Six word story

Big Family, long journey; father daughter.

Reconstruction vs. Civil Rights Movement

The era of the reconstruction saw many steps in the lives of African- Americans in the United States. However they did not gain the rights and freedoms which they deserved. This era of pain and suffering lasted over a hundred years, until something was done about it following the civil rights movement.

A sharecropping family

During the reconstruction, newly freed slaves were kept under a position of near slavery by laws passed in the south, the black codes. Due to the 10th amendment, the federal government could do nothing about these injust laws. Blacks were prevented from voting by polling tests, and taxes, which made it impossible for black citizens to vote. Also, these codes restricted blacks from buying land. All of this was not stopped becasue the successor of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, had no interest in seeing to it that blacks had equal rights. The problem with all this was, that in the south, blacks had utterly no voice in politics. Whatever was made rule by the white politicans, was law. Due to this, African-Americans saw little progress. Many of these black codes stood in place until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This was a serious problem for the African-Americans.

Sharecropping was a major issue that was being developed at this time. This was almost a loopoll in the laws, making the blacks as close to slaves as they could be. Basically, the white plantation and farm owners would give land to the former slaves to farm on. However this was not the freedmens land. The land still belonged to the farm owner, and thus a large portion of the proffit from the harvest had to be given to the farm owner. In this way, just as before, the plantation owners had a way of having others farm their land for them without having to pay much money. Slavery without the wips so to speak.

The civil rights movement was similar, yet different to the reconstruction era. Many of the same issues were being fought fought for, however the difference was, that now they were actually being fought for. The African- Americans finally had a voice, in that of Martin Luther King Jr. They now had someone who was willing to speak for the cause and fight for what he knew needed to be done. People such as him, and Rosa Parks, and many others were finally standing up, using their 1st amendments rights to stand up and rise together. This is no to say that this was time of violence and chaos, cause it mostly was not.

African-Americans were still, the 1960s, fighting for the rights to vote. Thought over a hundred years had passed, they still were being blocked out of polling stations by strict regulations. Due to this, they had no way to put there own officials in office: thus the government was still in some portions radically against them. As seen through the case of Rosa Parks, African-Americans were not even allowed to sit in the front of the bus. This is absurd. The free nation, many times referred to as the best nation in the world, clearly had some major problems.

The African-Americans during this time however, were better educated: thus could now use new ways to fight their cause. Through the use of sit-ins, nonviolent protests, and civil disobedience, they made their message clear.

These people, though still being treated as the inferior race, now had a fighting chance. This is a major difference from the post civil war era. They had a voice to speak there message, and a means to fight until they had the rights that they deserved.

Photo source(s): http://www.wicn.org/show/the-africanamerican-tradition &  http://www.kirkwood.k12.mo.us/parent_student/khs/plattes/topics11-13/topics11-13.html

The push for Education.

During the reconstruction era, with the slaves now free, many would say that they had more problems now then before. Being free, they now had no one to rely on; they were forced to rely on the government for much of there needs. Being that there were few blacks who knew how to read and write, it was a problem when it came time to establish schools. However they made due. The blacks became known as 'freedmen' and with the help of the north set up schools. However this was not easy. The freedmen had few teachers, few places to put schools, and no money for supplies. With all there problems, it was difficult  for everyone to be educated. However, the government came to the rescue; similarly to the way they so often do in this the 21st century. However, like throughout history, this did not just help. Many whites did not want there children being educated with blacks, and thus seperate schools had to be built. Many of the black or freedmen schools were burned and destroyed by the many anit-black groups forming. The freedmen however faced this struggle head on, and came out with education. The children would be educated at school, and teach their parents at night. Slowly but surely education was becoming available to the freedmen, as well as whites.

Image source: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/4439

Whats the point?

Immediately following the civil war, many people were unsure as to whether the south should be granted amnesty. For those who don't know, amnesty is defined as the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals (Marriam-Webster). In my opinion this argument should not have even taken place, and yet it is merely by human nature that it did. If we, the union, did not grant pardon to the southern states following the civil war, what would have been the point? Hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives shed, for what? It is a hard thing to do, however the Civil War was a situation in which, yes the south must pay in some way, however in a general sense, the north must forgive and forget. For if the north simply won the war, and yet did not forgive the south, then were they not back to the same place they were to begin with. It order for the war to mean something, the north had to provide amnesty to the south; and they did. I will leave you with the same words Abraham Lincoln did, in 1863, on the Gettysburg battle field. ""...We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Morals, Guns, and a Whole Lot of Blood

War is a tricky thing. Webster defines it as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nation." With this definition in mind, it would be hard for us to say that Lt. Col. Chamberlain was right on his view of winning a war. However, with further thought on the matter, one begins to ponder the words of Chamberlain. He said "It's the idea that we all have value -- you and me." This is powerful. The war was not fought over land, or good like most wars historically have been. This war was fought for value, and for the moral ideas. Therefore we are lead to question, if the war was fought over morals, can it be won with a moral idea. These men are not fighting for the good of their country or for any personal causes; they are fighting to set men free. The Civil War in our country was so different than any other wars fought through out history. Perhaps a moral idea can win a war. However, it must do so indirectly. With a war such as this, each man is there for similar reasons; to free slaves. Due to this, the Union army was fighting as a more unified force than in prior wars. There were no major ulterior motives. The men fought with a unified force; a unified moral idea. This idea was so powerful, that i would have to agree with Chamberlain. This idea, won the war for the Union. 

End Slavery or Preserve the Union; that is the question

Abraham Lincoln entered the presidency, and ended up with a lot on his plate. The issues of slavery, as well as having half the union want to break off and do there own thing. This was a big problem. Being only one man, Lincoln could not attack everything, so he chose the union. Originally, thought Lincoln was a major supporter of putting an end to slavery, he felt that equality and slavery may be able to coexist for some time. However he did not know how long. In a letter he wrote in 1855 he stated, "Our political problem now is 'Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently—forever—half slave, and half free?' The problem is too mighty for me. May God, in his mercy, superintend the solution." This gives an insight into what was going on in Lincolns mind. He did not know how long it could last; but he knew it could. Due to this reason, he must have felt that the union was the more important task for him to try and tackle. If he could bring back the unity that the United States had once had, he would be able to find out a way to bring down slavery, so that equality and slavery no longer had to coexist. Also, if he could bring unity back to the union, though slavery would still be a problem, he may be able to prevent war. Thus saving lives.
Though his plans did not end up going smoothly, it was the right plan to make.

Less Government is Best Government??

Henry David Thoreau said "that government is best which governs least." Odd statement to make, unless you know a little information about the man who said it. Thoreau, though he was best known for being an American born author, he also wrote and taught about the ideas of civil disobedience, tax resistance, and abolitionism. Having lived and died in the time of the civil war, these ideas would have been seen as extremist, and causes him to have many more enemies than friends. Though this explains why Thoreau said what he did, we must still understand what he meant. He felt that the government should not have too much power. Him and many others of the time feared the coming age of monarchy that had once ruled over America from England. He thought that the only way to prevent this was to ensure this was to limit the power of the federal government, and to make sure that the power was spread equally to the state governments. By doing this the federal government does not have too much power, and cannot become a monarchy.
I agree with Thoreau, that when the federal government attains too much power, disaster can strike. The power our government has must be spread throughout the levels. The states must be able to govern without substantial interference from the federal government. We as Americans have freedoms, those freedoms are given to use by our federal government. Many believe that the day the American government gains too much power, will be the day we begin to lose those freedoms. We must fight so this does not happen. Our government must govern least, in order to serve the best interests of us as Americans.