Civil and Human Rights

New York Times continues the dialogue on Reconstruction

As the five-year celebration of our Nation’s Second Founding continues, we here at CAC look forward to highlighting the writings of those working to keep our Nation’s post-Civil War history a part of the public dialogue.

Last week, the New York Times dedicated its Room for Debate feature to the question, “How should Americans remember Reconstruction?”

In addition to the estimable Eric Foner, whose work we have previously lauded, the Times assembled a great range of voices for this panel.  Prof. Gregory Downs and Prof. Kate Masur, referring to the period as “the United States’ second founding,” discussed their upcoming partnership with the National Parks Service, while Slate’s Jamelle Bouie revisited episodes of violent voter suppression and murder from the era in a call for a restored Voting Rights Act. The entire feature of eight debaters is well worth the read.

It’s great to see “the newspaper of record” giving this era the continued attention it deserves.

Visit SecondFounding.org to learn more about ongoing celebrations and find further interesting summer reading on this critical period of our Nation’s history.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 17, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.