nice Sherlock Holmes reference 
It is an old trusim that when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression.
I do recall in middle and high school in the 1990s learning about reconstruction, but it seems like it was a pretty quick glossing over. Not much more than “after the war many Black people were elected to offices but southern Whites enacted Jim Crow laws to force them out and disenfranchise voters.” That’s better than nothing but it feels like something we only spent minutes on at best.
This also made me think of something an acquaintance of mine said. She’s about 10 years my senior and is from Alabama. She said that they called the American Civil War “The War of Northern Aggression”. I don’t know if that was a primary school, high school, or college level thing, but the term itself only dates to the 1950s. Still, it shows how pervasive and influential little tweaks to history can be.
It’s probably safe to say southern white women faced oppression in the mid-1860s, and really had to fear being robbed, beaten or raped. But that isn’t specific to reconstruction.
~Max
Oh no you did not just present the old pretext for KKK terrorism, seriously?!
On that note:
…from whom?
From everyone? Their husbands, fathers, the state, etc.
Couldn’t vote, couldn’t hold property, couldn’t be seen out in public. If they had a child while unwed, they would become social pariahs. The list goes on.
~Max
I figured that’s what you meant, but it’s such a non-sequitur. Northern white women also faced that, as did southern and northern Black women. Seems completely irrelevant to this thread.
Admittedly not my best post.
~Max
I’m not sure about the Antebellum South but from what I’ve read of most places, in history, the usual paradigm was that if a girl/woman wanted to go somewhere, she needed to be accompanied by a male relative (brother, father, etc.) or (more commonly) by an older, married woman - often the mother. Being seen was alright, I think the fear was that they’d be kidnapped and sexually assaulted if not protected.
I think the fear was that they’d become known for having “loose morals” and so be harder to marry off on favorable terms (for the father) or harm the family (husband’s) reputation. If there is a historical practice advertised as being for the benefit of women, you can be fairly confident it was actually for the benefit of the patriarchs (not necessarily all men of any stripe, mind you, just the ones with power and influence in a given society).