Its really the period immediately after the civil war is the period of reconstruction. Why is it called reconstruction . Because we are talking about the reconstruction of the union, right, of the seceded states that had formed the confederacy. Theyre now defeated. And the question then becomes is how do they reenter the union . How do we reconstruct the union . And that is why this period is known as reconstruction. It is not that wellknown in American History as the civil war. So, so far weve been talking simply about the civil war, right . Before the midterms, we covered the civil war. Everyone knows about the civil war. It has kind of a triumphant end, at least if youre not a newer confederate. The union wins. Slavery is destroyed. Reconstruction, on the other hand, does not have a happy ending. Its a great experiment in racial democracy immediately after the war, but it is overthrown. Maybe we all like happy endings, and thats one of the seasons we dont know that much about reconstruction. But it is really a crucial period in American History, extremely crucial because many of our modern ideas about citizenship, what constitutes democracy, about equality all comes from reconstruction. In a way, it is like the second founding of the American Republic. You have three constitutional amendments. You dont have that since the bill of rights, right . Thats just when the constitution is adopted, at the founding moment of the American Republic. Its a crucial period that, one, i think americans would should be more aware of. Okay. So, what are the issues of reconstruction that really are still pertinent today . Okay. Now, heres an image from harpers weekly, and it sort of personifies, i think, some of the central issues involved in this period of reconstructing the period. And the questions it raises. Have a look at it. I dont know how clear it is for you. You may not be able to read all the writing. Here is freedman. He has something in his hand, a piece of paper. And on that, you may not be able to read, is written equal rights. Thats a union army officer. Thats the officer of the u. S. Marshall that seems to be seeking protection. And there are a bunch of southern whites there with placards saying kkk, call home your troops. They want federal troops to leave the south, et cetera. So, just looking at that image, can you think of what may have been some of the issues of reconstruction . Brian . Probably the need for federal troops to secure rights in the south because they feared that, you know, confederates would retake and try to force slavery, almost, back on the newly freed men. Excellent, excellent. You know, thats exactly what i think the picture illustrates, right, that there may be a danger that once the federal troops leave,that southern whites would want to go back to the way things were. So, then what was the war fought all about . That is a real danger. And the fact that the rights of black people are so connected with the presence of the federal government of these troops in the south tells you something about the issues of reconstruction. Black citizenship. You know, what would freedom mean for black people. Theyre no longer slaves. Are they going to be citizens . Are they going to be given equal rights . What is their status in the American Republic . The presence of the federal government of the union army, the u. S. Marshalls office there. Quite clearly we are getting a new sense of the nation state, of the federal government. Old ideas about federalism, which is the principle of dividing political power between the federal government and the state governments are going to be revisited, right . Could these states they seceded from the union. What will the status of these rebel states now be. The federal government is symbol of the victorious union. How are they going to negotiate these rights again . Will the expansion of the natural government or the federal government as the face of the victorious union be connected to the issue of black rights . Clearly here, that seems to the imagery. And this is an image right from the middle of reconstruction. This is the issue that is being represented in the north, that the federal government is closely connected to this issue of black rights, and that the issue of federalism does involve a renegotiation, virtually, or a reimagining of what is states rights, what are the powers of the federal government, renegotiation of that relationship. Why do you think states rights would be somewhat discredited now . Any ideas . The idea of states rights, the states have certain rights. Remember who are the people who have evoked states rights before and for what purpose before the war . Yeah, abby . Wait for the mic. Make sure the mic is close to you so that everyone can hear your intelligence questions and responses. Maybe before the civil war, it was southern planter politicians evoking states rights, but that was fundamentally to do with slavery. You know, some politicians like in the profession of south carolina, they evoke states rights in terms of sovereignty between the states. Right. But now the federal government has won. That idea cant stand anymore because now theyre having to be reintroduced. So, slavery is abolished and theres no sovereignty with the states. The federal government has impressed them. Absolutely, very good. Thats exactly why states rights is somewhat discredited, that idea. First it had been used to defend slavery by Southern States who didnt want the federal government to interfere with slavery. And second it was the right to secede from the union in order to protect slavery. So, states rights is really connected with the institution of slavery and with secession and civil war. So, its somewhat of a discredited philosophy at this time. So, these issues, of course, as i say, are the issues of reconstruction are something that is still with us. And when i introduce the period to you, i said this is the period when you have farreaching federal laws being passed on. Civil rights in fact, there are cases being fought in the Supreme Court today that evoke the laws of reconstruction era, farreaching amendments to the constitution. You may not have heard of the 14th amendment to the u. S. Constitution, it but it has been so important in our times, right . The right to privacy, Marriage Equality, the right roe v. Wade. All those decisions that have been made that have been constantly expanding rights in the United States for different groups evoke the 14th amendment. So, its really this moment in history that forms our modern notions of equality and citizenship and what democracy in america should look like, right . So, yes its an extremely important period, but it is also a contested period. You can see that in the picture. You can see the contestation there. Does the defeated south look or the defeated confederacy people, does it look as if they have accepted defeat, at least in this northern representation . Is there going to be peace after the war . No, right . This looks like a contestation. Why would the army even be needed in the south, right, to protect black rights if there was not going to be contestation. So, this notion that there was no peace after the war, that somehow the issues that defined the war were still being contested in the south is something that is really important to understand reconstruction. It is, in fact, one of the most contentious periods in American History. Jenson, you can have the mic here. I also find sblg interesting that Andrew Johnson was also very prostate rights when he was doing reconstruction. So, it also made it hard to implement federal rights for reconstruction as well. That also made it hard because the president during reconstruction wasnt really in favor of so much federal outreach and so much federal power. So, its interesting too, i think. Excellent point. You know, Andrew Johnson presents a big problem for us. Hes a states rights democrat before the war. And because of an assassins bullet, he becomes president. And hes clearly not on board with the Republican Program of black rights. And hes clearly not on board with this expansion of the federal government in order to ensure black rights and ensure the rule of law in the south. Hes not going to go with that. And that would create one of the biggest constitutional crises in American History. Its the first time that an american president is brought up on articles of impeachment. And he but we are getting ahead of ourselves here. But im glad you brought up johnson, because we will be talking about that today. Today we are going to talk about the issues raised by reconstruction. Were going to talk about johnson and president ial reconstruction and eventually how congress implements a program of reconstruction based on the idea of black citizenship and comes close to impeaching Andrew Johnson. Now, this is, as i said, a very fraught period because of the contention in the south, contention in the washington, d. C. Between the president and congress. Hes kind of disowned from his own party in a way. How have historians understood this period. Remember when we talked about civil war and deferred interpretations, slavery and deferring interpretations of slavery. And the same is true of reconstruction. Historians have interpreted this period in very different ways. Much of this is not in the reading that youve done for today, but it is in the introduction to the short history of reconstruction. And some of it will be new. Some of it i add to that. Now, the historiography of reconstruction was defined by what was known as the Dunning School, named after a Columbia University historian. And i have to aboll apologize for my alma mater because this was a very pernicious interpretation of reconstruction put forward by dunning and john burgess. If you want the exact spellings of the names, it is in the introduction to the book. And a bunch of their students. And they basically said that this was like a terrible period in American History. Reconstruction was awful because of vindictive northern radical republicans forcing black rights on to the south, that it was a period of corruption, it was a period of misrule, incompetent former slaves were suddenly given political power. And they wreaked havoc on the defeated south. So, the sympathy is all with the south. Its a very racist view of that period because if you just read dunning and burgess, this kind of crude up front racism that they have, you know, there are people relapsing into barberism, this is a period of black supremacy. So, according to the Dunning School, giving equal rights to black people meant hurting southern whites,that we were somehow and it was just a failure. There was no achievement really, nothing redeeming about this period at all. And the pernicious thing, of course, is that dunning and his students pretty much dominated reconstruction historiography just like dominated interpretations of the civil war for a long time. Its about states rights, not about slavery. But states rights to do what . To defend slavery. So, this kind of pernicious interpretation was really dominant for a very, very long time. A few challenges started coming up with the rise of the Progressive School of historians. You remember the Progressive School of historians, the mcfearson article on the civil war that talked about the civil war as the second American Revolution . This idea was first put forward by the Progressive School. They used it to talk about the triumph of the industrial north versus the south. And mcfearson and others show that in fact we can keep the idea of the revolution, but what we cant do is see it as some sort of economic conflict between the north and the south. The real conflict was over slavery. And the revolution was getting the end of slavery, getting rid of slavery. So, the Progressive School of historians said, you know, this whole race talk, you know, that was not really the real issue of reconstruction. Just as they saw the civil war as the result of deferring economic interest, they saw reconstruction and republicans as trying to enforce northern capitalism on to the south, that these were the they were always looking for the economic selfinterests of the people. You know, what was the real economic race is just a window dressing for the real economic interests of the north and south. Now, you read youre going to double dose of fauna. Youve been reading and rightly so. Did you manage to read the article on the radical republicans . What does boner say . Does he say that radical republicans are really arguing about if you have your book handy, you can go quickly and check it out. Are they agents of northern capitalism . Do they have a unified Economic Policy that they want to implement in the south . We can have the mic here. So, bohner said there wasnt really a unified Economic Policy in the Republican Party and that reconstruction or rather black rights and moving reconstruction forward was really the main policy, much more so than Economic Policy. Economic policy was on the back burner, i guess. Absolutely, very good. Bohner says theres no Economic Policy. Some of them are hearing a lot about protection and tariffs again. Some of them are for tariffs. Some are for free trade. They dont have any unified policy. The thing that United States th them is the rights and citizenship they want to make sure is extended to slaves. Maybe moderates want to go with civil rights. That holds the Party Together the way antislavery did before the civil war. They had an Economic Policy. It was what they called free labor ideology or what fauna calls free labor ideology, that people should be paid wages for their work. They should be allowed to leave their employer if they find better wages and better conditions in another place. That they should not be enslaved, basically, right . And that ideology made some kind of economicide kolg they had. In terms of implementing some sort of Economic Policy on the south and reducing the south as many progressive historians argued into kind of a colonial status was simply not what happened. Now, besides these two you can understand also why the Progressive School of historians said this, right . They, of course, were dominant during the progressive era. And if you think of your u. S. History, progressive era is the era of trying to address the problems of the guilded age, of capitalism. Theres a lot of conflict. There are strikes. Theres mass immigration. This is a time when the idea that government should regulate the economy, we should have clean food, clean air, clean water. Child labor is not a great thing. Those sort of things come into being. That was the progressive reforms, that government has a role to play. And you can understand why the Progressive School of historians, influenced by that kind of reform attitude at that time, are talking about Economic Issues far more than the issue of the war, which was slavery and race and questions about rights. Theres one person who dissents against this view. Not the progressive view so much, maybe a little bit the progressive view, but the Dunning School, which remains the dominant view. The Dunning School, even though you have these challenges coming up, in terms of popular culture, they are dominant. Theres a journalist who writes a book called the tragic era from indiana, and he basically recaps the Dunning School for a broader audience. There are the first hollywood classic about reconstruction. Has anyone seen the birth of the nation. Yeah . Yeah, you dont want to see it. Like, talk about the propaganda of history, right . What was insidious about the Dunning School was that its view percolated into the popular culture, into film, the first hollywood classic, which premiered, by the way, in the white house. Because the first southerner elected after the civil war was woodrow wilson. And wilson was a southerner. He was a progressive on Economic Issues. But when it came to race, he was really retrograde. Not only did he premier the birth of a nation, which was all about black men being rapists and the can yku klux klan is redeeming the south. And its kind of horrendous to watch, pretty painful. If you have the time, you can look at it. It caricatures the radicals, especially Thaddeus Stevens. Woodrow wilson, who is progressive mostly in Economic Policy, and maybe to an certain extent in International Relations is retrogresive when it comes to race. He fires all black federal government officers because he doesnt want any black people in the federal government. He establishes a league of nations, of course, or helps establish it, even though thats voted down by the u. S. Congress. But, you know, he has this idea of national selfdetermination for everyone. And the moment people said, well does this apply to asia and africa, hes like of course not. I meant only for europeans. When it comes to race, hes extremely, extremely retrogresive. That is how pernicious the Dunning School was. You know, it was in the white house. It was in hollywood. It was everywhere. That was the picture of reconstruction that was dominant. And as one dissenting voice here, and that is the famous black intellectual historian activists, one of the founders of the naacp, web dubois. Dubois w