The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877

by Kenneth M. Stampp

Stampp's classic work offers a revisionist explanation for the radical failure to achieve equality for blacks, and of the effect that Conservative rule had on the subsequent development of the South. Refuting former schools of thought, Stampp challenges the notions that slavery was somehow just a benign aspect of Southern culture, and how the failures during the reconstruction period created a ripple effect that is still seen today.  
 
Praise for The Era of Reconstruction :

“ . . . This “brief political history of reconstruction” by a well-known Civil War authority is a thoughtful and detailed study of the reconstruction era and the distorted legends still clinging to it.”— Kirkus Reviews
 
“It is to be hoped that this work reaches a large audience, especially among people of influence, and will thus help to dispel some of the myths about Reconstructions that hamper efforts in the civil rights field to this day.”—Albert Castel, Western Michigan University

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Civil War, United States, Grad School, The United States Of America

256 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1965

About the author

Kenneth Milton Stampp, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of History Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, was a celebrated historian of slavery, the American Civil War, and Reconstruction.

Reviews

[RYD · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reconstruction is one of the best examples of how the history books we had as children failed us. Kenneth Stampp is one of the historians who, in the 1960s, tried to tell Reconstruction for what it was: a valiant effort to bring equal rights to blacks just freed from slavery.

"[G]ranting all their mistakes, the radical governments were by far the most democratic the South had ever known," Stampp wrote in the book, published in 1965. "They were the only governments in southern history to extend to Negroes complete civil and political equality, and to try to protect them in the enjoyment of the rights they were granted. The overthrow of these governments was hardly a victory for political democracy, for the conservatives who 'redeemed' the South tried to relegate poor men, Negro and white, once more to political obscurity. Near the end of the nineteenth century another battle for political democracy would have to be waged; but this time it would be, for the most part, a limited version -- for whites only. As for the Negroes, they would have to struggle for another century to regain what they had won -- and then lost -- in the years of radical reconstruction."

[Mark Flowers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Among the amazing aspects of this book: it is almost 50 years old and relates the events of almost 100 years before that, and yet it still has plenty to teach us today. It is astonishing that American high school textbooks still refer to carpetbaggers and scalawags, that many consider the Reconstruction to have been an unmitigated disaster perpetuated by vindicative stooges--50 years after Stampp destroyed these claims handily.

Bonus amazing factoid: Thaddeus Stevens (one of the leaders of the Radical Republicans, and the basis for the horrifying character of Austin Stonemen in The Birth of a Nation) demanded in his will that he be buried in the only cemetery in Pennsylvania that interred both blacks and whites.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stampp was big when I was studying history in high school. Years ago I read his history of slavery in the United States, the "peculiar institution". Now, immersed in another series of readings about US history, I return to the period with this, his most popular book about the reconstruction period following the civil war. It is likely the first book I've ever read exclusively devoted to the period.

Stampp frames his book as a reply to traditional historians who have characterized reconstruction as a failure owing to the corruption, confusion and incompetence of those who instituted it. It is, in other words, a defense of the effort. Reconstruction failed, according to Stampp, because of endemic racism more than because of any other factor.

Clearly written, well argued, this book should be accessible to anyone with a general knowledge of the civil war period.

[Bronwyn Echols · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished reading this amazing book for the second time in about as many months; it's so dense that I needed to do a second reading to make sure of understanding and learning, but Stampp is such a clear, concise, and very readable author that that understanding and learning happened. A stunning volume!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the first of the great revisionist historical works about the Reconstruction period, Stampp refutes the ridiculous allegations that had, and still have, longed plagued the Radical Republicans of the 1866-1877 period.

It was not the corruption of the scalawag, carpetbagger, or African-American that led to the downfall of Reconstruction and the horrors of the Redeemed and Jim Crow South, it was the racism of the North, the business interests in the Republican Party who saw no profit in the enterprise, the complacency of the Grant administration, the political plots of the stalwarts who valued their political careerism over human rights and human gain, and host of other factors outside the Dunning "School" of historical falsification.

One of the few criticisms of this magnificent work I have is Stampp's complete discountenance of the "economic" motive. Whilst he speaks upon this in relation to the Radicals, refuting the charges hurled against them that they only wished to exploit the South, he would've done well to show that was one of the reasons the conservatives backed by Northern capitalists supported Reconstruction.

One cannot help but wonder what would've happened had the politicians of America, aside from true Radicals in Stevens and Sumner, grown a backbone, a spine, and truly sought to uphold the values printed lip service in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

[KaWoodtiereads · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 2021, I am doing an A-Z Title Challenge to get through some of the many unread books in my personal library. This satisfied "E" and I was also interested in reading Stampp because I enjoyed his book The Peculiar Institution about slavery. What I appreciate about Stampp is he was a revisionist historian striving to give a clearer representation of history as it really happened, without favoring nationalism over truth. When we consider the institution of slavery, the ramifications of the Civil War, and the traumatic aftermath known as reconstruction, there are a lot of areas where the "how" and the "why" can be incredibly subjective. Was Lincoln the great Emancipator? Was reconstruction a success or a failure? What really was the motivation to give Black Americans civil rights then ultimately abandon them? Stampp does a great job of interpreting the attitudes and major decisions that brought about immense social and political change in this country. Considering this was published in 1965 by a white historian, its content is quite provocative because Stampp's analysis takes a rather unflinching look at the failures and shortcomings of our Government and does not downplay the injustices of the systems that enslaved and disenfranchised Black people. I recommend this book to anyone interested in American history, as reconstruction was a highly volatile time and is worth knowing more about.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a well written, if a little dated view of the period of Reconstruction immediately after the end of the American Civil War. I think Stampp’s loyalties lie with the Radical Republicans, the branch of the Republican party who crusaded for former slaves to become full citizens after the Civil War, but he does critique the Congress appointed Reconstruction governments in the South, for charges historically levelled at them such as corruption or reckless spending. Yet, he also takes aim at Democratic governments doing the same or in most cases, much worse offenses than these Reconstruction governments, which is what I liked about Stampp’s book so much, that it pushed back against the mythology of ineffective Radical governments.

This was a period in history I didn’t know much about and this book helped to change it. Good book.

[Jack R.]

A highly readable, engaging, and insightful history of the Reconstruction period, full of vim and vigor in its careful dismantling of the Dunning School's primary arguments. While Stamp was far from the first critique of that historiographical tradition, his work serves as a culmination in the debate, helped especially by Stamp's forceful (but not moralistic) tone, free of any problematic ideological commitments that weakened the persuasiveness of, for instance, DuBois. Hence, "The Era of Reconstruction" effectively serves as the template for all future Reconstruction histories--harsh of Johnson, sympathetic to the Radicals, and fair in the difficulties of reconstruction governance--even if the latter has expanded in scope and evidentiary thoroughness.

[Monte Lamb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent source for the general history of Reconstruction in the USA. The writing is clear and concise and is organized chronologically so you get a very good idea of how the politics of one year moves into the changes orchestrated later by others. It's a good read and the reader will be left with a good understanding of how the period developed. There are other books written later that might give more detail, but the basic ideas presented here are generally still considered valid.

[Earl Hoovler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author helped clear the air on how our country’s attitude on race today was formed over centuries in both the north and south and how for just a few years after the civil war a few enlightened thinkers and politicians were able to establish amendments to our constitution which have become a cornerstone of making this a true democracy, one that says we are all created equal before the law. How we truly think is another matter.

[Rob Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot here about reconstruction politics. He presents the accepted views of historians since that time and then lays out more nuanced understandings of the era. A rich reading experience for me.

[John Francy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit dry for me. Many details and fscts but not enough” big picture”. Overall, this book will expand your understanding of the immediate post civil war years but it does not pug it into the perspective of the longer history in my opinion.

[Babs M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. I had this book for a History class in college and it has languished in by bookshelf for 40 yrs. I appreciate this book way more than I could have at age 20.

[Matt Braselman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book that doesn't read like a high school history book. Just enough detail to get a good understanding of the time period, but doesn't get bogged down in too many details.

[Stacy Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting view of this time period, and a good short overview of reconstruction in general.

[Miles Doty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got nothing for this one

[Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

In The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877 Kenneth M. Stampp explores the plans for Reconstruction. He does not deal with the particulars of how each state and state governments responded to edicts from the federal government or how they dealt with Reconstruction on their own terms. Stampp restricts himself to the inner workings of Presidential Reconstruction from President Abraham Lincoln’s inklings of a plan when the Civil War broke out through President Andrew Johnson’s activities, to Congressional Reconstruction, all the way until Reconstruction came to an end when the conservatives had their way. He provides details and insights on the periods of Reconstruction and how they moved from one to the other. For example: Stampp discusses Lincoln’s inconsistencies when it came to the equality of the races and how those opinions changed throughout Lincoln’s lifetime. He even proposes that if Lincoln had not been assassinated in 1865 that Lincoln might have come to realize that he could not simply restore the South to the Union in the same position that it had held before without refashioning Southern society. However, Lincoln’s plans and possible future plans never saw fruition because he died shortly after starting his second term as president.

Overall, Stampp is arguing that Reconstruction, in terms of its main motivators, was very successful. He says that there are three main areas that concerned those managing Reconstruction; the consolidation of American industrial power, maintaining Republican political power, and making the South more democratic and less based on stringent class structures. He believes that the first two were successful. American industrial power expanded during the post-bellum years and continued its growth into the 20th century. And, while the Republicans never had control of the Southern governments in the way that they would have liked, they successfully prevented a Democratic government from taking hold. They maintained their grip on the presidency until 1912 apart from 1892. It is only in the last arena that they failed miserably. The socio-economics of the South remained unchanged in the short-term with share-cropping and many former slaves remaining second class citizens. Stampp, however, argues that, the 14th and 15th Amendments could only have been adopted during the radical reconstruction makes up for any egregious errors and mishaps that took place.

To back up these arguments Stampp pulls on many sources. However, he does not provide these sources to the reader in neatly kept footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography. Rather, he provides the reader with a “Bibliographic Note”. He admits that this list of sources is not exhaustive; it fails to include all of the literature that he consulted. He says that “it is highly selective, containing only those items that I have drawn on for factual material, that have influenced my interpretations, or that represent significant points of view in reconstruction historiography.” This is problematic. He chooses what material is significant for his reader to know, but, what if a reader wishes to read more about an area that he did not consider significant? He does point the reader to some other sources that can provide a further range of literature. He organizes this note by subject, “traditional anti-radical interpretation of reconstruction”, “non-Marxian revisionism”, and “Lincoln literature” just to name a few.

The “Bibliographic Note” does provide the reader with a way of seeing how he engages with other scholarly sources. They can easily see what he considered important, what areas he spent a lot of time with while ignoring others. Stampp’s section on Marxist literature deals primarily with W.E.B. Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction, but there are not many other sources offered while the “non-Marxian” segment is much more robust. Stampp says that “[t]his brief political history of reconstruction is an attempt to give more general currency to the finds of scholars during the past few decades.” The scholars that he lists in his bibliographic note are those that he is supporting with this work.

Overall, this volume is very comprehensible. Stampp argues that Claude Bowers’ The Tragic Era — a “chief disseminator of the traditional picture of reconstruction” — was popular because of how simple its characters are. Men are either or good or evil based on the roles that they play in the story. Stampp may not simplify the complex characters of Lincoln, Jackson, and others, but his prose is incredible readable. If his goal was to provide a popular piece to combat the more prevalent materials of the “traditional” side then he has done so fantastically. To simplify any of his material further to make it more digestible for the common reader would do the piece a great disservice because it would encourage making Lincoln and the other major players two-dimensional.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a lot of books about Lincoln and by and about authors from the post-Civil War period, but this may be the first book-length study of Reconstruction that I've read. It's one of the classics in revisionist history of the Reconstruction Era. Stampp counters many of the one-time prevailing views of this period and destroys some myths along the way. Although there was corruption and incompetence in many Reconstruction state governments in the South, that is only a small part of the story. The greater part is the idealism of many of the Senators and Representatives who wrote and passed Reconstruction legislation and the progress made in providing conditions for African-Americans in the South to begin claiming and exercising their new civil and political rights. I was pleased to read about Indiana Representative George Julian, who was a Radical Republican with very enlightened views, though he later gave up when Reconstruction ended and like so many, moved on to other causes. (I live in the neighborhood he was from, Irvington in Indianapolis, where we have a Julian Avenue but I'm willing to bet few residents know about this remarkable figure from our history.) Stampp helps readers understand the complex political and social situation of this era. He explains well how President Andrew Johnson was perhaps the last of the Jacksonian Democrats--and also an unfortunately intemperate hot-headed speaker who alienated even those who initially supported him. Johnson like Lincoln wanted to make it easy for the Southern states to be readmitted to the Union, but that's where any similarity ends. Who knows what would have happened had Lincoln lived? He would have clashed with Radical Republicans, but he was a brilliant politician and so would have worked with those members of his party more effectively. Stampp also shows that most Northerners at that time were not ready for social integration; it's still shocking to me how truly racist most white Americans were then, making it all the more remarkable when some people did stand up for full equality. If you like US history, you'll find this book interesting and quite readable. It helps us understand our present situation to know this legacy of racial strife, extreme resistance to racial equality, and conflicting interpretations (I'd say frequently misinterpretations) of our Constitution and founding principles. I'd like to read more about some of the people from this era such as Julian and the African-American leaders who were emerging in the South.

[R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stampp leads off with pre - conceived notions and then refers to select bits of historical data to support that notion. Where antecdotal evidence is absent, Stampp tries to insert his 1965 era views into the mind of the reasonable, or not so reasonable, man of 1870. While Stampp seems open to the purpose of his starting premise he fails to acknowledge that the historical context of his base premise is too narrow by half. Even worse Stampp fails to challenge his own premise and approach. The lessons of the Civil War, and the years of occupation afterward, ought not be lost on a country that has once again grown so polarized and fractured. Stampp should not be the last word on Radical Reconstruction, but sadly seems as if he may be for the time being.

[Ronald · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit dry and overly detailed at parts, but overall a very good history of the era of reconstruction. Thoroughly reviews the predictable but sadly missed opportunities of that time period and how the best laid plans went awry.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

An easy to read book about the American reconstruction period following the Civil War. From 1865-1877 the tumultuous period where we tried to rebuild our country after being torn apart by war. Excellent starter book for beginners learning about this period.