i have to agree with Kelly- i found guelzo's "breakdown" of reconstruction very interesting... it helped me consolidate many ideas that have been floating around in my head about the post-war experience. in reading, it struck me that we as students of history, we like to catagorize history under some sort of genre. by that i mean, we say that "such and such event was good for the north but upseting to the south" for example-- this example shows a broad generalization about a historical event.... in reality, the event in question may have been beneficial to a majority of northerners, but certainly not all of them. do you see? we like neatly defined historical summaries that fit into our little comprehensive boxes... by filling these "boxes" we throw vital intricacies to the wayside. shame on us! those intricacies are key in truly understanding the issue at hand.... and in understanding the frustrations/concerns/elation of the people who faced the perplexing oddities and details of the time and event.
i found david's discussion to raise an interesting point, reagarding the nature of reconstruction as purely political. i agree with him in many ways.... but at what point do reconstruction measures shift from political/ideological plans to active/practical measures? in reality, who/what are the vehicles of this transition? could more applicable measures have been taken in early reconstruction that would have made the process more practically efficient than political measures are capable of? would this have really worked, or is the political/ideological state necessary before the practical can occur? hmm.... food for thought... alright, sadly i'm signing off from this, my last posting.... its been fun folks.... and academically stimulating...bye y'all.