Reconstruction's Legacy: The Second Founding That Could Have Been

Hey everyone. Welcome back. 

Before I introduce today’s topic, I wanted to acknowledge that this marks episode 300 of the podcast… I am completely blown away by the ongoing support and love for the show and for those of you who choose to spend your time with me each week as I explore America’s past. I never could have imagined when I started this passion project in the summer of 2020 that I would still be publishing weekly episodes all about U.S. history, but I am so happy to be here and I hope you all continue to stick around for 300 more. Thank you for listening - now let's dive in.  

I’ve spent the better part of the last year exploring the various aspects, nuances, and major events of the Reconstruction era - a period in American history that, in my humble opinion, does not get enough attention. I opened my focus on the era by exploring the Freedmen’s Bureau back in September 2024 and since then have covered the political fights to protect the franchise - such as the passage and enforcement of the Ku Klux Klan Acts, and the individuals who fought for a multiracial democracy such as Robert Smalls. And while there may be a few more episodes that fall within the time period known as Reconstruction, I think I am at a natural concluding point and what better way to spend episode 300 than in reflection about one of the most impactful eras in American history. Reconstruction promised a new birth of freedom, but its collapse left unresolved questions about citizenship, rights, and power that shaped everything to come.

So this week, I am diving into the legacy of Reconstruction. What did Reconstruction truly achieve? What did it leave undone? How did its successes and failures echo into the Gilded Age? In what ways did the end of Reconstruction redefine freedom, race, and opportunity in America?

Grab your cup of coffee, peeps. Let’s do this. 

Most historians agree that the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 spelled the end for Reconstruction. I plan on covering the election and the quote unquote compromise it took to get Hayes into the White House in a future episode, but in brief, once elected, Hayes ordered federal troops out of the south, allowing Democrats to restore their power throughout the former confederacy. As the last Union soldiers boarded their trains north, a generation’s great experiment in democracy stood at a crossroads. What had been rebuilt — and what was being abandoned?

The impact of federal troops departing the South was profound, leaving both a physical and symbolic void. Freedmen – many of whom fought on behalf of the federal union – could do little more than watch as the blue uniforms faded from view. They no doubt knew that the loss of a federal presence, and by extension federal support, marked a concluding chapter in a book still unwritten. That, to borrow from the astute W.E.B. DuBois, they had enjoyed their last moment in the sun and needed to prepare for what a new reality would look like. White southerners who had been desperate to return to an era before the Civil War where they enjoyed political and economic control, broke out in celebration over the “end of Reconstruction,” hoping and believing that their once firm, monopolistic grasp on power and influence was set to return. 

Despite its short life, Reconstruction laid the legal and moral foundations for future civil rights struggles and thanks to the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Black Americans enjoyed new protections and were finally recognized - at least legally - as citizens of the United States. These were not simple, isolated legal victories. Passing the Reconstruction Era Amendments was a constitutional revolution and is one reason why historians often refer to Reconstruction as a second founding of the United States. As Political Scientist Matthew Brogdon and I chatted about during our conversation about Reconstruction, the three amendments passed immediately after the war constituted the first time Congress outlined what the federal government COULD do - Remember the Bill of Rights was all about limiting the power of the federal government. With the reconstruction amendments, Congress was now empowered to act. 

Given the briefest of windows to effectuate change, African American legislators fought hard for one of the most enduring legacies of reconstruction: education. Black Americans knew their only chance for survival and prosperity lay in developing an educated community. Until its closure, establishing schoolhouses was one of the main duties of the Freedmens Bureau, who coordinated with northern benevolent societies to help recruit teachers to journey south to educate Black Americans of all ages. And when federal resources ran dry and otherwise proved to be insufficient, Black communities worked together to raise money to fund new school houses and pay teachers’ salaries. This commitment to education extended to creating a number of Historically Black College and Universities where Black Americans could enjoy a brief respite from the ongoing racial turmoil and violence dominant throughout the south during Jim Crow. 

Of course, for all its legislative and community wins - and temporary extension of political power - Reconstruction was an era filled with violence. According to a report published by the Equal Justice Initiative, there were over 2,000 Black Americans who lost their lives during Reconstruction, specifically spanning the years 1865 to 1876. The authors of the report highlight that this figure is almost certainly an undercount since there were likely scores of victims who chose not to report crimes to authorities. This same report compares the number of documented murders during reconstruction to the over 4,400 victims claimed between 1877 and 1950 - nearly 75 years compared to the 11 years studied during Reconstruction. Framing the violence another way - researchers documented 34 separate instances of mass lynchings during Reconstruction including in Louisiana in September 1868 when roughly 200 Black Americans were killed over a span of a few days for attempting to participate in the political process. 

The violence was so pervasive and disruptive that President Ulysses S. Grant deployed troops to areas throughout the former confederacy in an effort to protect the lives of Americans and maintain the peace so that Americans - both white and black - could participate in local elections and exercise their right to the vote in a somewhat safe environment. Yet it was the constant onslaught of violence - and the need for federal intervention - that contributed to Reconstruction’s collapse. Political fatigue spread throughout the country and Americans from coast to coast slowly but surely lost the will to intervene with their southern neighbors. Economic priorities like railroad expansion and the industrial growth of the north shifted national attention away from civil rights and by extension, away from Reconstruction policies. 

This fatigue was perhaps best expressed with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. Shortly after Hayes’ inauguration, troops standing guard at statehouses throughout the south were ordered to vacate and by the end of April 1877, the last group marched out of Louisiana. Federal retreat did more than just return the issues of Black equality, political rights, and economic opportunity to the states – it opened the door for “home rule,” continued violence, and Jim Crow. The road to the Gilded Age was paved during Reconstruction. The expansion of federal authority during the Civil War and Reconstruction set precedents for later federal involvement in business and infrastructure. Framed this way, the Gilded Age didn’t emerge after Reconstruction — it grew out of it.

The racial caste system solidified in the South mirrored new class divisions forming in the North’s industrial centers — both justified by ideas of “natural order.” And as Reconstruction ended, capital and labor became the new battleground. The same government that withdrew from protecting Black rights turned its attention to protecting corporate interests. This, in part, helped give rise to the robber barons that would come to be synonymous with the era. In the decades ahead, the United States would see a new kind of reconstruction — not of people’s rights, but of wealth, power, and industry. But that’s still in the future for us dear listeners. 

So - did Reconstruction fail? Well, according to one of the most respected historians of the era, the answer is yes. Eric Foner highlights the rejection of attempts at land reform and the pervasive political violence as two core factors in undercutting Reconstruction’s success. Without land reform, Foner highlights, African Americans were unable to establish financial independence and were instead locked into cycles of poverty that continued through generations. Reconstruction ended, but its questions never did. What is freedom? Who belongs? Who decides? From the railroads to the robber barons, from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education, America kept circling back to 1865 — to that brief, bright moment when everything seemed possible.

The one question I get asked about the episodes I produce - but something that happened with increased frequency during Reconstruction - was what if things had gone differently? What if Abraham Lincoln wasn’t assassinated? What if Andrew Johnson decided against issuing blanket pardons for the Americans who rose up against the federal government? What if?

I think it is hard to say for certain what the United States - and the world - might look like today had things gone a different way. And as a historian, my job is to interpret the past and provide context so that hopefully listeners feel better prepared should similar situations arise in the future. But given just how many of you asked the big what if questions during this era on the podcast, I will offer my best, educated guess - first, had Abraham Lincoln not been murdered by an assassin's bullet, I do not see an Andrew Johnson presidency. Johnson was incredibly unpopular in the south given his decision to support the federal union and I am not sure he had the political skillset to win over northern voters. But without an Andrew Johnson presidency I am not sure we would have Ulysses S. Grant - Grant was chosen because there was a desire to bring some stability to the nation. Would the country still want a Grant if Lincoln had survived? 

I am also not certain that Lincoln would have been the great crusader for civil rights that I many Americans believe. It is easy to push ideals onto one man - especially a man killed in his prime before he had an opportunity to disappoint. But like John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln was an imperfect man in an imperfect time. Lincoln’s initial reunification plan focused more on forgiveness than punishment. He never got the chance to fully develop his vision for what Reconstruction would look like, but Lincoln was committed to reuniting the country. Thus I am not sure any former confederates - except for maybe those in leadership positions - would have faced anything akin to punishment. And as for what the country might look like had the south not launched its redemption campaign and overtook political power in the former confederacy… Again it’s hard to say. The thing about history is that it only informs. It illuminates what our ancestors faced before and how they reacted - it gives us a chance to learn from past wins – as well previous mistakes – so that we can hopefully be in a better position if faced with similar troubling times. 

When considering the totality of Reconstruction - the fights for rights - whether economic, political, or personal - is what stands out for me. Reconstruction represented an era of what was possible. It was an attempt - however imperfect and incomplete - at rebuilding a new kind of America. One that could better live it to its ideals that all men are created equal. But it was an America that not everyone was ready for - and one that many fought to discredit. The victory over Reconstruction put the United States on a path toward the Gilded Age where it chased a new kind of Reconstruction - one built not on ballots and rights, but on factories and fortunes. 

Thanks peeps. I will see you next week.