Editor's Choice
How does the author in "The State of the South" describe the South's economic conditions post-Reconstruction? What does "act of universal amnesty" mean in this context?
Quick answer:
The author describes the South's economic conditions post-Reconstruction as dire, with the Civil War costing around $5 billion. Despite federal aid, much was lost to corrupt "carpetbaggers." "Universal amnesty" refers to restoring voting rights to all white men, which the author argues is necessary to counter the political influence of blacks and carpetbaggers. This term implies forgiving former Confederates and reinstating their rights to vote and hold office.
The economic condition of the South, as presented in the article, is pretty dire, to say the least. The author estimates that the Civil War has cost the Southern states somewhere in the region of $5 billion, a truly staggering amount for the time. This figure is arrived at through combining the Southern states' liabilities with the enormous debts they'd incurred to pay for the war. Whichever way you slice it, the South's economic position was atrocious, caused primarily by its defeat in the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
The article goes on to acknowledge that the Federal government has provided funds to ameliorate the worst of the South's problems. But it argues that these sums are not enough, and that in any case, a large amount of that money has been siphoned off by so-called carpetbaggers. This was the derogatory name given to Northerners who came down...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
South after the war to seek their fortunes, taking advantage of the economic, political, and social chaos for their own selfish gain.
Carpetbaggers, especially those who got involved in politics, were notoriously corrupt and saw public service as an opportunity to plunder state coffers. Inevitably, this made it harder for the South to get back on its feet, as the carpetbaggers in charge of state legislatures were more concerned with lining their own pockets than helping to rebuild the shattered economy.
We request that you only ask one question per post here on eNotes. I will answer your second question.
What the author means by “universal amnesty” is a law that would allow all white men to be able to vote again. The author is claiming that white men are not being allowed to vote. Because of this, the blacks and the carpetbaggers are able to dominate government and, the author says, harm the South.
The author is saying that black voters are being used by carpetbaggers to allow the latter to have control of the government. He says that the government is ruining the South for the benefit of the carpetbaggers. Therefore, he says, a universal amnesty is needed. We can see what this means by looking at the next line. There, he says
We have given the negro the ballot to protect him against his old master; we need now to give the white citizen the vote to protect him against the carpet-bagger.
This clearly shows that the “amnesty” is something that will give white citizens the vote.
After the Civil War, some whites were deprived of the right to vote. The Radical Republicans in Congress wanted to punish the most important ex-Confederates. They also wanted to prevent the whites in the South from simply voting for all of the same leaders who had led them before and during the war. Therefore, they took the right to vote from some whites. We do not know exactly how many whites were banned from voting and/or holding office, but it seems unlikely that it was a large enough number to have the effect that this author claims.
The “universal amnesty,” then, is one in which all white men are forgiven for having been Confederates and in which they have the vote and the right to hold office returned to them.