Week 15 Discussion — How Far Did Reconstruction Fail? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

In 1868 the 14th Amendment wrote into the Constitution that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". Nine years later, in 1877, federal troops left the last Southern statehouses they protected, and Reconstruction ended amid white-supremacist violence and Northern retreat. This week you learned what each amendment did, what freedpeople built, and the violence that opposed them, and those facts are not in question. What historians still debate is how to weigh them.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Historians still debate how far Reconstruction failed. One side argues that it failed: by 1877 the national government had abandoned freedpeople's protection, few received land, and violence had driven many Black voters from the polls. Another side argues that it achieved lasting change: the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments stayed in the Constitution, and the families, churches, and schools freedpeople built endured. A third view holds that failed is the wrong word, because Reconstruction was overthrown by violence. Which reading do you find strongest for the years from 1865 to 1877? Take a position, support it with at least one Reconstruction amendment and at least one thing freedpeople did or suffered, and state the strongest case for one of the other readings as fairly as its best defender would.

Option B: The three Reconstruction amendments did different things: the 13th abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; the 14th made all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizens and barred states from denying due process or the equal protection of the laws; the 15th barred denying the vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Which of the three did the most to change what freedom and citizenship meant for freedpeople between 1865 and 1877? Take a position, ground it in a close reading of that amendment's pinned fragment and in what freedpeople did with it, and state the strongest case for one of the other two as fairly as its best defender would.

Neither option asks whether the violence of these years happened or what the amendments say; the course states those facts plainly. Each option asks a question of weight or judgment that careful readers of the same evidence still answer differently, and the course keys no verdict on either. Keep both options in the years from 1865 to 1877: neither is a question about present-day parties, politicians, voting fights, or policy. Pick the option you care about, and make your case.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say which reading of Reconstruction you find strongest, support it with at least one amendment and at least one thing freedpeople did or suffered, and state the strongest case for another reading; for Option B, name the amendment you think changed the most, ground it in its pinned fragment and what freedpeople did with it, and state the strongest case for one of the other two.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (Presidential Reconstruction, Congressional Reconstruction, Black Codes, freedpeople, 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, equal protection of the laws, 15th Amendment, Ku Klux Klan, end of Reconstruction) correctly.
• Quote only the course's pinned fragments, word for word, with the document and its date.
• End with one plain sentence that names what your evidence shows and what it does not.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep present-day parties, politicians, and controversies out of your examples.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: state a stronger version of the reading the poster argued against, point to a place where the poster mixed up two amendments or the two Reconstruction policies, or ask what the poster's claim would need from the evidence that this week's documents do not supply. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B and argue that the 14th Amendment did the most, though I see the case for the 13th. Its text says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, which reversed what Dred Scott had held 11 years earlier, and freedpeople used that citizenship when they voted and held office under the new state constitutions. A reader on the other side would say the 13th came first and mattered most, because no citizenship was possible while slavery stood, and I concede that the 14th built on it. In one plain sentence: the evidence shows what the 14th Amendment wrote into the Constitution in 1868; it does not show how far that promise was kept by 1877.

Notice how it keeps the amendments apart, ties the text to what freedpeople did, concedes part of the other side, and ends in one plain sentence. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com