After the US civil war when slavery was (kinda) ended, is there a argument to be made that with the zeal of anti-slavery social change people must have been feeling that they, at least in the north, would have been more willing to embrace further social changes for black people, riding the momentum of the large, civil-war level changes that were happening.
I ask this as you often see movements for large social changes like in the 60s, and maybe even now; ether fizzle away soon after success, or march on, demanding more. The best example of this social march is in my opinion the French Revolution. It was a mess, but you can't say it wasn't also histories greatest example of this kind of marching social liberalism.
So ya, was the post-civil war treatment of blacks, where they were free, but not accepted, (in the north,) an example of a wave of social liberalism fizzling, or were there other forces at play that could explain why more progress wasn't pursued after the Civil War?