Discuss the relationships between the treatment of African-Americans during Reconstruction with the treatment of the same peoples during the United States Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s

The idea that during the Reconstruction Era(1863 to 1877), everything for slaves was hunky-dory is totally and completely incorrect.

 In 1865 the 13th amendment was granted, it's purpose was to abolish slavery in the United States. In 1868, 14th amendment was granted, it provided the guarantee of rights and security of the freed people. Lastly, the 15th amendment was issued, and it allowed African- Americans the right to vote. Even with these amendments, the southern states found a loop hole. The tenth amendment. This allowed the states to issue the black codes, which were laws that applied to African-Americans which essentially prevented them from buying property, voting, and serve in juries, or the military. The purpose of the unjust black codes was to make an attempt to re-instigate the status of blacks the was it was prior to the reconstruction era, limit the race as much as possible. In light of all these codes and events, blacks maintained a position of inferiority and were definitely greatly discriminated upon. This was the case up until the 1950's, the African- American people were greatly restrained. It seemed like they made progress but in reality they didn't. It was like taking one step forward, and two steps back.

The slaves were placed into a difficult situation, and the white population took advantage of that. During the Reconstruction Era, sharecropping was popular and widespread. Sharecropping was where slaves stayed on a plantation and were granted a plot of land, and they owed about half of what they harvested to their masters. Also, they were still under their masters reign, because they had to sign a contract that basically told them they must to whatever they are told. Also, they made minimal amount of money, and lived in poverty. The act of sharecropping was still widespread up until the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement took place between 1955–1968. At this point in time, African- Americans were still being discriminated against, just like they had been for a hundred years. Though it was not as bad as during the Reconstruction, the whites still felt supremacy over the black. They were segregated, with separate bathrooms, separate water fountains, and separate schools. One was for the "whites," and the other for the "colored". In addition to this, they were still not allowed to vote, and were the victims of heinous violence crimes.


The civil rights movement was a period of time where African- Americans, stood up and fought for their rights, and resisted racial oppression. They did this through a slue of different actions, civil disobedience, protests, sit-ins, etc. There were also many idols, such as Martin Luther King Jr, that instigated, and promoted civil rights with a passion. The African- American society fought long and hard to cross the barrier of racial discrimination, and were finally granted their rights and opened they eyes of the white population; Proving that they were equal, and they were human beings too, with the rights of an American.
The African- Americans succeeded in their struggle to fight for their rights, and they stood up with a voice, and achieved their purpose. This was how the civil rights movement differed from the Reconstruction era.


Sources:
http://www.kirkwood.k12.mo.us/parent_student/khs/plattes/topics11-13/topics11-139.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Racistcampaignposter1.jpg/250px-Racistcampaignposter1.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiGdOC02WBPSL_pyq4WLFSIDXV2si2Zw3saGRmTCQsK-KlZao&t=1&usg=__NlbmhPfiy5q5XF5hp70hZmhhziA=
http://separate-equal.net/?p=822

Amnesty

Amnesty. Was it right for the government to grant the South amnesty? In my opinion, I do believe it was the right choice. By granting amnesty, the confederate states were allowed back into the Union without worrying about getting prosecuted for their doings. Also, it reunited the Union smoothly because the Confederate States still had their rights, and it proved that there was no winning side, the Union was to be one again. So in order for a smooth transition into preserving the Union through reconstruction, amnesty had to be granted; So the Confederate States would not make the process difficult.

Was life better on the the other side?

Reconstruction had a minimal beneficial value for former slaves. Though they were considered "free" people, essentially there were still strings attached. The thirteenth amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery, but the larger issue was that the slaves had nowhere to go, and were still not accepted by society. Some made it out, and made something for themselves. They did this by getting involved in politics, and gaining higher rankings in society. Others practiced their freedoms such as, voting. Yet most stayed on their masters plantations and got paid to work. Though they did not receive the brutal treatment they endured prior to being freed people, if they chose to say on the plantations, they were still under their masters command, Sure, they god paid, but it was minimal, and their work load was immense.Also, eventually the money they were paid, ended up back in the masters hand. The other slaves that tried to get involved in slavery, were still ostracized, and the white people still considered themselves better. So, slaves did get better treatment after the Reconstruction Period, but it wasn't all rainbows and cupcakes, they still struggled to gain their acceptance of rights and presence in society.

Is less government is better?

What Thoreau means is that a government that does not attempt to control every aspect of peoples lives is best. I do agree with this statement, but then again the purpose of the government is to conduct order and control over the people. Without government matters would be out of hand, and life would be chaotic. So, a government should instill justified laws, and rulings for the people, and not try too hard to control citizens lives. Also, a government should try to provide a positive and safe environment for the welfare of the country, and things would run smoothly. 

Stereotypes.

Stereotypes have originated, because society feels the need to categorize everyone into perfect sects. The citizens of the United States of America have freedom of speech, the right to voice their opinions. Therefore, these miniscule truths have become exaggerations, and people have decided to view different groups of people in certain ways, and the word spreads rapidly throughout society.  So, does this mean, that all Asians are "smart," all Hispanics are "illegal immigrants," or all African Americans are "ghetto." NO. These are the assumptions that society have made, that everyone knows, based off a small amount of people that actually do fit into these categorizations. The issue is though, people hear these assumptions about their specific race, and actually start acting the way that they have been stereotyped. Society is oblivious to the fact that most of these stereotypes are ridiculous, and have been tainted by these categorizations. Stereotypes are widely known throughout society today, because it is an excuse to categorize people into neat categories and not have any consequences of being "racist" for doing so, and have spread like wildfire. Now the question is... Do you believe them ?

Voltaire

I believe when Voltaire said, “History is a lie commonly agreed upon,” he basically meant, what we hear is what we believe. Just because someone put it in a text book, and called themselves experts, everyone decides to believe it, because in reality, no one was really there to experience it, and usually the documents that historians base their facts off of are from the victorious party’s perspective. So what we have been taught since elementary has for mostly been false. From how the tradition of Thanksgiving flourished…. To thinking that Columbus actually discovered America. Before stepping foot into Mr. Meechins classroom, almost every single one of us believed these facts to be the truth, and we all agreed upon them. 

Shame....hding behind lies

Lies are prominent throughout history. Yet should countries omit certain negative events from their history? Well, personally I do not believe it right for countries to leave out important factors from their history,shameful, or not. Owning up to your actions is important, and countries should be able to do this. They acted upon their own command and will, and even though they may be veiled by shame, countries should take responsibility for their actions. Everyday people learn these principals throughout life, and are expected to apply them, even though countries are at a much more grandeur scale,these principles should still apply to them. We have a right to know the truth, and it is important to acquire an unbiased view on  history, because it's is a subject where many judge harshly and have supremely  biased viewpoints. Getting both sides of the story is essential. So,no, countries should not leave out negative aspects of their history.