Reconstruction and Political machines?

Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
5
#1
Hi all,
This is my first post, please excuse any guideline or community errors.

I am a high school history teacher and am looking for a historical connection between Reconstruction profits and antebellum money. Is there a text which connects the Federal "powers that be" prior to the Civil War and those who gained financially from the Reconstruction policies? Are these the people who created the very corrupt political machines during the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and etc who were responsible for the political deadlock after Hayes?

As a side note: Does the Democratic power in the south change segregation policies as a direct response to Populism coming in from the West?

These are big questions for an eleventh grader and any texts which could be used for clarification would be an asset to my class.

Thanks for any assistance given,
Paul Crawford
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#3
Hi all,
This is my first post, please excuse any guideline or community errors.

I am a high school history teacher and am looking for a historical connection between Reconstruction profits and antebellum money. Is there a text which connects the Federal "powers that be" prior to the Civil War and those who gained financially from the Reconstruction policies? Are these the people who created the very corrupt political machines during the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and etc who were responsible for the political deadlock after Hayes?

As a side note: Does the Democratic power in the south change segregation policies as a direct response to Populism coming in from the West?

These are big questions for an eleventh grader and any texts which could be used for clarification would be an asset to my class.

Thanks for any assistance given,
Paul Crawford
Welcome to the forum.

Corruption was not a product of Reconstruction. It existed prior to Reconstruction, during Reconstruction, and after Reconstruction. Reconstruction governments were no more corrupt than the governments that preceded or followed them. On this you can see Kenneth M. Stampp's The Reconstruction Era. See also Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.
 

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
#4
Hi all,
This is my first post, please excuse any guideline or community errors.

I am a high school history teacher and am looking for a historical connection between Reconstruction profits and antebellum money. Is there a text which connects the Federal "powers that be" prior to the Civil War and those who gained financially from the Reconstruction policies? Are these the people who created the very corrupt political machines during the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and etc who were responsible for the political deadlock after Hayes?

As a side note: Does the Democratic power in the south change segregation policies as a direct response to Populism coming in from the West?

These are big questions for an eleventh grader and any texts which could be used for clarification would be an asset to my class.

Thanks for any assistance given,
Paul Crawford

In response to your question about populism, the answer is no. The Democratic Party in the South doubled down on white supremacy and racial inequality. Recall that this is the period where lynchings skyrocketed. At the same time, white populists in the South were no less opposed to integration than Democrats.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
5
#5
Welcome to the forum.

Corruption was not a product of Reconstruction. It existed prior to Reconstruction, during Reconstruction, and after Reconstruction. Reconstruction governments were no more corrupt than the governments that preceded or followed them. On this you can see Kenneth M. Stampp's The Reconstruction Era. See also Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.

Thank you for the welcome and Thank you for the texts...I agree that the corrupt governments were continuous...I am looking for specific proof that the powers driving the war (tariff policies and the war itself) are tied to the machines after the war...(proof that specific families or groups caused the war to get the resulting reconstruction gains). I will investigate those texts.

Thanks again.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
5
#6
In response to your question about populism, the answer is no. The Democratic Party in the South doubled down on white supremacy and racial inequality. Recall that this is the period where lynchings skyrocketed. At the same time, white populists in the South were no less opposed to integration than Democrats.
Were the Southern Democrats more divisive and violent as a response to the Populists? Was it a new feeling of: "Oh no Bill, these poor whites and poor blacks are getting together...lets remind them with more enthusiasm that they hate each other so they don't remove us from power!" ?

I am looking for a text which discusses this relationship...

Thanks for your response!
 

DRW

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
815
Location
New York
#7
Hi all,
This is my first post, please excuse any guideline or community errors.

I am a high school history teacher and am looking for a historical connection between Reconstruction profits and antebellum money. Is there a text which connects the Federal "powers that be" prior to the Civil War and those who gained financially from the Reconstruction policies? Are these the people who created the very corrupt political machines during the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and etc who were responsible for the political deadlock after Hayes?

As a side note: Does the Democratic power in the south change segregation policies as a direct response to Populism coming in from the West?

These are big questions for an eleventh grader and any texts which could be used for clarification would be an asset to my class.

Thanks for any assistance given,
Paul Crawford

Could you be specific when you talk about financial gain from Reconstruction policy? Are you referreing to Northern mill owners? Certainly they were intent on resuming the reliable flow of quality cotton. To some extent, the Freedman's Bureau, collaborated by pressuring African Americans to remain on the plantations. I'm not sure what you mean, however, by "Reconstruction profits." I'm not aware that Congressional Reconstruction necessarily had a large profit component shaping policy - although Beardsian types might disagree. On the other hand, Johnson's Presidential Reconstruction policy of opposing land redistribution may have been intended to preserve the "profits" of Southen antebellum landowners.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
5
#8
Could you be specific when you talk about financial gain from Reconstruction policy? Are you referreing to Northern mill owners? Certainly they were intent on resuming the reliable flow of quality cotton. To some extent, the Freedman's Bureau, collaborated by pressuring African Americans to remain on the plantations. I'm not sure what you mean, however, by "Reconstruction profits." I'm not aware that Congressional Reconstruction necessarily had a large profit component shaping policy - although Beardsian types might disagree. On the other hand, Johnson's Presidential Reconstruction policy of opposing land redistribution may have been intended to preserve the "profits" of Southen antebellum landowners.

I'll do some more reading!!
Thanks!
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
5
#9
Could you be specific when you talk about financial gain from Reconstruction policy? Are you referreing to Northern mill owners? Certainly they were intent on resuming the reliable flow of quality cotton. To some extent, the Freedman's Bureau, collaborated by pressuring African Americans to remain on the plantations. I'm not sure what you mean, however, by "Reconstruction profits." I'm not aware that Congressional Reconstruction necessarily had a large profit component shaping policy - although Beardsian types might disagree. On the other hand, Johnson's Presidential Reconstruction policy of opposing land redistribution may have been intended to preserve the "profits" of Southen antebellum landowners.

If the South was calling "corruption" at the "Tariff of Abominations" (I can't recall the year at this point) is there a direct tie from the Congressmen of that tariff to the Political Machines in the north around the turn of the century?
 

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
#10
Were the Southern Democrats more divisive and violent as a response to the Populists? Was it a new feeling of: "Oh no Bill, these poor whites and poor blacks are getting together...lets remind them with more enthusiasm that they hate each other so they don't remove us from power!" ?

I am looking for a text which discusses this relationship...

Thanks for your response!
You are on the right track. Bourbon Democrats, as they were called, feared that coalition and used race baiting to break it up. There is a book titled "One Gallused Rebellion" by William Warren Rogers that may help you.
 

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
#11
If the South was calling "corruption" at the "Tariff of Abominations" (I can't recall the year at this point) is there a direct tie from the Congressmen of that tariff to the Political Machines in the north around the turn of the century?
Not really. That tariff was adopted in 1828. By 1900, virtually all of the members of Congress who supported it were long dead and gone.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#12
Thank you for the welcome and Thank you for the texts...I agree that the corrupt governments were continuous...I am looking for specific proof that the powers driving the war (tariff policies and the war itself) are tied to the machines after the war...(proof that specific families or groups caused the war to get the resulting reconstruction gains). I will investigate those texts.

Thanks again.
Tariff policies didn't drive the war.

The conspiracy theory is not going to pan out.
 

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
#14
Hi all,
This is my first post, please excuse any guideline or community errors.

I am a high school history teacher and am looking for a historical connection between Reconstruction profits and antebellum money. Is there a text which connects the Federal "powers that be" prior to the Civil War and those who gained financially from the Reconstruction policies? Are these the people who created the very corrupt political machines during the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and etc who were responsible for the political deadlock after Hayes?

As a side note: Does the Democratic power in the south change segregation policies as a direct response to Populism coming in from the West?

These are big questions for an eleventh grader and any texts which could be used for clarification would be an asset to my class.

Thanks for any assistance given,
Paul Crawford

Where do you teach in high school?
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,029
Location
Jupiter, FL
#15
I am looking for specific proof that the powers driving the war (tariff policies and the war itself) are tied to the machines after the war...(proof that specific families or groups caused the war to get the resulting reconstruction gains).
It sounds an awful lot like you've already reached a conclusion and are looking for "proof" of the conclusion you've already reached. I hope that's not the case, especially if you're a teacher.
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,029
Location
Jupiter, FL
#17
Or, perhaps he's made some assumptions and is now attempting to validate them. Nothing wrong with that.
Almost any conspiracy theory can be proven if one only looks for evidence in support of said theory.

The truth is discerned when drawing a conclusion based on all the evidence rather than only the evidence that favors your hypothesis or assumptions.
 

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
#18
Almost any conspiracy theory can be proven if one only looks for evidence in support of said theory.

The truth is discerned when drawing a conclusion based on all the evidence rather than only the evidence that favors your hypothesis or assumptions.

That is certainly that proper academic approach: read extensively before ever trying to form any conclusions. But there is nothing wrong with wondering whether what you thought you knew is correct. For example, many people call the Civil War the War Between the States, but is that what the people called it during the war? The answer appears to be no.
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,029
Location
Jupiter, FL
#19
But there is nothing wrong with wondering whether what you thought you knew is correct.
Indeed, but there is a difference between learning more about a subject and looking for validation of the opinions/assumptions you already hold on a subject.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top