Sparks Commentary: A review of “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

– Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1865)

The first episode covers events in Reconstruction under President Andrew Johnson

In 2004, PBS released a three-hour film called “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (not to be confused with this film). As far as I know, “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” was PBS’s first attempt to cover this unknown (but still important) subject. This prior 2004 film used a more traditional delineation of when Reconstruction began, and when it ultimately ended. PBS’s “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” came out in 2019 – fifteen years after the prior film. Both films start their story in roughly the same place. That is, major combat in the American Civil War was now ending with the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. We can only guess as to how Abraham Lincoln would have handled the complicated issues of postwar Reconstruction. This is because Abraham Lincoln was soon murdered by an assassin’s bullet in 1865. This meant that the task of Reconstruction would now be passed to his Southern-born successor Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, but he was still a committed racist. This would have important consequences for his policies regarding the former slaves, and how they were to be treated. The first episode of this film focuses on the Andrew Johnson portion of Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson served for nearly four years, finishing the term that he had inherited from Abraham Lincoln. (He had been Lincoln’s vice president for roughly a month before that.) But Andrew Johnson soon became the first president to be impeached. For these and other reasons (too complicated to detail here), Andrew Johnson thus failed to be elected in 1868. More about the reasons for this well-deserved failure here.

Freed blacks voting in New Orleans, 1867

The second episode covers events in Reconstruction under President Ulysses S. Grant

The election instead went to Ulysses S. Grant, the North’s great war hero of the conflict. The second episode thus focuses on the entire Ulysses S. Grant portion of Reconstruction. To me, this seemed curious, because Grant was a two-term president. That is, this film spends as much time on Andrew Johnson’s one-term presidency as they do on Grant’s two-term presidency. I’m not sure why they gave such short coverage to the Grant presidency. In fairness, this is (at least partially) a film about Black history, made by a Black filmmaker. And, with this in mind, Andrew Johnson’s openly racist policies would prove far more important to what befell African Americans during Reconstruction. Nonetheless, I was surprised to hear so little about Grant. Some of what this film said about Grant was a bit negative – such as their saying that Grant had been “unlikely” to be helpful to the Black man. Ulysses S. Grant had once owned a slave, although Grant had freed the only slave that he had ever owned. And Grant had initially been opposed to having Black soldiers in the Civil War. But, unlike many others of his time, Grant was willing to change his mind when confronted with the evidence about their ability to fight. From then on, Grant gave as much help to African Americans as anyone in that time could have possibly given them. It is strange that they do not acknowledge this here, although they do seem to acknowledge that he was at least better than Andrew Johnson.

Aftermath of Colfax massacre, 1873

The infamous “Compromise of 1877” is traditionally dated as the end of Reconstruction

But, in 1876, Ulysses S. Grant was then declining to run for a third term – something that would have been perfectly legal in those days. That is, this was prior to the passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951. That amendment would eventually forbid presidents to be elected more than twice. Thus, the Republican Party instead nominated Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. But there were 20 disputed electoral votes in that election. Crucially, Mr. Hayes would need all of these electoral votes to win. It thus fell to the Congress to make the decision, about who would get these disputed electoral votes. As often happens in Congress, a compromise was reached as the result of some backroom deals. Rutherford B. Hayes would thus get all 20 of the disputed electoral votes, making him into the new president. But he had been forced to make the fateful promise to withdraw the remaining federal troops from the South. At that time, the North’s patience with the ongoing violence in the South was waning. Thus, Hayes had little choice but to withdraw the troops. This is traditionally dated as the end of Reconstruction – the infamous “Compromise of 1877.” This was where the prior PBS film from 2004 (“Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”) had ended its story. But, for this 2019 film (“Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”), that is only the halfway point. That is, only the first two hours focus on the period traditionally delineated as “Reconstruction.” The last two hours focus on the undoing of Reconstruction, during the fateful years of Jim Crow. This means that the prior PBS film from 2004 actually spent more time on Reconstruction itself. It was a shorter film (only three hours), but the entirety of that 2004 film was focused on Reconstruction itself. “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” is a longer film (four hours in all), but only half of it focuses on what we would call “Reconstruction.” Your verdict about which film (if any) gives the better coverage … may thus depend on how you feel about their respective emphases. Personally, I thought that the earlier 2004 film may have lived up more to its title, and both titles’ critical use of the word “Reconstruction.” Nonetheless, the last two episodes of “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” also have some advantages of their own to offer, which might be worth discussing.

The electoral commission working out the “Compromise of 1877” (which ended Reconstruction)

However, the third and fourth episodes focus on the Jim Crow era, where Reconstruction was dismantled

The Jim Crow era of Black history has been covered extensively in many other films. To some degree, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (the maker of this film) had covered it elsewhere, in his other film “The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross.” If “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” offers any special advantages, it may be in showing how Reconstruction itself was being dismantled in later years. There is much discussion of the “Lost Cause” propaganda in the South, and their attempts to re-write history with a specific agenda in mind: to portray the Confederacy in a more positive light. For example, they mention the film “Birth of a Nation,” shown at the White House by then-President Woodrow Wilson in 1915. They also make statements about the statues of Confederate soldiers, put up by groups like the “United Daughters of the Confederacy.” Sometimes this film tries its best to make connections to modern times, which end up being somewhat misleading (even if unintentionally so). For example, they compare contemporary voter ID laws to the South’s efforts to suppress the Black vote during Jim Crow, with things like “literacy tests.” To me, this seems wildly inaccurate, but so goes the party line. Both the third and fourth episodes of this film are thus marred (at least somewhat) by silly political statements like this, which go far beyond the evidence. But, when they stick to actually giving a history of the times that they’re purporting to cover, even these third and fourth episodes have some positive things to contribute. For example, they talk about the hardships that African Americans faced, even as they talk about their fervent efforts to overcome such hardships in these prior times. I will also say that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is an interesting enough presenter. I particularly enjoy talking heads with great knowledge of their subjects, and Mr. Gates is certainly personable enough.

Conclusion: This film is still watchable despite its weaknesses, although not as good as PBS’s other film on this subject

Thus, this film is still watchable despite its weaknesses, and may still belong on the shelf of the American history buff. True Civil War buffs (and, of course, Reconstruction buffs) may want to consult both of these PBS films despite the weaknesses of this one. My preference is still for the coverage of “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (made in 2004). But “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” (made in 2019) does have some unique advantages to offer, and gives a more modern take on some of the issues raised by Reconstruction.

Some quotes from the Civil War amendments:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 1

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” – Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 4

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” – Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1870)

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” (PBS series)

A review of PBS’s “Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided”

A review of Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” (covers the antislavery amendment)

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

The Fourteenth Amendment is something of a mixed bag …

Who can vote in the United States? (The voting rights amendments)

A review of PBS’s “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”

Andrew Johnson: The man who botched Reconstruction

The most fascinating man in American history

A review of PBS’s “Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President”

Rutherford B. Hayes: Entering office by a margin of one electoral vote