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, Freedmen's Bureau, and so on. The main reason for this is because America is ashamed of its past, and history. Yes, the 13th amendment was ratified, but it still allows forced incarcerated labor that still exists in the U.S. Yes, the 14th amendment was ratified, but incidents like the Wilmington, NC massacre of 1898 occurred as a reassertion of white power. Yes, the 15th amendment was ratified, but this didn’t even come into practice until the Voting Rights Act, nearly 95 years later. Barmell’s argument is that Reconstruction specifically failed African Americans, and believes that this failure led to oppression and racial violence that is still seen today, questioning herself if Reconstruction was actually successful, would America be any different? Barmell also addresses this problem by encouraging everyone to read about the history, even if it’s ugly, it’s important. We can’t turn back time, but we can move forward with an open mind and heart. In addition, Eric Foner wrote the article, “Why …show more content…
He specializes in the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the 19th century. Since Foner is educated on the topic, it’s fair for him to go into depth about Reconstruction and the harm it caused. As mentioned before, Foner’s purpose is to show the significance of Reconstruction. As for Caruso, I believe she’s doing this since she’s a student herself, and it’s unfortunate to see that students have to be the ones to speak up about the issue rather than administration and proper authorities. Lastly, Toppo is allowing room for historians to verbalize their concerns and how they plan to take action.

Bramell and Foner have a commonality with each other when it comes to their articles, which is the “problem” of Reconstruction. They both comment about how the Reconstruction Era didn’t really change the U.S. like how officials at the time thought it would. The laws passed have caused more harm than good. Meanwhile, Caruso and Toppo had similar approaches, as they want to educate others about Reconstruction but elaborate on how American schools aren’t doing their part in educating their students about the significance of the topic. Also, they provide evidence, sources, and articles when talking about