Talk:Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era

First draft

This article draws together information which has been scattered among several articles (such as Poll tax not showing the relationship with Literacy test. Some info belongs here more than in other articles (such as in Jim Crow laws). More editing of this article will be needed before material can be removed from other articles. Edit away. (SEWilco 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I left the "under construction" banner up to indicate it is known that this article isn't quite complete yet. There are a bunch of adjustments to be made, many which will be obvious to all. Including some 1912 phrasing and a mixed bag of wikilinks. (SEWilco 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Construction banner removed. (SEWilco 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

1912 writing still evident in here

It needs to be updated. I replaced one "must" with a "had to". 204.52.215.107 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs good sources and citations

The article has many inaccuracies of time and fact. I've made some changes, but it needs extensive citations to support the constitutional changes and assessments of their impacts.--Parkwells (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs much more work

Article jumps around in time and concepts. Needs much more work.--Parkwells (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Title does not reflect content

Given the title of "Disfranchisement", some of the article seems oddly more directed at highlighting constitutional reforms in northern states that expanded suffrage. Whether or not that data is provided only for contrast, the section on Southern actions should come first. If the article is to be more general, maybe the title should be "Turn of the century state constitutions", but that does not focus enough on the severe problem of disfranchisement.--Parkwells (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the title implies that it ought to also deal with the disenfranchisement of former Confederates, which was a major part of Reconstruction, though later revoked. john k (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. It should really be "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction", since that is the intent. It was started by someone else. I took out the northern material as there was so much to deal with in the South in terms of disfranchising African Americans and poor whites, but never went back to the title. That's all I want to deal with at this point. Will have to think about the title.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you brought this up, I really want to change the title to "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction". Do you know if there is a bot or a way to redirect, so that all the titles could be changed in references, or that references by the earlier title will go to the newly titled page? I hope not to have to do it one by one. --Parkwells (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How about I create another article entitled "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction" and move all this text to that? Then I could add a little material to make a stub article at "Disfranchisement after the Civil War" to apply to the Confederates. There would have to be some redirect at the Disambiguation page, but that can be arranged, I think. Other articles have evolved. Can't think of any other solution.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In progress

There is extensive documentation of the issues and facts discussed here, and I've been working to find sources - did not start the original article, but this is not original research. Please allow time for sourcing before deleting material. --Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Article could use an image of orderly black voting - I've seen one or more from contemporary Harper's Weekly articles. Help would be appreciated in locating one.--Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

..my finding of a little more info:

I found a 1949 edition of "The Encyclopedia Britannica, Junior", and under an essay titled, "Carpetbaggers", I read: "After the Civil War, black freedmen gained the right to vote, and white southerners lost their right to vote because they had participated in the secessionist rebellion. "Northern political and manufacturing interests ("carpetbaggers") came south to organize the new freedmen ex-slaves into voting blocks which might favor northern economic interests in the south. "Many Freedmen (even though maybe unable to read) were elected as community leaders after political campaigns financed by northern political and manufacturing interests. "Bankruptcies of southern families were common, and tensions grew. "One of the outcomes was the rise of the KKK, and a southern hatred of the north." Hmm, ..seems quite a subject! Why have I never heard of the "disenfranchisement" of the entire south? ..Why is this never mentioned in school? I abhor slavery, all political disenfranchisements, and all dishonest political maneuverings. We are a democracy, right? But this (new) information informs me a bit on why such dastardly things as KKK and segregation find their emotional underpinnings. It should be discussed as common knowledge. Especially since we already commonly discuss those terrible outcomes brought about by people's destructive and dishonorable responses to those pressures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcarp (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The account above is rather biased and reflects inaccuracies of the Dunning "School" of history. Most Northerners who came to the South were veterans who bought land and hoped to make lives there. The US government temporarily prohibited former Confederates from voting, as they understandably did not want people elected who had just led the Civil War. This action is usually given plenty of discussion and is covered in the "Reconstruction era of the United States" article. It was not the only "reason" for the rise of the KKK and other paramilitary groups, however, as they were part of a widespread insurgency across the South as former Confederates refused to accept the results of the war. This article specifically relates to the later disfranchisement in the late 19th century of most blacks and many poor whites after Reconstruction. We probably need to change/move the title to make it more clear.--Parkwells (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Disfranchisement" or "disenfranchisement"?

This article is confusing because it uses the term "disfranchisement", rather than "disenfranchisement" (emphasis supplied) which is the more common term in American English.

Though the disfranchisement article makes it clear that both terms mean the same thing (I assume "disfranchisement" is preferred in "international" English), and the references for this article seem to prefer "disfranchisement", it should be compared to the felony disenfranchisement article which uses the latter term even though it's a worldwide treatment. As this article is specifically limited to U.S. history (in particular, the electoral portion of the Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Movement successfully overturned), it should use the preferred term in modern-day American English, "disenfranchisement". --RBBrittain (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary US sources (historians and lawyers) from which much of this article was drawn consistently use "disfranchisement". I believe we should keep the article that way.--Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What matters is what the reliable sources say, and they overwhelmingly prefer disfranchisement. Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Need to update map showing where 17-year-olds can register/vote in primaries

Virginia has long allowed a voter who is otherwise eligible and will be eligible with respect to age by the time of the next general election to register in advance and to vote in any intervening primary or special election. (Source: Constitution of Virginia, Art. II, Sec. 1, http://legis.state.va.us/Constitution/Constitution.htm)

Since the information is in a graphic which requires an outside program to edit it, I could not make this change. I hope that someone who can update it will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.129.215 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue, and does not belong in this article about late 19th-20thc. disfranchisement of black voters in the South. See Voting rights in the United States. Parkwells (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Article moved without discussion

This article was moved without discussion on this Talk page to "Disenfranchisement after Reconstruction era" despite use of "disfranchisement" by most historians of this period. An editor moved it based on material at "The Grammarist" [1].Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw this rather late, Parkwells is quite correct, this should not have been changed without discussion, "disenfranchisement" may be the preferred term in newspapers or casual articles, but scholars and serious historians generally prefer the correct term "disfranchisement". and since Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic I think the page should be moved back to "Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era". Dubyavee (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, here's Google's Ngram Viewer, set to show the trends since 1950.[2] There seems to have been a big change in usage between 1970 and 1985. Maybe we should follow the best sources. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What matters is what the reliable sources say, and they overwhelmingly prefer disfranchisement. I have moved it back, per the consensus here. Moonraker (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not change book titles

Editors should not change the spelling of book titles, as in Glenn Feldman's The Disfranchisement Myth. This is a historic fact. Many historians have continued to use "disfranchisement" even if the popular version has become "disenfranchisement". Book and article titles should not be changed.Parkwells (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002030244/http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21601.htm to http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21601.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/vce/0503.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZD1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://millercenter.org/president/keyevents/hayes?ModPagespeed=noscript
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206191323/http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm to http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720111358/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304111738/http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516142923/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)