S it more accurate to say that presidents adapt to the critical events Essay

S it more accurate to say that presidents adapt to the critical events that happen during their time in power, or are they more - Essay Example The United States, which is both the greatest economy and democracy in the world, has influenced the course of history of the world. It therefore provides a definite relationship between presidents and the historical occurrences. Among iconic presidents of the United States was Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States who served until his untimely assassination in 1865. The events in his tenure including his assassination depicted the influence that the presidents had in shaping the history of their times. He served during some of the most tumultuous times in the country. He led the country through the most historic constitutional, moral and military crisis. His contribution and time in office thus makes him the best president whose analysis may easily depict the role of presidents in influencing the history of their tenures (Burkhimer, 2003). Additionally, he provides an effective basis of comparison with some of the recent presidents such as the incumbent presi dent Barack Obama and George Bush among many others who also served during some of the most tumultuous times in the history of the country. Presidents are always at the help of politics. They are influential people who readily access all the power brokers in a country. The American politics consists of a set of members of parliaments and senators all of who are influential in managing the domestic politics in the different states. The presidents on the other hand has influence over such and enjoy vast constitutional power to institute policies but with the consent of such politicians. Born and raised in a poor American family at a time that capitalism and slave trade was at the pick, Abraham Lincoln educated himself and later joined politics. He lost a senate seat in 1858 for maintaining a hard line rejection for the plan to expand slavery. He was determined to end slavery in the country. Though not a Member of Parliament, the president influenced the lawmakers during his tenure as the president of the United States thus succeeding in emancipating the African Americans. The liberation of the black society in the United States was one of the greatest historical occurrence in the country that earned Abraham Lincoln both friends and foes in equal measure thus possibly leading to his assassination. His role in liberating the African Americans and safeguarding the rights of the marginalized society to take part in election in the country’s constitution was a self-depiction of the influence that presidents have over the historical occurrences. Slave trade had employed millions of American capitalism merchants; it had necessitated the agrarian revolution thus developing the country’s economy. Vouching for the abolition of slave trade and developing an equal American society in which the African Americans would enjoy equal rights as their white counterparts was therefore a major historical occurrence. The success to end slavery was not a timely occurrenc e; it was not any time coming. President Abraham Lincoln worked hard and tried all he could to convince and black mail some of the members of parliament to accept and pass the bill that would change the country’s constitution. The desire to free the society had cost him his political career in the past but his determination finally bore fruits thus possibly resulting in his assassination. The life and works of president Abraham Lincoln portrays the influence tha

Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown †Point of View Essay -- Young Goodma

     Ã‚   In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† how does the author present the characters, dialogue, actions, setting and events which comprise the narrative in this short story? This essay will answer these questions. R. W. B. Lewis in â€Å"The Return into Time: Hawthorne† states that â€Å"there is always more to the world in which Hawthorne’s characters move than any one of them can see at a glance† (77). In Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† this fact is especially true since the main character, Goodman Brown, is a naà ¯ve hero and since the narrator tells much of the story through the limited point of view of the protagonist. In this story the author uses a third-person narrator, who uses proper names and third-person pronouns to designate the various characteris in the tale: YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN came forth at sunset, into the street of Salem village, but put his head back, after crossing the threshold, to exchange a parting kiss with his young wife. And Faith, as the wife was aptly named, thrust her own pretty head into the street, letting the wind play with the pink ribbons of her cap, while she called to Goodman Brown.   The narrator possesses the capability of reading the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist, the young Puritan husband, Goodman Brown, only, from among all the characters. As Brown turns the corner at the meeting house, he thinks: "Poor little Faith!" thought he, for his heart smote him. "What a wretch am I, to leave her on such an errand! She talks of dreams, too. Methought, as she spoke, there was trouble in her face, as if a dream had warned her what work is to be done tonight. But, no, no! 'twould kill her to think it. Well; she's a blessed angel on earth; and after this one night, I'l... ...agonist as the character through whom the perceptions of the site are arriving to the reader. This inconsistency of viewpoint within given paragraphs may be a source for ambiguity within the tale. In conclusion, we have seen how in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† the author presents the characters, dialogue, actions, setting and events which comprise the narrative in this short story, and what may be a source of ambiguity in the tale.  Ã‚      WORKS CITED Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. â€Å"Young Goodman Brown.† 1835. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~daniel/amlit/goodman/goodmantext.html Lewis, R. W. B. â€Å"The Return into Time: Hawthorne.† In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

Religion’s Effect on American Policies

America is a country that is characterized as being a nation with multiple cultures, multiple ethnicities, and multiple religions. Plurality in all aspects of American society’s classifications is something that is espoused by most Americans. Numerous individuals with different backgrounds come together on American soil to form and make up the nation that is established on equality and democracy. Inclusion of all the diverse backgrounds present within this democratic society is the main goal of most American social institutions. Religion is one of the main aspects of an individual’s background that influences his or her behavior and analysis about life. Religion in America goes beyond an individual’s everyday life. (Minkenberg, 2) In fact, religion even affects the numerous American policies conceptualized by the government. Religion is such a potent force that its effect on American policies is not even dependent on the rate of citizens that attend churches for the different religions present in the United States. Minkenberg, 2) This means that religion is able to affect change in US government policies despite possible increases or decreases in religious Americans over given periods of time. The effects on American policies are not a result of the country becoming more religious as a whole but rather on the strength of religion itself as an entity enforcing change in political systems. (Minkenber, 5) There are many who emphasize their disagreement with religion’s effect on American pol icy. These individuals believe that religion should not be allowed to affect government policies so strongly or at all. However, it is this paper’s argument that religion should is not a necessary aspect of policy-making and that religion affecting American foreign policy should not be acceptable or encouraged. A presentation of the valid arguments with regard to this thesis will be made. Counter arguments will also be presented and refuted in order to provide a clear view into the fact that religion is indeed one of the crucial factors to be considered by America’s policy-making bodies. Before establishing why religion is not an important aspect of American policies, it should first be established that religion is in fact affecting the said policies.A Study on Religion and the Role of It on People and Media†¦. One clear example is given by the policies made during the administration of President George W. Bush. Despite the fact that America is experiencing a decrease in church-goers, it is measured to be more religious than equivalent Western countries in Europe. This is evidenced by its housing of more than 200 television channels for evangelism. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Religion is seen to take a role in the government’s policy-making decisions through the highly religious character of the President, himself. The United States’ stand on Israel is a clear case of Christianity becoming the driving force behind foreign policies. Instead of considering the interests of America, as a whole, the drive is largely to expand Christianity and to establish its hold on a nation like Israel. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith stresses that religion, specifically Christianity, has affected America in terms of sex and drug policies. Policies such as those against abortion are clear examples of the effects of religion on American policies. Harris goes on to critique such policies as being the main factors behind America’s moving towards a formation of a theocratic society, a society believing that its course is determined by a divine being. Religions role in America must not be equated to its role in a theocratic society. (God and American diplomacy, 33) This is a clear inability to separate church from state, one of the most essential aspects of American society. This is also a clear argument against religion’s evident role in American policy-making. Another clear argument against religion affecting American policies is based on the fact that America is a multi-cultural nation. It houses numerous different religions. Not all religions have the same positions and beliefs regarding policies. (God and American diplomacy, 33) As a result, when religion is allowed to affect US national and international policies, only a few of the total number of religions in the country are represented. It is only those religions with the loudest voices in America or those with members in the upper echelons of power that are able to affect changes in policies. This is no longer democracy or equality at work. However, there are those who posit that religion is in fact necessary in the development and implementation of American policies. One of the arguments for religion to be considered in policy-making lies on the fact that America’s relationship with other nations may be based on such religious foundations. A number of the international conflicts occurring today are largely religious in nature or are motivated by religious traditions. (Minkenberg, 4) One clear example is the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. Miles, 23) Although there are many reasons behind the said attack, there is no doubt that religion played a role. Miles (35-37), indicates that a strengthening of American foreign policy towards a confirmation of US religious freedom would show countries, such as those the September 11 terrorists were associated to, that America does not pose a religious threat on anyone. Protection of the country through a portr ayal of its acceptance of all religions with equal regard via the mechanisms of American policies is said to be very much a necessity in a world that is largely classified by religious traditions and belief system. However, espousal of religious freedom does not equate to allowing religion to dominate American policies. Also, this logic assumes that if other nations are shown that religion is widely accepted in America, other points of conflict will be foregone. Religion may be one of the motivations behind international conflicts but it is not a primary factor behind the said conflicts. Addressing economic and political factors would be more prudent as opposed to simply allowing religion to take free reign. Also, religion is shown to only be useful to policies when taken at this angle: America has numerous religions. We accept them all. This is not the true form of religion’s effects on American policy and does not even begin to address the numerous global implications of the weightier religion-based policies of America such as those made regarding Israel. Another argument states that religion is actually a very potent source of adaptive social change. Patrick Fagan states some of the social benefits that are derived from religion in his article Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability. He indicates that through religion, marital happiness and stability are increased, parent-child relationships are strengthened, educational aspirations and achievement are increased, physical health is improved, well-being and happiness are increased, crime rates are lowered, and community-cohesion is strengthened. In Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability, Fagan indicates that the separation of church and state simply meant that a single state-approved church could not be allowed to exist. He imposes his ideas that the government, especially Congress, should educate themselves with regards to the benefits to be derived from religion and its practice. He also stresses that policies should be made with religion in mind and that data on religion’s potency should be included and considered in debates and discussions regarding American policy. Because religion is effective in creating social change in empirical studies conducted in the community-level, it should thus be considered for policies whose implementation will involve an entire nation’s population. The main problem with Fagan’s account of religion and then his recommendations for its use in policy-making is that the success of religion’s success on marginal issues will not equate to its success in essential issues. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Just because religion was shown to have a high value in practices and regulations set for smaller populations doesn’t mean that it will be able to give an equal value for policies and rules set for the entire nation of America. Read also Analyze the Ways in Which British Imperial Policies Also, because it was able to generate positive feedback for areas such as marriage, crime, and community cohesion, it does not mean that religion will be able to generate adaptive ideas for the more complex issues of the same area. These issues may include homosexual marriages, death penalty imposition, and community governance. For more complex matters as the latter, religion is no longer relevant and allowing it to become a factor in such policies would not only be foolhardy but would even be dangerous in the long run. Also, religion’s application on a small scale with individuals practicing only one type of religion does not indicate that it will have equal applicability in a nation that has numerous different religions. The separation of church and state does include that no specific state-ordained church must exist. However, the reasons and thinking behind such a separation are deeper than simply allowing for religious freedom. Considerations such as oppression of the minority and inability to account for all the beliefs and principles of the collection of religions in America were also made. It is clear that religion is indeed affecting American policies. This change is not warranted and should not be condoned. Policy-makers should take an active stand for the separation of church and state. Policies with religion as one of its factors will, in the end, prove to be biased and geared towards the betterment of only one part of American society. Government decisions should be based on more economic, political, and democratic norms. America is a country that is characterized as being a nation with multiple cultures, multiple ethnicities, and multiple religions. Plurality in all aspects of American society’s classifications is something that is espoused by most Americans. Numerous individuals with different backgrounds come together on American soil to form and make up the nation that is established on equality and democracy. Inclusion of all the diverse backgrounds present within this democratic society is the main goal of most American social institutions. Religion is one of the main aspects of an individual’s background that influences his or her behavior and analysis about life. Religion in America goes beyond an individual’s everyday life. (Minkenberg, 2) In fact, religion even affects the numerous American policies conceptualized by the government. Religion is such a potent force that its effect on American policies is not even dependent on the rate of citizens that attend churches for the different religions present in the United States. (Minkenberg, 2) This means that religion is able to affect change in US government policies despite possible increases or decreases in religious Americans over given periods of time. The effects on American policies are not a result of the country becoming more religious as a whole but rather on the strength of religion itself as an entity enforcing change in political systems. (Minkenber, 5) There are many who emphasize their disagreement with religion’s effect on American policy. These individuals believe that religion should not be allowed to affect government policies so strongly or at all. However, it is this paper’s argument that religion should is not a necessary aspect of policy-making and that religion affecting American foreign policy should not be acceptable or encouraged. A presentation of the valid arguments with regard to this thesis will be made. Counter arguments will also be presented and refuted in order to provide a clear view into the fact that religion is indeed one of the crucial factors to be considered by America’s policy-making bodies. Before establishing why religion is not an important aspect of American policies, it should first be established that religion is in fact affecting the said policies. One clear example is given by the policies made during the administration of President George W. Bush. Despite the fact that America is experiencing a decrease in church-goers, it is measured to be more religious than equivalent Western countries in Europe. This is evidenced by its housing of more than 200 television channels for evangelism. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Religion is seen to take a role in the government’s policy-making decisions through the highly religious character of the President, himself. The United States’ stand on Israel is a clear case of Christianity becoming the driving force behind foreign policies. Instead of considering the interests of America, as a whole, the drive is largely to expand Christianity and to establish its hold on a nation like Israel. (God and American diplo macy, 33) Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith stresses that religion, specifically Christianity, has affected America in terms of sex and drug policies. Policies such as those against abortion are clear examples of the effects of religion on American policies. Harris goes on to critique such policies as being the main factors behind America’s moving towards a formation of a theocratic society, a society believing that its course is determined by a divine being. Religions role in America must not be equated to its role in a theocratic society. (God and American diplomacy, 33) This is a clear inability to separate church from state, one of the most essential aspects of American society. This is also a clear argument against religion’s evident role in American policy-making. Another clear argument against religion affecting American policies is based on the fact that America is a multi-cultural nation. It houses numerous different religions. Not all religions have the same positions and beliefs regarding policies. (God and American diplomacy, 33) As a result, when religion is allowed to affect US national and international policies, only a few of the total number of religions in the country are represented. It is only those religions with the loudest voices in America or those with members in the upper echelons of power that are able to affect changes in policies. This is no longer democracy or equality at work. However, there are those who posit that religion is in fact necessary in the development and implementation of American policies. One of the arguments for religion to be considered in policy-making lies on the fact that America’s relationship with other nations may be based on such religious foundations. A number of the international conflicts occurring today are largely religious in nature or are motivated by religious traditions. (Minkenberg, 4) One clear example is the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. (Miles, 23) Although there are many reasons behind the said attack, there is no doubt that religion played a role. Miles (35-37), indicates that a strengthening of American foreign policy towards a confirmation of US religious freedom would show countries, such as those the September 11 terrorists were associated to, that America does not pose a religious threat on anyone. Protection of the country through a portrayal of its acceptance of all religions with equ al regard via the mechanisms of American policies is said to be very much a necessity in a world that is largely classified by religious traditions and belief system. However, espousal of religious freedom does not equate to allowing religion to dominate American policies. Also, this logic assumes that if other nations are shown that religion is widely accepted in America, other points of conflict will be foregone. Religion may be one of the motivations behind international conflicts but it is not a primary factor behind the said conflicts. Addressing economic and political factors would be more prudent as opposed to simply allowing religion to take free reign. Also, religion is shown to only be useful to policies when taken at this angle: America has numerous religions. We accept them all. This is not the true form of religion’s effects on American policy and does not even begin to address the numerous global implications of the weightier religion-based policies of America such as those made regarding Israel. Another argument states that religion is actually a very potent source of adaptive social change. Patrick Fagan states some of the social benefits that are derived from religion in his article Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability. He indicates that through religion, marital happiness and stability are increased, parent-child relationships are strengthened, educational aspirations and achievement are increased, physical health is improved, well-being and happiness are increased, crime rates are lowered, and community-cohesion is strengthened. In Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability, Fagan indicates that the separation of church and state simply meant that a single state-approved church could not be allowed to exist. He imposes his ideas that the government, especially Congress, should educate themselves with regards to the benefits to be derived from religion and its practice. He also stresses that policies should be made with religion in mind and that data on religion’s potency should be included and considered in debates and discussions regarding American policy. Because religion is effective in creating social change in empirical studies conducted in the community-level, it should thus be considered for policies whose implementation will involve an entire nation’s population. The main problem with Fagan’s account of religion and then his recommendations for its use in policy-making is that the success of religion’s success on marginal issues will not equate to its success in essential issues. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Just because religion was shown to have a high value in practices and regulations set for smaller populations doesn’t mean that it will be able to give an equal value for policies and rules set for the entire nation of America. Also, because it was able to generate positive feedback for areas such as marriage, crime, and community cohesion, it does not mean that religion will be able to generate adaptive ideas for the more complex issues of the same area. These issues may include homosexual marriages, death penalty imposition, and community governance. For more complex matters as the latter, religion is no longer relevant and allowing it to become a factor in such policies would not only be foolhardy but would eve n be dangerous in the long run. Also, religion’s application on a small scale with individuals practicing only one type of religion does not indicate that it will have equal applicability in a nation that has numerous different religions. The separation of church and state does include that no specific state-ordained church must exist. However, the reasons and thinking behind such a separation are deeper than simply allowing for religious freedom. Considerations such as oppression of the minority and inability to account for all the beliefs and principles of the collection of religions in America were also made. It is clear that religion is indeed affecting American policies. This change is not warranted and should not be condoned. Policy-makers should take an active stand for the separation of church and state. Policies with religion as one of its factors will, in the end, prove to be biased and geared towards the betterment of only one part of American society. Government decisions should be based on more economic, political, and democratic norms. References Anonymous. â€Å"God and American diplomacy.† Economist, 366(2003): 33 Business Source Premier. EBSCO. 18 April 2008 Fagan, Patrick F. â€Å"Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability.† 18 December 2006 Heritage Foundation. 18 April 2008 Harris, Sam. The End of Faith. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. Miles, Jack. â€Å"Religion and American foreign policy.† Survival, 46(2004): 23-37 Minkenberg, Michael. â€Å"Religious effects on immigration policies.† Paper presented at the ECPR 32nd Joint Session of Workshops, Uppsala, March 2004.

Reconstruction Eric Foner - 1673 Words

Nina Stiener Mr. Maynard APUSH Period 3 10 January 2010 Reconstruction: Eric Foner The Reconstruction time period, 1865 through 1877, was a complex time for America. The southern part of the nation was in need of governmental, economical, and social repair after losing the Civil War. Radical Republicans, Democrats, and newly freed African Americans all were influential in the age of Reconstruction. Historians have struggled to put into words exactly what Reconstruction incorporates and precisely what the motives of the different groups of people were. Renowned American historian, Eric Foner, is a professor at Columbia University. He has written many books concerning the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Eric Foner’s Reconstruction theory†¦show more content†¦Forever. 170). The Klan were white southerners who were organized and committed to the breaking down of Reconstruction. By methods of brutality, â€Å"the Klan during Reconstruction offers the most extensive example of homegrown terrorism in American history† ( Foner. Forever. 171). The Ku Klux Klan as well as other groups killed or tormented black politicians or threatened the blacks who voted in elections. The Klan strongly disagreed with the northern idea that slaves should become part of the government. The Historian Kenneth M. Stampp states, â€Å"for their [the North] supreme offense was not corruption but attempting to organize the Negroes for political action† (Stampp. Era. 159). This corresponds with Foner’s idea that the South was not open to the idea of change but more so consumed with the idea of recreating a society similar to one of the past. However, the goal of white power groups was not just politics. The Klan wanted to restore the hierarchy once controlling the South. Foner observes that, â€Å"the organization took on the function of the antebellum slave patrols: making sure that blacks did not violate the rules and etiquette of white supremacy† (Foner. Forever. 172). Like the power the southern whi tes formerly held over the slave population, the Ku Klux Klan wanted to control the African American population still living in the South. They did not want the freedmen to become integrated into their society because they saw them as lesser people. By suppressing andShow MoreRelatedHow Did The Radical Republican s Rise For The Failure Of The Post Civil War Reconstruction?1619 Words   |  7 Pageswar reconstruction? The time between 1863, when Lincoln passed the ten percent act, until the year 1877, when reconstruction was officially ended, will be evaluated with information provided by the sources. The investigation will specifically look to how the Lincoln assassination allowed for the rise in the Radical Republican Party from 1866 to 1868 and the party’s effect on reconstruction acts leading to the failure of the post-civil war reconstruction era. Eric Foner’s novel Reconstruction: AmericaRead MoreReconstruction Revisited Essay699 Words   |  3 Pagesâ€Å"Review of Reconstruction Revisited† In â€Å"Reconstruction Revisited†, Eric Foner reexamines the political, social, and economic experiences of black and white Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War. With the help of many historian works, Foner gives equal representation to both sides of the Reconstruction argument. Foner writes that nowhere, was the transfer in black life more profound than in politics. The amazing political mobilization of the black community was one of the most strikingRead MoreReview: the Continuing Evolution of Reconstruction History by Eric Foner961 Words   |  4 PagesIn this article, Foner states in his thesis that â€Å"since the early 1960s, a profound alteration of the place of blacks within American society, newly uncovered evidence, and changing definitions of history itself, have combined to transform our understanding of race relations, politics, and economic change during Reconstruction.† The article essentially encompasses the meaning of three different views of reconstruction: traditional, revisionist, and post-revisionist. After Foner defines these andRead MoreCauses Of Reconstruction829 Words   |  4 Pageswere gaining power. A time where change was coming. This change would be Reconstruction. Reconstructions purpose, in simplicity, was to bring the South back into the Union and to somehow integrate the freedmen. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson wanted to bring the South back in easily. Evidently, that didnt work out because of the Radical Republicans who wanted to make the South payback for what they did. Reconstruction has been quite the topic since after its irrupt end with the Compromise ofRead MoreThe Reconstruction Era ( 1865-1877 )1589 Words   |  7 PagesThe Reconstruction era (1865-1877) was a period of excitement for ex-slaves because they were declared free American citizens. However, all their expectations of freedom were not fulfilled as soon they expected because of the conflict their new freedom bore between them and their former masters. In this discussion, the focus of Eric Foner on the Reconstruction will be compared with that of P. Downs and Scott Nesbitt to get a clearer understanding of the occurrences of the period using their worksRead MoreThe Reconstruction Essay925 Words   |  4 PagesThe Reco nstruction Reconstruction is defined as the period following the Civil War in which the Republican-dominated Federal government sought to reunite the Union; the measure included drastically remodeling Southern society in order to secure equality and independence for blacks through granting them various freedoms. Many historians believe that in order to fully understand the modern United States, one must understand Reconstruction. Studying it, therefore, has beenRead MoreEssay on Could Reconstruction Have Been More Successful3586 Words   |  15 PagesHistory Term Paper Jack Conway Mr. Hilgendorf February 25, 2013 Word Count: 3234 Reconstruction: Rebuilding America The United States was founded on the belief that every man has â€Å"certain inalienable Rights.† Not until ninety years later, however, when slavery was abolished did the United States actually offer these â€Å"Rights† to all of its citizens. The 19th century was turbulent time of stress and change for America. One of the most controversial dilemmas was the issue of slaveryRead MoreVarious Policies Of The Us Government Toward Native American Tribes1614 Words   |  7 Pagesreconstructed them as new American citizens. In the end, they granted freedom. But due to a culture clash, that made it impossible Jodry 5 because the United States was now a workhorse of industrial, economical, political, and religious reconstruction. Reservations still exist today, but have grown smaller due to the holocaust that almost was by the American people. Part Two: 2. How did feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton describe domestic life for women in the document, Home Life (c.a.Read MoreEssay on Compromise of 18772213 Words   |  9 Pagesnineteenth-century. What is not generally known, and only very rarely acknowledged, is that after freeing the slaves held in the Southeastern portion of the U.S., the federal government abandoned these same African-Americans at the end of the Reconstruction period.2 The Republicans were losing their political clout. By agreeing to what has become known as the Compromise of 1877, the Republicans effectively abandoned the people they had fought so long to free. This was because this compromise betweenRead MoreThe Legacy Of Reconstruction And Reconstruction Essay2362 Words   |  10 PagesRecent books on Reconstruction†¦have infused their subjects with drama by focusing on violent confrontations,† Eric Foner notes in the introduction of the updated edition to his 1988 publication Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. Up until now, Foner’s revisionist historiography of Reconstruction was the only alternative offered to the Dunning School’s account of the important historical era. In recent years a neo-revisionist interpretation of Reconstruction has emerged in