What did historians argue about the Reconstruction era in the 1960s?

• A. That it was a significant effort undermined by white Southerners and a faltering Northern electorate.
• B. That it was a complete success with no opposition.
• C. That it had no impact on later civil rights.
• D. That it was only an economic reform.

Answer: (A)

Historians in the 1960s reassessed Reconstruction as a bold, national effort to remake the South and secure civil rights for freedpeople, rather than a simple, hopeless failure. They argued that the era did achieve meaningful political and constitutional changes—new state governments in the South, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau— but it was brutally opposed by white Southerners through violence, Black Codes, and organized intimidation. At the same time, support in the North waned as political attention and energy shifted elsewhere, allowing Reconstruction policies to unravel. So the best choice captures Reconstruction as a significant endeavor that was undermined by white Southern resistance and a faltering Northern electorate. The other options misstate the period by denying opposition, denying lasting civil rights impact, or reducing Reconstruction to an economic reform only.