The era of reconstruction, 1865-1877

Front Cover
Vintage Books, 1965 - History - 256 pages
7 Reviews
This brief political history of reconstruction is an attempt to give more general currency to the findings of scholars during the past few decades. Based on accumulated material on reconstruction for lectures for college students.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

User ratings

5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star

LibraryThing Review

User Review  - wildbill - LibraryThing

I have read very little about this period in history and this book provided a good introduction to the factual and historical disputes of this era. It is well written and provides a surprising amount ... Read full review

Review: The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877

User Review  - R. - Goodreads

Stampp leads off with pre - conceived notions and then refers to select bits of historical data to support that notion. Where antecdotal evidence is absent, Stampp tries to insert his 1965 era views ... Read full review


The Tragic Legend of Reconstruction
The Politics of a Practical Whig
The Last Iacksonian

5 other sections not shown

Common terms and phrases

About the author (1965)

A native of Milwaukee, Kenneth Stampp received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in 1941 and then taught at the University of Arkansas and the University of Maryland. In 1945 he joined the faculty at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is currently Morrison Professor Emeritus of American History. Stampp has served as Harmsworth Professor at Oxford, Commonwealth Lecturer at the University of London, Fulbright Professor at the University of Munich, and visiting professor at Harvard University and Colgate University and Williams College. A past president of the Organization of American Historians, in 1993 he received the Lincoln Prize from the Lincoln and Soldiers Institute of Gettysburg College. Stampp touched off a revolution in the study of slavery with the publication of The Peculiar Institution (1956), which vigorously refutes the long-prevailing Dunning-Phillips interpretation and demolishes a host of myths about the master-slave relationship. His further works on the sectional conflict and its causes established him as a leading authority on that subject as well.