What do you think?
Rate this book
A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877
An abridged version of Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, the definitive study of the aftermath of the Civil War, winner of the Bancroft Prize, Avery O. Craven Prize, Los Angeles Times Book Award, Francis Parkman Prize, and Lionel Trilling Prize.
297 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
550 people are currently reading
2696 people want to read
About the author
Eric Foner
189 books669 followersEric Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, where he earned his B.A. and Ph.D. In his teaching and scholarship, Foner focuses on the Civil War and Reconstruction, slavery, and nineteenth-century America. His Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, won the Bancroft, Parkman, and Los Angeles Times Book prizes and remains the standard history of the period. His latest book published in 2010 is The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.
In 2006 Foner received the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching at Columbia University. He has served as president of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians.
In 2006 Foner received the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching at Columbia University. He has served as president of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews
January 3, 2016
The first half is a dry and dense recital of the change in federal laws and early state constitutions that commenced Reconstruction. But the second half focuses on how racism, postwar economic events, and evolving concepts of the appropriate scope of government ended up reversing both the gains of Reconstruction in the South and the identity of the national Republican Party. It turned the party from the champion of abolition, free labor rights, and government as catalyst of development to the enforcer for Gilded Age magnates and advocate of small government. Just as bad, it abandoned black southerners to violence and poverty, and betrayed the Union dead by allowing antebellum leaders and policies to return.
The information in the first half is important, just hard to get through. Foner outlines the variation in Southern attitudes and economic status by region and class, pointing out that many yeomen outside the plantation regions had opposed secession and been burdened with much of the Southern war expense due to unfair tax policy--they could possibly be enticed into a postwar coalition with blacks as the earliest efforts sought to replace planter hegemony. Commencing with the Emancipation Act in 1863, when in fact the Union Army occupied parts of the South and was figuring out how to install governing bodies, and then proceeding through Andrew Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction efforts, the first half focuses on how racism and the efforts to keep plantation labor under old-style control shaped the first years.
However, there were enough Radical Republicans to be outraged at the weak changes in black rights and conditions. They derailed the Presidential initiative by almost impeaching Johnson and moving control over Reconstruction to Congress. Congress made it harder for antebellum and Confederate politicians to participate in government, and continued the meant-to-be-temporary Freedmans Bureau, which aided Southern blacks, particularly in setting up schools. During this period liberal new Southern state constitutions were enacted. Blacks entered into local, state and federal Southern political life, reunited families and created strong social organizations.
The thing they didn’t succeed at was acquiring land. The federal government tried selling them seized property, but it later reversed the sales as power shifted and political alliances in the North decided that former plantation owners were needed in partnerships--give them their land back. Proposals to redistribute (seize and sell via long-term contracts) land to blacks to enable them to make a living and compensate them for former slave labor were debated. Those who argued this would keep the former slave from learning self-reliance won, abetted of course by those who saw a bad precedent. And white landowners agreed not to sell land to blacks. Blacks preferred to be small subsistence farmers, but wealthy whites in both North and South needed cotton, and they needed blacks to work it.
What is interesting here, though, is how strongly these Republicans supported a strong federal government and activist policies and expenditures. This is a theme that was sourced in the Whig party (see What Hath God Wrought for an excellent history of antebellum attitudes toward the appropriate federal role and states rights, amidst wideranging coverage of technical, cultural, economic, and political US history from 1812-1845). And early in Reconstruction the Republicans allied with upland Southern yeoman, who wanted state funded schools and federal debt relief. But crop failures and the crushing tax burden brought on by Southern Reconstruction corruption soured the white yeoman enthusiasm for stronger central government and the taxes needed for services. Foner covers the rollback of state spending in Southern states that, along with the failure of hoped-for industrial development after the war, doomed the region to still-lingering economic backwaterdom.
The second half does cover what Foner terms Reconstruction in the North, which some reviwers here object to. But this is essential to understanding why the Republicans abandoned Reconstruction in the South. In both parts of the country railroad construction led to massive corruption in government, but the difference was in the North and West the railroads actually got built and stimulated development. In the south, corruption started to support a Northern view of the Southern Reconstruction governments as inept as well as corrupt, based on both racial and class prejudices. In addition, immigration, the financial crisis of the 1870s, and growing labor unrest led to turmoil in both political parties.
The Republicans, who had fought to ensure labor rights for the emancipated blacks in the South, suddenly discovered it to be ‘necessary’ to send in troops to quell strikers in Northern mines and steel mills. A new generation of Republicans espoused free markets and minimal government--suddenly the party was made up of middle and upper class merchants and bankers, appalled at the prospect of the voting power of Irish in the North, black in the South and Asians in the West. They stepped back and let local constraints on voting--violence, poll taxes, etc.--moot the 15th amendment.
Bottom line: racism, the financial necessity of plantation cotton, weariness, and distance from the problem finally pulled the rug out from under Reconstruction. Foner outlines some permanent gains, but laments that it could have been so different. I think he does a very good job in a short book. I gained a deeper understanding of 1) what happened during Reconstruction and 2) how this crucial period shaped in the character of the Republican and Democratic parties that we still see today.
Note: this is a condensation of his longer work on the topic, and lacks footnotes, although it has a long ‘suggested reading’ section. I am sure other scholars would alter his analysis in many places, and certainly would amend my short version, but unless you want to evaluate his conclusions by going to the source, this is good.
The information in the first half is important, just hard to get through. Foner outlines the variation in Southern attitudes and economic status by region and class, pointing out that many yeomen outside the plantation regions had opposed secession and been burdened with much of the Southern war expense due to unfair tax policy--they could possibly be enticed into a postwar coalition with blacks as the earliest efforts sought to replace planter hegemony. Commencing with the Emancipation Act in 1863, when in fact the Union Army occupied parts of the South and was figuring out how to install governing bodies, and then proceeding through Andrew Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction efforts, the first half focuses on how racism and the efforts to keep plantation labor under old-style control shaped the first years.
However, there were enough Radical Republicans to be outraged at the weak changes in black rights and conditions. They derailed the Presidential initiative by almost impeaching Johnson and moving control over Reconstruction to Congress. Congress made it harder for antebellum and Confederate politicians to participate in government, and continued the meant-to-be-temporary Freedmans Bureau, which aided Southern blacks, particularly in setting up schools. During this period liberal new Southern state constitutions were enacted. Blacks entered into local, state and federal Southern political life, reunited families and created strong social organizations.
The thing they didn’t succeed at was acquiring land. The federal government tried selling them seized property, but it later reversed the sales as power shifted and political alliances in the North decided that former plantation owners were needed in partnerships--give them their land back. Proposals to redistribute (seize and sell via long-term contracts) land to blacks to enable them to make a living and compensate them for former slave labor were debated. Those who argued this would keep the former slave from learning self-reliance won, abetted of course by those who saw a bad precedent. And white landowners agreed not to sell land to blacks. Blacks preferred to be small subsistence farmers, but wealthy whites in both North and South needed cotton, and they needed blacks to work it.
What is interesting here, though, is how strongly these Republicans supported a strong federal government and activist policies and expenditures. This is a theme that was sourced in the Whig party (see What Hath God Wrought for an excellent history of antebellum attitudes toward the appropriate federal role and states rights, amidst wideranging coverage of technical, cultural, economic, and political US history from 1812-1845). And early in Reconstruction the Republicans allied with upland Southern yeoman, who wanted state funded schools and federal debt relief. But crop failures and the crushing tax burden brought on by Southern Reconstruction corruption soured the white yeoman enthusiasm for stronger central government and the taxes needed for services. Foner covers the rollback of state spending in Southern states that, along with the failure of hoped-for industrial development after the war, doomed the region to still-lingering economic backwaterdom.
The second half does cover what Foner terms Reconstruction in the North, which some reviwers here object to. But this is essential to understanding why the Republicans abandoned Reconstruction in the South. In both parts of the country railroad construction led to massive corruption in government, but the difference was in the North and West the railroads actually got built and stimulated development. In the south, corruption started to support a Northern view of the Southern Reconstruction governments as inept as well as corrupt, based on both racial and class prejudices. In addition, immigration, the financial crisis of the 1870s, and growing labor unrest led to turmoil in both political parties.
The Republicans, who had fought to ensure labor rights for the emancipated blacks in the South, suddenly discovered it to be ‘necessary’ to send in troops to quell strikers in Northern mines and steel mills. A new generation of Republicans espoused free markets and minimal government--suddenly the party was made up of middle and upper class merchants and bankers, appalled at the prospect of the voting power of Irish in the North, black in the South and Asians in the West. They stepped back and let local constraints on voting--violence, poll taxes, etc.--moot the 15th amendment.
Bottom line: racism, the financial necessity of plantation cotton, weariness, and distance from the problem finally pulled the rug out from under Reconstruction. Foner outlines some permanent gains, but laments that it could have been so different. I think he does a very good job in a short book. I gained a deeper understanding of 1) what happened during Reconstruction and 2) how this crucial period shaped in the character of the Republican and Democratic parties that we still see today.
Note: this is a condensation of his longer work on the topic, and lacks footnotes, although it has a long ‘suggested reading’ section. I am sure other scholars would alter his analysis in many places, and certainly would amend my short version, but unless you want to evaluate his conclusions by going to the source, this is good.
September 13, 2015
clear-cut, well-written, absolutely fucking appalling.
here's the thing: my public school teachers politely glossed over that whole RECONSTRUCTION thing, subtitled "In Which White Politicians Decide To Continue The System Of Slavery, Albeit Informally". i suspect my teachers were not allowed to teach us about Reconstruction, in the same way they were not allowed to teach about the Holocaust, or the Vietnam War, or the US-run internment camps for Japanese citizens, or the various atrocities committed against the Native population, or ... anything that might cast the US in a less-than-shining light.
we missed out on a lot of history in history class, is what i'm saying.
so. for the past two hundred years or so, the South has deliberately worked to keep a nasty, racist culture in place. (the North has been deliberately complacent.)
this is not okay.
(understatement.)
this is not a few individuals being jerks.
this is a system of control.
it is not acceptable.
(understatement.)
here is the story of the beginning, or rather one beginning, or rather the story of the choice to continue when there was a damn good opportunity to stop. the system had been dismantled and it was put back together again because people (white people. rich white people) decided there wasmore money to be made more fun in beating, raping, lynching, shooting, terrorizing, violence extraordinare and as ordinary as the sun rising
-- than in complying with, you know, a standard moral code.
this is not a handful of people. this is an entire country, most especially the persons in power, who decide that it's better for some to be enslaved and others raised above their deserts, than for everyone to be equal and free.
this is wrong.
(understatement.)
(note: i was born and raised a Southerner. since you'll ask, my family came to America a few decades after formal slavery was abolished ... but i am white. i have always profited from a culture of white supremacy. owning human slaves is a symptom, not the sickness itself.)
here's the thing: my public school teachers politely glossed over that whole RECONSTRUCTION thing, subtitled "In Which White Politicians Decide To Continue The System Of Slavery, Albeit Informally". i suspect my teachers were not allowed to teach us about Reconstruction, in the same way they were not allowed to teach about the Holocaust, or the Vietnam War, or the US-run internment camps for Japanese citizens, or the various atrocities committed against the Native population, or ... anything that might cast the US in a less-than-shining light.
we missed out on a lot of history in history class, is what i'm saying.
so. for the past two hundred years or so, the South has deliberately worked to keep a nasty, racist culture in place. (the North has been deliberately complacent.)
this is not okay.
(understatement.)
this is not a few individuals being jerks.
this is a system of control.
it is not acceptable.
(understatement.)
here is the story of the beginning, or rather one beginning, or rather the story of the choice to continue when there was a damn good opportunity to stop. the system had been dismantled and it was put back together again because people (white people. rich white people) decided there was
-- than in complying with, you know, a standard moral code.
this is not a handful of people. this is an entire country, most especially the persons in power, who decide that it's better for some to be enslaved and others raised above their deserts, than for everyone to be equal and free.
this is wrong.
(understatement.)
(note: i was born and raised a Southerner. since you'll ask, my family came to America a few decades after formal slavery was abolished ... but i am white. i have always profited from a culture of white supremacy. owning human slaves is a symptom, not the sickness itself.)
December 25, 2015
Confusing, unclear, and scattered, not unlike The Guns of August. Every sentence in the book is an uncited statement of fact, with little in the way of a narrative or an analysis of any one set of facts. Thus, I am forced to discriminate between raw statements of fact and skewed statements of interpretation myself, while flying completely blind. Having said that, I did learn quite a lot. The book is dense with facts about the ten-year (or so) period after the Civil War that are not common knowledge. For all the rhetoric about the brutality Reconstruction wrought on the South, the only dubious action I read was the disenfranchisement of former confederate officers. Other than that, most of the perceived brutality can be chalked up to the social changes forced upon the vanquished that they obviously fought to resist, and can hardly be called "brutal" by modern standards.
Although the book makes no overt reference to any kind of egregious stripping of Southern rights and values, I did begin to understand the fundamental connection between union victory and big government. One of the quests I have set out on with my Civil War reading list is to answer a question that has bugged me for a while: Why does moral conservatism go hand in hand with financial conservatism, and likewise liberal morality correspond to liberal spending? This book's hint of an answer lies in the nature of the Grant administration. Social equality must be enforced upon a society bent on clinging to the old hierarchy. The Departments of Education, Health, Commerce, the Freedman's Bureau, union army occupation, etc. all cost money. The victorious North could not just emancipate the slaves, they had to tax and borrow horribly in order to afford the apparatus of implementation. All that money promoted the graft and corruption that history remembers Grant for.
Still, I am not convinced that the Civil War was fought over "the rise of centralized government" as the Lost Cause proponents claim. I'd have to read more books about the decades leading up to the war, of course. Rather, it sounds like a classic case of historical convenience, to take some of the obvious (and inevitable) evils of Reconstruction and claim them as the evils the South had sought to defeat from the outset. The greatest disappointment, reading from a modern perspective, is not how intrusive Reconstruction was, but how toothless and pathetic the abortive attempt turned out. What began as a noble mission, to eradicate slavery and enfranchise the freedmen, quickly degenerated into political infighting. How very American. One thing is certain: the postwar decades made us a modern United States, leaving the self-rule of farmers and artisans behind and ushering in the world of factories, corporations, railroads, and communications.
Although the book makes no overt reference to any kind of egregious stripping of Southern rights and values, I did begin to understand the fundamental connection between union victory and big government. One of the quests I have set out on with my Civil War reading list is to answer a question that has bugged me for a while: Why does moral conservatism go hand in hand with financial conservatism, and likewise liberal morality correspond to liberal spending? This book's hint of an answer lies in the nature of the Grant administration. Social equality must be enforced upon a society bent on clinging to the old hierarchy. The Departments of Education, Health, Commerce, the Freedman's Bureau, union army occupation, etc. all cost money. The victorious North could not just emancipate the slaves, they had to tax and borrow horribly in order to afford the apparatus of implementation. All that money promoted the graft and corruption that history remembers Grant for.
Still, I am not convinced that the Civil War was fought over "the rise of centralized government" as the Lost Cause proponents claim. I'd have to read more books about the decades leading up to the war, of course. Rather, it sounds like a classic case of historical convenience, to take some of the obvious (and inevitable) evils of Reconstruction and claim them as the evils the South had sought to defeat from the outset. The greatest disappointment, reading from a modern perspective, is not how intrusive Reconstruction was, but how toothless and pathetic the abortive attempt turned out. What began as a noble mission, to eradicate slavery and enfranchise the freedmen, quickly degenerated into political infighting. How very American. One thing is certain: the postwar decades made us a modern United States, leaving the self-rule of farmers and artisans behind and ushering in the world of factories, corporations, railroads, and communications.
March 22, 2019
This book is the abridged version of Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877. This version is a concise review of the Reconstruction period from roughly 1863 through 1877. Foner looks at the political and social aspects of the period, covering the presidencies of Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and the beginning of the Hayes administration. Foner specifically reviews Reconstruction in five areas: the Black experience, the remodeling of Southern society as a whole, racial attitudes and relations, the expanded authority of the nation-state and national citizenship, and a look at how the North's economy and class structure affected Reconstruction. Although this is a shorter book than his unabridged version by about half the pages it still comes across as a thorough discussion of the era.
This is a great read and very engaging. I'll read the bigger book at some point, but this one packs a punch for what it is.
This is a great read and very engaging. I'll read the bigger book at some point, but this one packs a punch for what it is.
May 30, 2025
What's it like to have the abridged version of your book be the more famous version?
July 26, 2018
Really good. Really important read to understand the period after the Civil War.
November 9, 2019
A condensed version of Foner's definitive big scholarly work on the period, and only "short" by comparison to it; it's a very detailed look at the years after emancipation. Harshly critical of the "lost cause" historians who first defined Reconstruction, the book looks at the ultimately failed struggle to create equality in the post-Civil War South. It's depressing and incisive; it helps explain so much about everything that came after in U.S. political history. An important segment of history to understand, little-discussed because it's such a bummer; this is definitely a history text by a scholar but it's always interesting.
August 25, 2025
The highest rated review for this on here describes the first half of the book as dull and the second half as interesting. In terms of pure readability, I think the reverse is true. 1863-1868 is a flash in the pan of possibility. There's a moment for radical change in those years that's exhilarating to watch flourish and awful to watch fail. The second half of the book--1868-1877--just reads as an inevitable unfolding of retrenchment.
The abridged version feels very... abridged. Like it feels like you're getting the conclusions of Foner's work without the analysis that led to it. But really that's my fault for getting the abridged version, isn't it?
The abridged version feels very... abridged. Like it feels like you're getting the conclusions of Foner's work without the analysis that led to it. But really that's my fault for getting the abridged version, isn't it?
May 31, 2018
An abridged version of an earlier work, Foner's A Short History of Reconstruction is layered, engaging, and informative, particularly its opening chapters. Though the subject matter is, of course, both distressing and depressing, Foner weaves a nuanced narrative of Reconstruction America, beginning at the height of the Civil War and Lincoln's efforts to ensure victory for the ideals encapsulated in the Thirteenth Amendment, whilst simultaneously attempting to chart a political course which might reintegrate the South into the Union at war's end.
The Reconstruction legacies of Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Hayes are examined, yet the voices of black Americans - from slaves, to freedmen, to those who had been born to freedom - are given space to recount their own versions of an era which, despite it's bloody birth, offered so much hope of a more enlightened America, before political corruption, a shameful loss of nerve, and the resurgence of racist Democratic self-confidence undid a much of the good work of the early Reconstruction years.
The first few chapters, spanning the later Lincoln years and the disappointing administration of his successor, Andrew Johnson, are particularly vivid and informative, painting a picture of America at a crossroads, and examining the poor decisions which ultimately ensured that Reconstruction, despite the lofty aims of many involved, was little more than a paper tiger: it existed only in constitutional amendments and toothless laws which rarely reflected reality.
Although the latter chapters often focus more on the weak political wills (at least with regards Reconstruction) of Johnson, Grant, and Hayes, somewhat at the expense of the lived experience of black Americans, there nonetheless remains a great detail of worthwhile information on the prolonged and unnecessary death of the Reconstruction project. All told, A Short History of Reconstruction, in my opinion, remains a worthwhile primer on a difficult, to say the least, period of US history.
The Reconstruction legacies of Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and Hayes are examined, yet the voices of black Americans - from slaves, to freedmen, to those who had been born to freedom - are given space to recount their own versions of an era which, despite it's bloody birth, offered so much hope of a more enlightened America, before political corruption, a shameful loss of nerve, and the resurgence of racist Democratic self-confidence undid a much of the good work of the early Reconstruction years.
The first few chapters, spanning the later Lincoln years and the disappointing administration of his successor, Andrew Johnson, are particularly vivid and informative, painting a picture of America at a crossroads, and examining the poor decisions which ultimately ensured that Reconstruction, despite the lofty aims of many involved, was little more than a paper tiger: it existed only in constitutional amendments and toothless laws which rarely reflected reality.
Although the latter chapters often focus more on the weak political wills (at least with regards Reconstruction) of Johnson, Grant, and Hayes, somewhat at the expense of the lived experience of black Americans, there nonetheless remains a great detail of worthwhile information on the prolonged and unnecessary death of the Reconstruction project. All told, A Short History of Reconstruction, in my opinion, remains a worthwhile primer on a difficult, to say the least, period of US history.
July 18, 2020
This was an excellent book. It is an abridged version of the authors book "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution." I realized I did not know much about Reconstruction, so I purchased this book in order to broaden my knowledge about it. And boy did I! My understanding and knowledge of Reconstruction has increased 10 fold.
I learned much about the political and social situation of our country as it struggled to re-unite. I was especially appalled and horrified to read of the injustices, abuse, prejudice and terror the freed former slaves had to endure as they rightfully tried to claim their civil rights as American citizens. Frankly, I was disgusted. As a result, I can truly say that my opinions about social justice and racism in this country have been altered and my eyes have been opened to things in which I was previously ignorant.
As far as politics go. I was sad to learn that there were as many snakes and lice in politics during Construction as there are today. As I read this book, I realized that this country has at least made SOME progress in social equality over the last 150 years. However, I also came to the conclusion that this can not be said about politics. There has been little or no progress in Politics or in those who claim to be politicians in the last 150 years. Politics can claim no high moral ground over racism.
I highly recommend this book. It is an objective history of Reconstruction. You WILL learn something new if you read this book.
I learned much about the political and social situation of our country as it struggled to re-unite. I was especially appalled and horrified to read of the injustices, abuse, prejudice and terror the freed former slaves had to endure as they rightfully tried to claim their civil rights as American citizens. Frankly, I was disgusted. As a result, I can truly say that my opinions about social justice and racism in this country have been altered and my eyes have been opened to things in which I was previously ignorant.
As far as politics go. I was sad to learn that there were as many snakes and lice in politics during Construction as there are today. As I read this book, I realized that this country has at least made SOME progress in social equality over the last 150 years. However, I also came to the conclusion that this can not be said about politics. There has been little or no progress in Politics or in those who claim to be politicians in the last 150 years. Politics can claim no high moral ground over racism.
I highly recommend this book. It is an objective history of Reconstruction. You WILL learn something new if you read this book.
December 30, 2018
Audiobook, reader good.
While I knew a little about the Reconstruction this book filled out my knowledge and my understanding of how its failure lead to instead of freedom and incorporation for African Americans into American society to years of further oppression and denial of rights. Also the impact of its failure on the entire country particularly the south, people and economy helped create and perpetuate the deep divisions in our society we still see today.
Sadly the corruption, hypocrisy, scheming and self interest of the rich and those in power, at the expense of the public, at large has been and is still a large part of our political persona today.
While I knew a little about the Reconstruction this book filled out my knowledge and my understanding of how its failure lead to instead of freedom and incorporation for African Americans into American society to years of further oppression and denial of rights. Also the impact of its failure on the entire country particularly the south, people and economy helped create and perpetuate the deep divisions in our society we still see today.
Sadly the corruption, hypocrisy, scheming and self interest of the rich and those in power, at the expense of the public, at large has been and is still a large part of our political persona today.
April 19, 2008
Good history but I find it hard to read because it is not told through stories but through facts and analysis. Only seem to be able to read 5 pages at a time before I drift off. Learned lots about why we are where we are today and how lots of the campaign "issues" about Obama harken back to reconstruction politics.
December 8, 2014
Interesting material, but not interestingly told. Read more like a dissertation.
January 18, 2023
Considering how much I have read on the Civil War and even about events leading up to it the gap in my knowledge and understanding of the post-war period was nearly complete. If they taught about this is school in Connecticut it was cursory and superficial. Perhaps embarrassment was part of that. It is not a 'proud' moment in American history. I had no very preconceived notions (something about Carpetbaggers and Lost Cause) and was certainly not a student of the excoriated (by Foner) 'Dunning' school of Reconstruction history from the early 20th century. I also broke one of my own rules not to read abridged volumes, of anything. But this copy was at hand (borrowed) and so I went to it. The original work from 1989 was 'Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877' and runs to 752 pages! Don't think I was ready for that. He has apparently written some 10 books on the subject and won several prestigious book awards so he has lived and breathed the subject. Despite the abridgment this a fairly dense tome in terms of information and appears to be an excellent account. So much happened and while I learned a whole lot, was just scratching the surface I suppose. The election of 1876 for instance--crazy! This is not just 'dry and dusty' history either, the issues dealt with in this book resonate in current affairs to an uncomfortable degree. Without reiterating the facts and his arguments which are obviously sort of unassailable, the question arose in my mind about the war aims of the North. They changed so drastically between 1861 and 1865 that it seems that Reconstruction on the scale attempted was doomed to failure in one way or another. In other words 'the goal posts moved' and not just incrementally. Lincoln's often repeated statement was that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would (but also would free them all). There is simply no question but that the North in 1861 would never have gone to war if the the stated aim was to achieve the society envisioned by Reconstruction. That is as factual as anything Foner said. So when it ended in complete victory there was little to no plan for 'what now'? Slavery was such a monstrosity and embedded so deeply in the southern mindset and economy that killing it and moving to complete social equality in a few short years was never going to be easy. Was there another way? Probably, but sort of unanswerable like most hypothetical questions. Today the definition of equality itself has been almost completely redefined (just as the war aims of 1861 were) and for many in the current 'woke' crowd it means punishment and retribution for the past and equality of 'outcome' today. We will see how that works out and maybe someone will read about it in history books, if in fact historians are willing or even permitted to state unpopular truths as that becomes increasingly difficult.
October 2, 2013
In A Short History of Reconstruction, Eric Foner describes the hopes, challenges and obstacles that emerged as the leaders of the United States tried to rebuild the nation after the Civil War. Foner pulls from a wide variety of sources including newspaper articles, letters, speeches, legal records, and the proceedings of state and national legislatures. Foner’s work is organized chronologically and starts with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 to demonstrate that “reconstruction was not only a specific time period, but also the beginning of an extended historical process: the adjustment of American society to the end of slavery.” (xvi) He argues that freedmen were not passive observers in reconstruction, but sought to negotiate their place in society as laborers and citizens.
Reconstruction should be divided into three time periods. Presidential reconstruction (1863-66) was a characterized by lineate policies toward former confederate states. During this period, Andrew Johnson sought to reincorporate the South into the Union as quickly as possible, but failed to address the status of freedmen. Congressional and Radical Reconstruction (1866-1873) was characterized by legislation that was designed to modernize southern society and incorporate freedmen into southern politics and economy. During this period, states were reorganized based on political rights granted to individuals who could demonstrate that they had remained loyal to the union. Southern states increased spending on developing their infrastructure, especially railroads, and education. Schools were especially important to freedmen, who looked at education as their best chance for securing political rights. Many blacks served in state legislatures during this period. Redemption (1873-1877) was characterized by a reversal of many of the political rights and economic gains freedmen had made during Reconstruction. Blacks faced increasing discrimination as the antebellum Southern elite came to dominate Southern states, Southern governments curtailed the political rights of freedmen, and blacks found themselves increasingly bound to whites through a system of debt peonage based on share cropping.
Foner’s book includes five main themes. First, Foner asserts that blacks were active participants in the reconstruction of the South “whose quest for individual autonomy did much to establish the era’s political and economic agenda.” (xv) Second, Foner traces the ways in which Southern society was remodeled and describes local variations of reconstruction in action. Third, Foner describes the evolution of racial attitudes during Reconstruction and demonstrates that many northerners and southerners were able to promote political rights for free blacks in spite of prevailing racist attitudes. Forth, Foner seeks to place Reconstruction within a context of national development. Reconstruction was accompanied by an expansion of Federal authority and a new commitment on behalf of the national government “to the ideal of national citizenship whose equal rights belonged to all American regardless of race.” (xvi) This expansion met fierce opposition by some local leaders and groups such as the KKK. Finally, Foner describes how changes in the Northern economy impacted reconstruction. Northern industrialists wished to reestablish the South as a source of raw materials, especially cotton, but this conflicted with the desire of freedmen to be independent farmers. The depression that hit the nation in the late 1870s shifted focus away from Reconstruction and toward economic problems.
Foner mentions a number of historians in his work. Scholarly study of the Reconstruction started in the early twentieth-century with William A. Dunning. He argued that southern states accepted defeat at the end of the war, wished to be reincorporated into the union quickly and were ready to grant freedmen justice. Johnson attempted to reconstruct the South using Lincoln’s model, but his efforts were thwarted by Republicans who whished to punish the South for the war and eliminated Southern governments, imposed black suffrage on the South, and supported corrupt governments and carpetbaggers that took advantage of the South. The main dissenter to the Dunning School was W. E. B. Dubois who “portrayed reconstruction as an idealistic effort to construct a democratic, interracial political order from the ashes of slavery.” (xiii) Nevertheless, the Dunning school dominated until the racial attitudes of Americans began to shift in the 1960s.
The main point of the book is to establish freed blacks as agents in an effort to rebuild the South which would allow for black participation in government and black economic independence. For blacks, the right to vote and the ownership of land were the cornerstones of their own freedom. The black notion of free labor did not fit the northern notion of free labor as described by Bruce Levine in Half Slave, Half Free. Rather than participating in the market as individuals who contracted their labor to employers, freedmen wanted to live as independent farmers. This placed them at odds with northerners who wanted them to grow commodities rather than food. This also placed them at odds with southern whites, and some northerners, who wished to reestablish the plantation system. The system of sharecropping emerged as a compromise in that it gave southern whites a guaranteed source of labor and southern blacks the ability to control their day-to-day lives and labor.
Foner asserts that the real miracle of Reconstruction is that its successes lasted as long as they did. Nevertheless, Foner argues that Reconstruction was a failure. His work raises the question of inevitability. Was Reconstruction doomed to failure? Would it have been possible for Americans to overcome the bitterness from the war and prevailing racial attitudes to grant blacks the rights of citizenship?
Reconstruction should be divided into three time periods. Presidential reconstruction (1863-66) was a characterized by lineate policies toward former confederate states. During this period, Andrew Johnson sought to reincorporate the South into the Union as quickly as possible, but failed to address the status of freedmen. Congressional and Radical Reconstruction (1866-1873) was characterized by legislation that was designed to modernize southern society and incorporate freedmen into southern politics and economy. During this period, states were reorganized based on political rights granted to individuals who could demonstrate that they had remained loyal to the union. Southern states increased spending on developing their infrastructure, especially railroads, and education. Schools were especially important to freedmen, who looked at education as their best chance for securing political rights. Many blacks served in state legislatures during this period. Redemption (1873-1877) was characterized by a reversal of many of the political rights and economic gains freedmen had made during Reconstruction. Blacks faced increasing discrimination as the antebellum Southern elite came to dominate Southern states, Southern governments curtailed the political rights of freedmen, and blacks found themselves increasingly bound to whites through a system of debt peonage based on share cropping.
Foner’s book includes five main themes. First, Foner asserts that blacks were active participants in the reconstruction of the South “whose quest for individual autonomy did much to establish the era’s political and economic agenda.” (xv) Second, Foner traces the ways in which Southern society was remodeled and describes local variations of reconstruction in action. Third, Foner describes the evolution of racial attitudes during Reconstruction and demonstrates that many northerners and southerners were able to promote political rights for free blacks in spite of prevailing racist attitudes. Forth, Foner seeks to place Reconstruction within a context of national development. Reconstruction was accompanied by an expansion of Federal authority and a new commitment on behalf of the national government “to the ideal of national citizenship whose equal rights belonged to all American regardless of race.” (xvi) This expansion met fierce opposition by some local leaders and groups such as the KKK. Finally, Foner describes how changes in the Northern economy impacted reconstruction. Northern industrialists wished to reestablish the South as a source of raw materials, especially cotton, but this conflicted with the desire of freedmen to be independent farmers. The depression that hit the nation in the late 1870s shifted focus away from Reconstruction and toward economic problems.
Foner mentions a number of historians in his work. Scholarly study of the Reconstruction started in the early twentieth-century with William A. Dunning. He argued that southern states accepted defeat at the end of the war, wished to be reincorporated into the union quickly and were ready to grant freedmen justice. Johnson attempted to reconstruct the South using Lincoln’s model, but his efforts were thwarted by Republicans who whished to punish the South for the war and eliminated Southern governments, imposed black suffrage on the South, and supported corrupt governments and carpetbaggers that took advantage of the South. The main dissenter to the Dunning School was W. E. B. Dubois who “portrayed reconstruction as an idealistic effort to construct a democratic, interracial political order from the ashes of slavery.” (xiii) Nevertheless, the Dunning school dominated until the racial attitudes of Americans began to shift in the 1960s.
The main point of the book is to establish freed blacks as agents in an effort to rebuild the South which would allow for black participation in government and black economic independence. For blacks, the right to vote and the ownership of land were the cornerstones of their own freedom. The black notion of free labor did not fit the northern notion of free labor as described by Bruce Levine in Half Slave, Half Free. Rather than participating in the market as individuals who contracted their labor to employers, freedmen wanted to live as independent farmers. This placed them at odds with northerners who wanted them to grow commodities rather than food. This also placed them at odds with southern whites, and some northerners, who wished to reestablish the plantation system. The system of sharecropping emerged as a compromise in that it gave southern whites a guaranteed source of labor and southern blacks the ability to control their day-to-day lives and labor.
Foner asserts that the real miracle of Reconstruction is that its successes lasted as long as they did. Nevertheless, Foner argues that Reconstruction was a failure. His work raises the question of inevitability. Was Reconstruction doomed to failure? Would it have been possible for Americans to overcome the bitterness from the war and prevailing racial attitudes to grant blacks the rights of citizenship?
January 1, 2023
An important and thorough book on Reconstruction. Detailed but not overwhelming. Provides excellent context for understanding Reconstruction in the South as well as the impacts in the North and West. I found the discussions of labour relations and the impact of free labour ideology and capitalism as well as the failure of to provide freed persons with land following emancipation very interesting.
April 7, 2024
I learned a lot from this book about the reconstruction period. I know it was a lot about African Americans but this focused on that way more than it would consider there were other events that occurred. But it was good to learn. I wish it would have focused more on the presidents of the time because they are just as important to the reconstruction as everything else. I also wish there were footnotes that went with his quoted material. But overall a good book. 3/5 ⭐️
December 25, 2025
Even the abridged version of Foner’s masterpiece feels monumental. There are undeniably slow stretches, but the more technical information is unavoidable in building Foner’s assessments and arguments. The writing grows on you as you read and by the time that the author makes his final assessments, it is hard not to feel quite moved (and angry and heartbroken) by the whole thing. I’ll tackle the full text next year. Essential.
April 6, 2019
Foner does a good job emphasizing the perspective of freedmen during Reconstruction. This is a shorter version of Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877". For most people I would highly recommend this abridged version. If you are interested in the details of the unevenness of reconstruction and "redemption" broken down for each state read the other book.
February 20, 2021
Sometimes dry, but otherwise interesting and informative. I watched the PBS documentary “Reconstruction” concurrently which added a lot of color to the history. The next time I hear “the Lost Cause” I’m sure I’ll want to vomit.
September 6, 2022
An excellent history of reconstruction
November 14, 2022
read this for history 2150 and it was not the worst thing I've ever read
February 19, 2023
Read part, skimmed part. Very solid.
February 19, 2025
A very thorough and eye opening review of the ultimate failure of Reconstruction.
June 8, 2023
A good, vegetable-like description of the Reconstruction Period.
Not particularly thrilling, but I feel like it did pick up more towards the end. While I would not, by any means, call this book exciting - it can be interesting at times. I feel like it’s pretty comprehensive in showing the ping pong between the North and South and how they affected each other.
However, this book is still incredibly boring and occasionally confusing.
Not particularly thrilling, but I feel like it did pick up more towards the end. While I would not, by any means, call this book exciting - it can be interesting at times. I feel like it’s pretty comprehensive in showing the ping pong between the North and South and how they affected each other.
However, this book is still incredibly boring and occasionally confusing.
July 4, 2017
Fitting to finish this book on the 4th of July. I've been reading this slowly for a few months, as it's fairly dense.
I think what's most eye-opening to me is the historiography of Reconstruction - starting with the Dunning school that perpetuated and inflated racist interpretations of Reconstruction's failure, to WEB DuBois's groundbreaking Black Reconstruction, to more recent revisionist histories including Foner's. If you search "Reconstruction South" on Twitter, you can see the damage that the Dunning school has done (I don't actually recommend this unless you want to be exposed to the uninformed inanity of Neo-Confederates).
Will probably want to reread this again someday. I think for the first time it hit me how radical this was in terms of upending an entire economic and social system, and how delicate and guided the reconstruction needed to be. Unfortunately, due to politics and racism and changing economic circumstances in the North, the federal government ended up largely abandoning black southerners to the violent and self-interested white elites/masses. They started putting federal troops in to break up labor disputes in the North (gotta protect the wealthy!), while saying "states' rights" with regards to the South.
Reparations are so long overdue.
I think what's most eye-opening to me is the historiography of Reconstruction - starting with the Dunning school that perpetuated and inflated racist interpretations of Reconstruction's failure, to WEB DuBois's groundbreaking Black Reconstruction, to more recent revisionist histories including Foner's. If you search "Reconstruction South" on Twitter, you can see the damage that the Dunning school has done (I don't actually recommend this unless you want to be exposed to the uninformed inanity of Neo-Confederates).
Will probably want to reread this again someday. I think for the first time it hit me how radical this was in terms of upending an entire economic and social system, and how delicate and guided the reconstruction needed to be. Unfortunately, due to politics and racism and changing economic circumstances in the North, the federal government ended up largely abandoning black southerners to the violent and self-interested white elites/masses. They started putting federal troops in to break up labor disputes in the North (gotta protect the wealthy!), while saying "states' rights" with regards to the South.
Reparations are so long overdue.
December 17, 2017
Should be required reading in all middle-schools/high schools as well as in the US Congress. Details the failed attempt after the civil war to restore blacks to economic autonomy and equal citizenship. As W.E.B. Du Bois said, "...the slave went free, stood for a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery." Throughout the south, blacks had been elected to many positions within the various state governments. White supremacists (KKK and other offshoots) used violence, murder, terror, and fraud to destroy the legitimate government and return political control to whites. A quote from the epilogue: " ... Reconstruction's demise and the emergence of blacks as disenfranchised dependent laborers accelerated racism's spread until by the early twentieth century it pervaded the nation's culture and politics. ... Long into the twentieth century, the South remained a one-party region ruled by a reactionary elite that continued to employ violence and fraud to stifle internal dissent."
January 30, 2017
Considering that this book is an abridged version of "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution" I'm wondering now if I read the wrong book. It was tough to wade through this shortened version. The tragic story makes for frustrating and depressing reading, which is understandable from this view 150 years removed. But part of my frustration was due to the sketchy handling of details regarding establishing and administering of the reconstruction programs. I expected to learn something about objectives and strategies of programs such as the Freedmen's Bureau. The author offers an objective view of the period. I was hoping for some insight, some lessons learned, some positive outcomes.
April 22, 2018
I like it more for the information provided than for the writing style or organization. The ideas presented were muddled and disorganized, and near the end of the book diverged from the central theme altogether. Nevertheless, it was shocking to read about a topic that was bypassed and "whitewashed" altogether in any history of the USA that was ever presented to me as a child and teen in my public school education.
April 26, 2018
Short is more like very brief. I get why the teacher assigned it, because we had only 3 weeks to read it. But it's really kind of dry and short, and no where near as engaging as the book that covered the actual Civil War was.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews