Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: Due 5/12
Please read pp. 92-108 and post a thoughtful 100-200 word (minimum!) response on our forum. Include a question to help the conversation.
Earlier in the chapter (from the intro you didn't read), Murolo and Chitty write: "[The Civil War was] a second American revolution in which the victory over slavery sparked other insurgencies. Southern freed-people struggled to claim their rights as workers and citizens. Northern workers revived the labor movment and organized on the political front. The women's rights movment launched its first campaign for female suffrage. Like the first revolution, however, this one was incomplete. Women would not win the vote for another 50 years, and most of the gains made by freedpeople and northern workers were soon wiped out."
Why was this "revolution" incomplete? What stopped people from gaining freedoms during Reconstruction?
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 4:40 am Post subject:
I think that the attempt to gain more rights failed because, with immigration to the U.S. almost at it's peak, the north was sort of a 'buyers market' for laborers. The Company owners had very little to lose firing workers, where as workers generally had everything to lose. Insolidarity between groups meant that it was easy to find replacements (the book called them 'scabs') for the striking workers.
As for reconstruction in the south, that was doomed to fail in my opinion. It seems to me like affirmative action on a huge scale. However much the federal government wanted the south to change, the southerners were the same ones who had seceded over states rights. Although the confederacy surrendered, there was a common idea that the war never really ended. ever heard the saying "the south shall rise again"?
I think the term "revolution" implies a complete turnover, and it's arguable that things still haven't changed as much as would be expected in some parts of the deep South, let alone ten or twenty years after slavery. But then revolutions never seem to have a clean end, and although perhaps the full effects of new freedom weren't enjoyed by slaves who stayed on to work at their old plantations, harassed by hate groups, there's no denying that there was a period (right after the freedpeople got the vote) where they made some major changes in government. Organizing and exercising your right to vote is the heart of powerful democracy, and the fact that the freed slaves influenced their state governments so much in so short a time is revolutionary, despite all the hideous repercussions.
I really liked this quote from William Sylvis, leader of the NLU:
"Capital blights and withers all it touches. It is a new aristocracy, proud, impetuous, dishonest, seeking only profit and exploitation of the workers."
I was thinking about it, trying to figure out to what extent it's pure rabble-rousing speech, and to what extend it's bleakly true. What is the good of capitol, in the sense that Sylvis means? Today in class, Martha mentioned that the French law system is more focused on supporting the individual, while our Constitution protects property and money first of all. I think this is a very important difference between our societies, and, if it's true on a large scale, its implications for human rights and quality of life in this country are slightly frightening.
... that's not really a question. So... a point for discussion?
Like we talked about in class to day I think a major roadblock for the success of the unions was a severe lack of solidarity. The excerpt from the Boston Daily Evening Voice editorial says it best: “the workingman’s success is simply impossible without united and harmonious action…if the white man says to the black man I do not recognize you as a fellow workmen; and these feelings prevail, there is the end of hope for the labor movement”(98). So long as the different racial, ethnic, and gender groups refused to work together or could be pitted against each other by the employers they were all fighting, the movement would fail. (I think this is still very much true to day too).
I also think that a large part of the movement’s inability to gain freedom had to do with the douche-bags who ran the government. They all seemed to busy trying to promote themselves to care about the working class that was keeping their country running. The corruption in the courts and federal and sate governments couldn’t have helped all that much either.
Question: would striking in the same manner as the great railroad strike be a feasible way to bring about change now and would it be successful?
The North had not done much planning for what would happen to freed blacks in the south once the civil war was won. Lincoln's policies towards blacks had been very ad hoc during the war. Ideas ranged from deportation to 2cd class citizenship. President Johnson and the Republican party did not implement a clear plan for black reconstruction. The end result was the 40 acres and a mule, which was less than affective. Blacks in the south did not have much education or economic resources. Freedom without economic progress left blacks in a lower class. Many freed slaves were forced to work for their previous owners because there was no mobility, because they truly had zero net worth.
The situation for blacks in the north was better. There were wealthy black comunities in reaconstuction, like millionares row in Brooklyn. This was a big start to aceptance and 1st class citizenship.
The question is why did the Republicans not push more for economic justice and development for blacks in the south. Was it because Republicans were not committed or did not know what to do?
Corinna already brought this up again, but what martha said in class today really stuck with me throughout the day. The idea that the US constitution is really built to protect the free market rather than it's citizens. I think this actually plays a huge role in why people where so unsuccessful in gaining equality during reconstruction. It was a time when the people had an opportunity to…reconstruct the American economy. Of course, as usual, it wasn’t truly just the people, it was the elite class so it made sense they would design a model that would favor their companies policies rather than it’s workers. If reconstruction had been successful in it’s revolution, I wonder how much would be different. When I was reading tonight’s reading, I was really impressed by how progressive some of the different groups were, but on the other hand making this legal or illegal doesn’t always change the reality. For example even though the 14th amendment abolished slavery, sharecropping was just as bad and police constantly turned a blind eye to hate crimes. I found it really exciting to read about the National Labor Union and how they wanted to collaborate with genders and races, but then they also where anti-Chinese…not cool. But if those unions had been successful in they’re demands would the government have continued to turn a blind eye or would they have enforced the new regulations?
Like it was said before many times on the forum and in class, the lack of solidarity was the cause of the failure of the unions. I think many of the thangs that we listed in class, of what could prevent a solidarity, was present during reconstruction. Especially the discrimination towards the freed blacks from the white workers (even though they now were the same work force), was one of the main reasons for the failure of the unions. With these unsuccessful unions due to the lack of solidarity the government was free to continue their path towards corruption. In my opinion the discrimination was rooted so deep in their history that a union between the workers was virtually impossible.
However, my question is what would have been done if unions were successful? What would have changed?
Why was this "revolution" incomplete? What stopped people from gaining freedoms during Reconstruction?
There are a broad spectrum of events and reasons that lead to the failure (even though some strides were made) of the "freedpeople" to attain equality and basic human rights, but I think that the elite class "the class that lives by others' labor" is wholly responsible for thwarting the working classes "revolution." The power of the Southern planters and the Northern Industrialists was just too much for the labor movement especially considering that the elite controlled to a large extent the government, judicial system, elections, education, media, and other areas of influence on people's lives. For example, the Freedoms Bureau and other progressive organizations were simply dismantled by terror campaigns, corruption, and the list of brutal techniques could go on...I think its important to recognize that although this disenfranchisement of freedpeople started in the south it soon moved northward as the book says "By giving American manufacturers a low-wage haven to run to, the repressive labor system of the "New South" would eventually discipline workers in other regions too." So not only was the elite's campaign to thwart anything that came in their way of attaining the most profit successful in the south but it also, unfortunately, moved north. I think this partially answers the question, why did the Republicans not push more for economic justice and development for blacks in the south? Because they did too a large extent fight for blacks rights especially directly after the Civil War when a large amount of Federal Troops were present in the Confederate States, but I think the ability for the elite to block any form of labor organization/progress was just too much too overcome. And maybe another reasons would be b/c The Republican Parties' other voting constituency was white working class people in the north and too have laws too focused on benefiting just blacks could possibly anger those voters away from the Republican Party.
Would striking in the same manner as the great railroad strike be a feasible way to bring about change now and would it be successful?
I think that strikes such as that Great Railroad Strike are successful means in bringing change and progress to the working classes endless battle for human rights and a decent quality of life but today I believe that unions in the United States, in contrast to some other countries such as Nicaragua & France, are just poorly organized and are greatly hindered by our laws/decision by the government to protect corporate interests. But to an even larger extent I believe that today in the U.S. unions are ineffective because the dominant ideas in our society, which are controlled by the elite, stigmatize unions and Socialism and government intervention, ext... I mean look at the Tea Party Movement and an even better example is just turning on your T.V. and flipping on the news, you'll find some very popular personalities like Glenn Beck. Also, nobody learns in schools that the struggles of the working class, let alone, that labor organizing is useful and important and good.
That actually leads to my question...How and Why did the U.S. become a country that protects its corporations rather than the rights of its people?
The first thing that stopped people from gaining freedom during reconstruction was due to some of the debts that had to be paid off from the freed-slaved who worked on the plantations. This leaves the plantation owners in the mindset of still "owning" Africans even after they were declared free. Also the division between ex-slaves and ex-slave-owners/ raciest citizens, is not a line that's going to be erased over night. Although the abolishment of slavery was in effect, that doesn't mean it was enforced properly, and it wasn't because there was an immense amount of hate-crimes occurring during the 'reconstruction' period. Even governments wouldn't give "freed" slaves a fighting chance at freedom; "The Radical governments were replaced with regimes that legally subordinated African American's and controlled their labor. They redirected funding away from public education and projects like poor relief," (p.96) The reason why people weren't gaining freedom was because the freed-slaves were not seen as equals, hate crimes and regimes kept that idea alive much longer than needed.
After the abolishment of slavery, what did the government do to enforce this? What did they neglect to do?
It seems to me that sometimes company's resisted unions efforts more out of principle then out of monetary interest. for instance in the case of freight train strikes which lasted a really long time, and in the end the company lost 500 rail cars 104 locomotives and 39 buildings. I find it hard to believe that the money they saved by not cover the cost of damages. The best reason I could guess at is that they thought that if they apeared as if they were going to listen to strikes in this instance then workers would be more likly to try it again. And their tactic payed off because shooting there workers totaly reduced their willingness to strike. So maby they were on to something.
in this time period what do you think is the most effective method for unions to gain rights?
I think a huge reason the "revolution" of the civil war was unsuccessful was something the book kind of down played. The Assassination of Lincoln definitely shook the country further. It showed America that although the north won, that they couldn't forget what the south had fought for. The war was over, but everyone that fought for the confederacy was still wicked racist. Andrew Johnson sort of completely half-assed how to deal with the rebels after the war and made them all leaders of the new government. it was basically inevitable that the people of African decent living in the south at that time were not going to have an easy time after the war. Especially since alot of them fought on the side of the Union.
After Freed men won the right to vote and hold office and the ex
confederate officers lost the right to vote or hold office it became even worse because of the severe poverty the freed slaves. The government essentially made the upper class ridiculously jealous of the lowest class ( which consisted of people the upper class considered animals and had fought for a right to choose to enslave, torture, and murder.)
It's clear to me that the reason the civil war didn't really change much in regards to slave and worker's rights is because not only was the American government extremely flimsy and broken, but the shaky support was disgustingly racist. It was clear to see after the war, that the north had never fought for the rights of anyone but instead the protection of a fair market of some sort. It's interesting to compare the abolitionist movement of Great Britain (Based almost entirely on religious morals and human rights) to that of America's failed revolution.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
