Text 1: Historian Park argues that Reconstruction (1865–1877) failed because of insufficient federal commitment. When troops withdrew from the South, white supremacist violence overwhelmed Black political participation; without sustained military enforcement, the constitutional gains of the postwar amendments could not be defended on the ground.
Text 2: Historian Singh accepts the role of withdrawn military enforcement but argues that "failure" is the wrong frame. Reconstruction's accomplishments — three constitutional amendments, Black officeholders elected to Congress, public schools established — were real and outlasted the period. The story is less one of total failure than of ground gained, lost, and slowly re-won over the following century. Framing matters.
The authors most clearly disagree about
- Acheck_circle
whether failure is the appropriate overall framing for Reconstruction.
- B
whether federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877.
- C
whether constitutional amendments were ratified after the Civil War.
- D
whether Black Americans were elected to Congress during Reconstruction.
Explanation
Both accept the military withdrawal, the amendments, and Black officeholding. They differ on the framing of "failure." B captures the dispute.