What do you think?
Reconstruction after the Civil War
Ever since its original publication in 1961, Reconstruction after the Civil War has been praised for cutting through the controversial scholarship and popular myths of the time to provide an accurate account of the role of former slaves during this period in American history.
In this edition Franklin has updated his work to acknowledge the enormous body of research and scholarship that followed in the wake of the first edition. New are Franklin’s references to important, later texts that enrich the original narrative. In addition, the extensive bibliography has been thoroughly revised.
What has not changed, however, is the foundation Franklin has laid. Still compelling are his arguments concerning the brevity of the North’s military occupation of the South, the limited amount of power wielded by former slaves, the influence of moderate southerners, the flaws of the constitutions drawn up by the Radical state governments, and the reasons for the downfall of Reconstruction.
In this edition Franklin has updated his work to acknowledge the enormous body of research and scholarship that followed in the wake of the first edition. New are Franklin’s references to important, later texts that enrich the original narrative. In addition, the extensive bibliography has been thoroughly revised.
What has not changed, however, is the foundation Franklin has laid. Still compelling are his arguments concerning the brevity of the North’s military occupation of the South, the limited amount of power wielded by former slaves, the influence of moderate southerners, the flaws of the constitutions drawn up by the Radical state governments, and the reasons for the downfall of Reconstruction.
265 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
About the author
John Hope Franklin
135 books81 followersJohn Hope Franklin, Ph.D. (History, Harvard University, 1941; M.A., History, Harvard U., 1936; B.A., Fisk University, 1935), was the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History at Duke University. He also had served as President of Phi Beta Kappa, the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Southern Historical Association.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 15, 2017
Recall the old rule: "the victors write the history". When it comes to the Civil War, this rule seems to explode across so many interpretations, written by both the winners and losers. Some approaches we have had include The Lost Cause, it was not about slavery, the carpetbaggers were all evil, the post-war military occupation was oppressive, President Johnson was good, no bad, no evil, no overwhelmed, no...etc.
Anyway, I was compelled to research more on the post-war reconstruction after reading "Gone with the Wind". Interesting, eh? But this often happens when I read historical fiction. This magnificent 1930s novel portrayed reconstruction the "old way", with carpetbaggers as evil, southern whites as good guys, the KKK as necessary to defend the old ways, and blacks (sorry, have to use the historically presented term) as lazy and incompetent.
Somehow, I believed, this could not all be true. So, I checked two authors. The first was Foner's "Reconstruction, America's Unfinished Revolution". Ouch! This was rich, dense, and, unfortunately, over my head (or beyond my endurance). This one was written for the professional historian, not the occasional student of history. But, encouraged by Foner, I turned to Franklin's "Reconstruction". This provided a shorter synthesis of the major post-war reconstruction events. And it clearly explained the change in historical analysis that occurred in the 1960s. This change presented a significant correction in the historical record. Several other authors have since joined the message: the war was won, the peace was lost. The only issue I have with Franklin's approach is that he did not footnote his many statements of fact. He does provide a lengthy bibliography, but these are not tied to the primary text.
An interesting point: the Civil War triggered significant economic growth and expansion. And it was this growth that became so paramount that further pursuit of "doing the right thing" in the South was pushed aside in favor of continued economic opportunities. Perhaps this is a parallel to contemporary governmental actions, wherein all decisions are made with business opportunities in mind (to the detriment of personal security, environmental protection, banking security, etc).
Anyway, I was compelled to research more on the post-war reconstruction after reading "Gone with the Wind". Interesting, eh? But this often happens when I read historical fiction. This magnificent 1930s novel portrayed reconstruction the "old way", with carpetbaggers as evil, southern whites as good guys, the KKK as necessary to defend the old ways, and blacks (sorry, have to use the historically presented term) as lazy and incompetent.
Somehow, I believed, this could not all be true. So, I checked two authors. The first was Foner's "Reconstruction, America's Unfinished Revolution". Ouch! This was rich, dense, and, unfortunately, over my head (or beyond my endurance). This one was written for the professional historian, not the occasional student of history. But, encouraged by Foner, I turned to Franklin's "Reconstruction". This provided a shorter synthesis of the major post-war reconstruction events. And it clearly explained the change in historical analysis that occurred in the 1960s. This change presented a significant correction in the historical record. Several other authors have since joined the message: the war was won, the peace was lost. The only issue I have with Franklin's approach is that he did not footnote his many statements of fact. He does provide a lengthy bibliography, but these are not tied to the primary text.
An interesting point: the Civil War triggered significant economic growth and expansion. And it was this growth that became so paramount that further pursuit of "doing the right thing" in the South was pushed aside in favor of continued economic opportunities. Perhaps this is a parallel to contemporary governmental actions, wherein all decisions are made with business opportunities in mind (to the detriment of personal security, environmental protection, banking security, etc).
December 26, 2021
A short and easy to read history of the complex but important era after the Civil War. First published in 1961, Franklin's book was an early corrective of the Lost Cause version of Reconstruction as a "tragic era" of corrupt misrule of prostrate Southern states by ignorant freedmen, vengeful scalawags and greedy carpetbaggers. Today, this relatively short book is still useful as an introduction to the basic facts but without the kind of detail found in Moby Dick-sized classic texts on Reconstruction especially DuBois's "Black Reconstruction in America" and Eric Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution."
There's not much here for the reader familiar with the era, but Franklin's conclusion struck me as an especially apt summary of the outcome of the era's many twists and turns:
"On the points most important to the North the white South was willing to yield. In a sense, then, both sides were pleased with the outcome of reconstruction. In another sense, however, both sides suffered an ignoble defeat. The Union had been preserved and human slavery had been abolished; but these were achievements of the war. In the postwar years the Union had not made the achievements of the war a foundation for the healthy advancement of the political, social, and economic life of the United States."
There's not much here for the reader familiar with the era, but Franklin's conclusion struck me as an especially apt summary of the outcome of the era's many twists and turns:
"On the points most important to the North the white South was willing to yield. In a sense, then, both sides were pleased with the outcome of reconstruction. In another sense, however, both sides suffered an ignoble defeat. The Union had been preserved and human slavery had been abolished; but these were achievements of the war. In the postwar years the Union had not made the achievements of the war a foundation for the healthy advancement of the political, social, and economic life of the United States."
November 17, 2022
John Hope Franklin's "Reconstruction after the Civil War," is a concise and balanced study of one of the most contentious periods in American history. The untested leadership of an unexpected president, the fate of two half-disbanded armies, the rise of numerous half-baked, albeit deadly, militias, and a host of querulous political figures combined to create, this, the most toxic morass, to ever plague our country. Not a situation anyone would hope to replicate, let alone navigate. The South, ravaged by war, was not quite totally prostrate, but not quite ready for peace.
Franklin marshals political, economic, and demographic evidence to compile a readable understanding of the imperfect settlement that resulted. The author is respectful of other scholars, particularly, C. Vann Woodward, and delivers a fascinating account of the "Wormley House Bargain's" role in the Hayes-Tilden election debacle.
In addition to a cogent narrative, Franklin has included a detailed annotative bibliography, along with a comprehensive list of important dates. Together, this information allows the reader to quickly assess other resources, if desired, and glean a contextual understanding of the era.
This book is a very good foundation for readers interested in Reconstruction.
Franklin marshals political, economic, and demographic evidence to compile a readable understanding of the imperfect settlement that resulted. The author is respectful of other scholars, particularly, C. Vann Woodward, and delivers a fascinating account of the "Wormley House Bargain's" role in the Hayes-Tilden election debacle.
In addition to a cogent narrative, Franklin has included a detailed annotative bibliography, along with a comprehensive list of important dates. Together, this information allows the reader to quickly assess other resources, if desired, and glean a contextual understanding of the era.
This book is a very good foundation for readers interested in Reconstruction.
September 2, 2020
This book was one of the early studies of reconstruction that argued against the "Lost Cause" myth. It is well done and balanced. The arguments are supported and you see how the "former states in rebellion" were not the persecuted group they professed to be. Instead, most of their problems were generated by themselves in how they acted immediately after the war with their black codes which were put in place to keep the freed slaves as free in name only. It was a flagrant attempt to keep things in the same social order as before the war. Only reluctantly did the southern states give in to the new amendments and even then, worked hard to not implement them. As the northern states lost interest in forcing the south to move forward in race relations, Jim Crow took over and it was another 100 years before major steps were taken to implement the freedoms that were promised after the Civil War.
September 7, 2022
Franklin changed the viewpoint of professional historians about the goals and failures of the Radical Republicans’ policies on “reconstruction” of the Confederate states after the American Civil War.
In the past historians reported the Reconstruction period as a politically motivated effort by Northern politicians to control the Southern states, with sometimes superficial attention to the concept and the abandonment of effectively giving millions of black Americans the right to vote.
Franklin’s thesis, in simplistic terms, is that contending political and business interests tried to pursue “reconstruction” to develop the economic capacity of the South, and the plight of freed slaves gradually slipped from the center of attention. The white folks who were leaders of the secession rather quickly resumed their control of the Southern states.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
In the past historians reported the Reconstruction period as a politically motivated effort by Northern politicians to control the Southern states, with sometimes superficial attention to the concept and the abandonment of effectively giving millions of black Americans the right to vote.
Franklin’s thesis, in simplistic terms, is that contending political and business interests tried to pursue “reconstruction” to develop the economic capacity of the South, and the plight of freed slaves gradually slipped from the center of attention. The white folks who were leaders of the secession rather quickly resumed their control of the Southern states.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
December 18, 2021
This was written in the early 1960s and was the first or one of the first to dispute the "radical republicans bad/ Johnson maligned" interpretation of Reconstruction (the version I learned in high school 25 years later, even though it was pretty much entirely discredited by then). This was fascinating on every level and very easy to read.
December 4, 2021
an excellent read on Reconstruction.
May 15, 2023
This work is older and offers a look at the reconstruction period after the American civil war. I found it to be extremely readable and informative.
August 10, 2024
Written in the 1960s....good, primer on Reconstruction period after the American Civil War. Interesting points in book....this was a book in audio form.
October 13, 2016
John Hope Franklin’s Reconstruction After the Civil War addresses Reconstruction in the North and South during the years between the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April, 1865 under the presidency and leadership of Abraham Lincoln and the inauguration of Rutherford B. Hayes in March 1877. This volume primarily addresses Presidential Reconstruction, Congressional Reconstruction, and counter-reconstruction as they occurred in the South. Franklin does not devote his attention to only a segment of the South, he deals with each state at length. Another necessary component of this story is the relationship between the North and the South; as such the North plays an integral role to this discussion. While Franklin by no means focuses on the West he does mention it and the role that it played in Reconstruction a small number of times (9 & 173). Franklin concerns himself greatly with the social and economic factors of Reconstruction. He devotes an entire chapter to them. He also speaks at length about the 14th Amendment, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thaddeus Stevens.
Through these topics Franklin addresses the “heart rending” task of reuniting a country (2). While he speaks of black suffrage, social and economic changes, he argues that in the end Reconstruction did not accomplish much. His conclusion is incredibly pessimistic. He insists that when Reconstruction ended the South was much the same as it had been before the outbreak of the Civil War (219). The good that may have been accomplished was nullified by the actions of counter-reconstruction groups like the Ku Klux Klan. He maintains that most changes “had taken place in the North” rather than in the South (219). The Civil War had resulted in freedom for slaves, but other freedoms such as the right to vote, which was granted to a short period of time, was removed when it proved to be inconvenient for the hegemonic narrative that was being maintained. Franklin also thoroughly debunks the claim of “negro rule” that asserted that all of the problems that the South faced following the Civil War was attributable to former slaves who now had the right to vote.
While Franklin eloquently debunks these claims this edition makes it difficult to see what his are. In some cases, the text allows the reader to see the primary source at work even if they lack the specific details, “In 1866 Thomas Conway told his New York readers that “the freedmen are treated harshly, unmercifully, unjustly, the public mind is not informed of one hundredth part of the wrongs endured by the patient freedmen””(51). In examples such as this one, the reader knows who, when, and what was said, but they lack the information that they would need to find and read the source for themselves. In other situations, they are left woefully in the dark – “Within four years the Bureau had issued twenty-one million rations to white refugees and freedmen. It established more than forty hospitals and spent more than two million dollars in treating 450,000 cases of illness” – where the reader is at a loss of where to begin (36). However, this is oversight is partially redeemed by the bibliographic essay “Suggested Reading” that can be found as an appendix. Here articles, monographs, academic journals, governmental reports, among other sources, are grouped together by type or topic to aid the reader in their search for further information.
The “Suggested Reading” does not, however, mend the problem complete. The lack of citations or notes makes it more difficult to see where the volume rests in the literature. One can assume that Franklin draws upon the research of W.E.B. DuBois and his students because he is furthering the area of revisionist history that goes against what was the traditional understanding perpetrated by William Dunning. Du Bois focused on the good that came from Reconstruction and restored importance to former slaves and those that advocated for former slaves. Franklin does not discredit anything said by Du Bois, but he does point out, as was mentioned earlier, that when Reconstruction ended not much had changed in the South as a result of the arduous work that many men put into changing the culture of the South.
This volume is uncomplicated and simple to read. This makes it more accessible to the average reader that may lack specialized knowledge. The final conclusion – that it was all for naught – is interesting because where Dunning concludes that great harm has been done to the country and others may argue that Reconstruction was greatly beneficial Franklin does not seem wholly pessimistic or optimistic about the outcomes. This lends his writing a more objective tone, which, while it is unlikely, is what historians theoretically aim for.
Through these topics Franklin addresses the “heart rending” task of reuniting a country (2). While he speaks of black suffrage, social and economic changes, he argues that in the end Reconstruction did not accomplish much. His conclusion is incredibly pessimistic. He insists that when Reconstruction ended the South was much the same as it had been before the outbreak of the Civil War (219). The good that may have been accomplished was nullified by the actions of counter-reconstruction groups like the Ku Klux Klan. He maintains that most changes “had taken place in the North” rather than in the South (219). The Civil War had resulted in freedom for slaves, but other freedoms such as the right to vote, which was granted to a short period of time, was removed when it proved to be inconvenient for the hegemonic narrative that was being maintained. Franklin also thoroughly debunks the claim of “negro rule” that asserted that all of the problems that the South faced following the Civil War was attributable to former slaves who now had the right to vote.
While Franklin eloquently debunks these claims this edition makes it difficult to see what his are. In some cases, the text allows the reader to see the primary source at work even if they lack the specific details, “In 1866 Thomas Conway told his New York readers that “the freedmen are treated harshly, unmercifully, unjustly, the public mind is not informed of one hundredth part of the wrongs endured by the patient freedmen””(51). In examples such as this one, the reader knows who, when, and what was said, but they lack the information that they would need to find and read the source for themselves. In other situations, they are left woefully in the dark – “Within four years the Bureau had issued twenty-one million rations to white refugees and freedmen. It established more than forty hospitals and spent more than two million dollars in treating 450,000 cases of illness” – where the reader is at a loss of where to begin (36). However, this is oversight is partially redeemed by the bibliographic essay “Suggested Reading” that can be found as an appendix. Here articles, monographs, academic journals, governmental reports, among other sources, are grouped together by type or topic to aid the reader in their search for further information.
The “Suggested Reading” does not, however, mend the problem complete. The lack of citations or notes makes it more difficult to see where the volume rests in the literature. One can assume that Franklin draws upon the research of W.E.B. DuBois and his students because he is furthering the area of revisionist history that goes against what was the traditional understanding perpetrated by William Dunning. Du Bois focused on the good that came from Reconstruction and restored importance to former slaves and those that advocated for former slaves. Franklin does not discredit anything said by Du Bois, but he does point out, as was mentioned earlier, that when Reconstruction ended not much had changed in the South as a result of the arduous work that many men put into changing the culture of the South.
This volume is uncomplicated and simple to read. This makes it more accessible to the average reader that may lack specialized knowledge. The final conclusion – that it was all for naught – is interesting because where Dunning concludes that great harm has been done to the country and others may argue that Reconstruction was greatly beneficial Franklin does not seem wholly pessimistic or optimistic about the outcomes. This lends his writing a more objective tone, which, while it is unlikely, is what historians theoretically aim for.
Read
May 9, 2013Brilliant book, wish I had a fatter one with more details. I came to this book because I'm convinced Kenneth Rexroth used this version of history to form a substantial amount of his worldview. There is a new scholar, Eric Foner, who has more detail but seems like he has a less radical view. This led me to the history of Charles A. Beard, a substantial scholar who seems to me to have been wronged in the HUAC-McCarthy era, to the detriment of generations of understanding of American history. Still researching this vein.
January 8, 2015
An incredible telling of how the Reconstruction tried to happen and ended up setting the country back to before the war. It was a concise read that sometimes got caught up in names and numbers versus the human story of the time. However, for anyone interested in the time, it ably offered a fascinating and exciting read.
July 1, 2013
A very balanced, brief history of Reconstruction, an incredibly important period in our history. It has had repercussions all the way down to today. So many of the assumptions about it are just wrong.
Read
March 15, 2009Reconstruction After The Civil War by Franklin (1961)
July 1, 2015
A excellent brief but wide-ranging overview of the period.
March 9, 2012
This is a 1961 edition published by the University of Chicago Press.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews