Why Reconstruction Failed African Americans by 1900
This essay examines why the Reconstruction Era failed to achieve equality for African Americans by 1900. Drawing on Frederick Douglass's 1866 Atlantic essay, Andrew Johnson's pardon proclamation, and landmark cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, the paper argues that federal government inaction—particularly President Johnson's laissez-faire approach—allowed the Southern aristocracy to reassert control, Jim Crow laws to take hold, and the Ku Klux Klan to rise. The arrival of carpetbaggers and scalawags further undermined meaningful reform, leaving freed Black Americans without land, legal protection, or political representation, ultimately driving the Great Migration northward.
- Introduction: Lincoln's Vision and Reconstruction's Promise: Lincoln's ideals versus Reconstruction's troubled reality
- Johnson's Lenient Approach and Its Consequences: Johnson's hands-off policy empowered Southern resistance
- Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Death of Reconstruction: Supreme Court legitimizes racial segregation
- Carpetbaggers, Scalawags, and the Abandonment of Black Americans: Northern opportunists fail freed Black Americans
- Conclusion: Why Reconstruction Failed: Federal and judicial failures doomed Reconstruction
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Integrates primary sources skillfully — Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Johnson's pardon proclamation, and Douglass's 1866 Atlantic essay are woven into the argument rather than merely listed.
- Uses Douglass's own words as a counterpoint to Johnson's policy, creating a clear ideological contrast that drives the thesis forward.
- Maintains a focused, single-thread argument: federal failure enabled Southern resistance, which in turn destroyed Reconstruction's goals for Black Americans.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of direct quotation as argumentative evidence. Rather than paraphrasing, the author lets Douglass's 1866 passage speak at length, then immediately analyzes how it exposes the gap between Reconstruction's promise and Johnson's practice. This quote-then-analyze structure gives the argument documentary weight and models close reading of historical primary sources.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with Lincoln's vision as the moral baseline, then traces the collapse of that vision through Johnson's permissiveness, the Supreme Court's "separate but equal" ruling, and the exploitative role of carpetbaggers and scalawags. A brief but direct conclusion ties these failures back to the thesis. Each body paragraph advances a distinct causal factor in Reconstruction's failure, making the overall argument cumulative and logically ordered.
Introduction: Lincoln's Vision and Reconstruction's Promise
President Lincoln stated in his Second Inaugural Address that the United States, now whole again, should work "to bind up the nation's wounds" — but with his assassination, and the voice of America's better angels now gone, Reconstruction got off to a rockier start than the deceased president would have hoped to see. Reconstruction was supposed to be a new dawn of brotherhood: the South was to be forgiven, and Black Americans were supposed to be equal. What had been razed to the ground during Sherman's March to the Sea was now to be rebuilt so that order could be re-established. Frederick Douglass, writing in The Atlantic in 1866, stated that enfranchisement of the free Black would only come if the federal government passed laws to protect the newly freed former slaves and brought the law of the North into the South.
What happened, however, was something else entirely. The spirit of the South continued on: the Ku Klux Klan arose from the ashes of Sherman's March. Jim Crow laws reigned where Douglass had hoped to see Yankee law prevail. Reconstruction floundered and racism persisted. This paper argues that the goals of Reconstruction regarding African Americans were not achieved by 1900 because of a failure of the federal government to oversee the Era of Reconstruction effectively and to eradicate the racist doctrines and organizations of the South.
Johnson's Lenient Approach and Its Consequences
President Johnson essentially gave the South a free hand in determining how the Reconstruction Lincoln had envisioned would be carried out, and this set the tenor for the times. Free Black Americans were not provided for: Johnson returned most of the land of the South to its original owners. The Southern aristocracy returned to power, ensuring that freed Black Americans would not be enfranchised. Johnson stated in his 1865 pardon proclamation:
"I hereby grant and assure to all persons of color who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, a free pardon; and that I hereby grant and assure to all white persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, a full pardon."
A year later, however, Frederick Douglass was offering his own assessment of the so-called Reconstruction that Johnson was really delivering:
"They demand such a reconstruction as shall put an end to the present anarchical state of things in the late rebellious States — where frightful murders and wholesale massacres are perpetrated in the very presence of Federal soldiers… They want a reconstruction such as will protect loyal men, black and white, in their persons and property; such a one as will cause Northern industry, Northern capital, and Northern civilization to flow into the South, and make a man from New England as much at home in Carolina as elsewhere in the Republic. No Chinese wall can now be tolerated. The South must be opened to the light of law and liberty."
The problem was that Douglass's vision was not the same as the Reconstruction Johnson was actually offering. Johnson wanted a laissez-faire approach — hands off. He wanted to let the South police itself and reconstruct itself. He had no sense of the better angels that Lincoln had spoken of, and he surely had no intention of effecting the kind of Reconstruction that Douglass argued was necessary.
Conclusion: Why Reconstruction Failed
Reconstruction failed to achieve its goals because nothing was done to reduce the animosity that the old Southern aristocracy felt toward the new radical Republicans who supported the federal government's program. The Old South was still bitter about the war — and the "the South will rise again" sentiment was evident in the rise of the KKK, which emerged from Southern resentment toward a Union that had abolished slavery and overturned the existing social order. The Supreme Court did nothing to prevent Jim Crow from taking hold; its "separate but equal" ruling revealed exactly how little the federal government truly valued the rights of African Americans.
Works Cited
A&E. "Carpetbaggers and Scalawags." History, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/carpetbaggers-and-scalawags
Douglass, Frederick. "Reconstruction." The Atlantic, 1866. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1866/12/reconstruction/304561/
Guelzo, Allen. "Reconstruction Didn't Fail. It Was Overthrown." Time, 2018. http://time.com/5256940/reconstruction-failure-excerpt/
Johnson, Andrew. "A Proclamation." Digital History, 1865. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_pardon1.html
Lincoln, Abraham. Second Inaugural Address, 1865. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp
McBride, Alex. "Plessy v. Ferguson." Thirteen, 2007. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_plessy.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.