Reconstruction and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric

by Nadalyn Criner

The Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric has many similarities and differences from the antebellum period. One of the main similarities is the role and importance of the black woman and the desire to earn her rights. One of the main differences is that the men focus on voting rights and their position in American society.
I find it interesting that the last reading selections were of black women fighting for their rights, but these readings focus more on the rights of black men, particularly respect and voting. The speeches are more demanding and the militancy in their voices is more evident. Black men were beginning to take more of a stance and made valid points that were difficult to be argued against. How can the country expect a man to honor the country yet treat that man inhumanely? Some of the topics that I encountered are lynching, burning people, and intimidation from voting.
During this era, black men focused on voting rights and their position in society. Each of the speeches that I read exemplified this. Frederick Douglas’ 1865 speech “What the Black Man Wants” demands voting rights for blacks and demands that whites not harass blacks once given these rights. One of his defenses for blacks receiving voting rights was that in 1776, blacks were citizens and had voting rights in 11/13 states because the nation was in trouble (p. 127). He argues that black men are still in slavery (in that year, 1865) in a sense. They were granted freedom but his position was that “to tell a man when he shall work, where he shall at, what he shall work, and for what he shall work is slavery (p.123).” I agree with him. During that time, blacks were granted their freedom, but I agree that blacks were not free. They were not free to do whatever wherever with whomever. He states that some have proposed the question of why do black men want voting rights and argue that some men have got along very well without voting rights and that women have gotten along very well without voting rights as well. Douglas’s defense is that one wrong does not make another wrong right. He admits inferiority but not natural inferiority. He argues that society has had a major role in the inferior feeling of blacks and that the feeling of inferiority is mental. He compares the oppression of blacks to that of the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans six centuries earlier (p. 126). He uses that as support for why the white should support the blacks in their fight for voting rights—they were once oppressed too so they know the feeling of oppression. I like one of the analogies that he makes stating that blacks know enough to vote if “they can be hung, if they can pay taxes to support the government, if they can shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, and if they know as much when he is sober as an Irishman when he is drunk” (p. 126). This statement is very true. How can the country belittle a race of men and argue incompetency, yet rely on that same man to support the country in various ways. This mention of the government transitions us to the speech made by Henry McNeal Turner “Black Christian Nationalist.” His speech speaks of the inequalities against blacks, especially black men. He proposes the question of “Am I not a man” (p. 131) which defends his position of why black men should have right. White men had rights then and those rights were only appointed to men, so why couldn’t black men have rights? I agree with him 100%. In relation to his mention of the government, he argues that black men should not do anything for the country until the country respects him as a man and gives him the rights of a man. This is demonstrated through his statements “never lift a finger nor raise a hand in defense of Georgia, unless Georgia acknowledges that you are men, and invests you with the rights pertaining to manhood” (p.131) and his mention of war stating “the black man cannot protect a country if the country doesn’t protect him.” He mentions that of all the things that blacks have done for the country and state, the only thing that they want in return is rights (p.131). Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s “Crusader for Justice” pays close attention to the issue of lynching. She gives three facts about lynching “color-line murder, crimes against women is the excuse, not cause, and national crime and requires national remedy” (p. 192). She states that lynching was used to prevent blacks from voting and some even went as far as to burn people.
As previously stated, the position of women differed in the era than the previous. In the previous era, women fought for and demanded their rights. In this era, women took a step back and supported the men. Women’s speeches were more supportive of men and their cause. For example, as I have previously mentioned, Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s message was about lynching and intimidation from voting specifically in regards to black men voting. Anna Julia Cooper’s 1892 speech “A Voice from the South” speaks of the woman and her need in this country. She speaks of women in a political sense to be supportive of men in voting. This is demonstrated through her statement that black women keep the black men solid in the Republican Party.
All in all, the antebellum period and the Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric era have similarities in that they both involved blacks fighting for their rights, but in the first era, the women took precedence and in the second, the women took the position of supporting the men. Furthermore, it was obvious that the tolerance level of blacks in regards to the cruelties and negligence of whites was decreasing drastically.