Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I often find that young people, when asked the years of the Civil War, have no idea. Yet that is nothing to the look of bewilderment you get if you ask them about Reconstruction - in that area they join most age groups.
I believe an accurate definition of Reconstruction would be that it was the result that the Civil War achieved. In other words why was the war fought; so that Reconstruction could take place.
Why use the word Reconstruction? In the main that was the word used for what would take place after the fighting - the South was to redesigned; this doesn't mean rebuilt. Reconstruction was not Rebuilding. Quite the opposite.
It was to be a systemic destruction of the old Southern order that caused a war. Yet there was fierce disagreement among the architects of Reconstruction as to how it would be carried out.
Some advocates held that it meant the South was to be depopulated, returned to a territorial status, then resettled by northerners or immigrants. At a later time states would be created from this "new" territory. Call this the annihilation strategy. According to these people, the Civil War had been a war of conquest, and the victors were entitled to possession of the land they took, by Right of Conquest. This outlook was quite popular; it would mean land being given to Union veterans as reward for their service. This would address the job shortages in the North - and no doubt the likes of Benjamin Butler intended to have their baronial estates in the South by this strategy.
This flew in the face of claims by those like Joshua Chamberlain who said that this had not been a war for land, and the strategy would be resisted by those of his persuasion in the North who otherwise supported the idea of Reconstruction.
Unfortunately for Native Americans it was they who would be the recipients of the Annihilation Strategy instead. The scenario was carried out in the West exactly as it would have been done in the South.
Another camp held that the Reconstruction would be political; the governing structure in Southern states was to be replaced with one that secessionists would have no influence in. Call this the restructure strategy. Both camps tried to assert dominance during Reconstruction, with the result that Reconstruction was never a coherent plan. Partisans of both camps would often try to sabotage the effort of the other camp.
This was the reason Reconstruction failed. Yes - Reconstruction was an complete and utter failure that achieved neither aim of either camp. Its only legacy was an unintended one, and a disastrous one at that.
It kicked off with folly. The northern members of Congress denied entry to elected southern Democrat members. This was in violation of a promise that any who swore a loyalty oath would be allowed to vote and hold office if elected.
Those who swore the oath as demanded voted for candidates who had also sworn the oath. Those who did not swear were not allowed either to vote or hold office.
Yet when these "pardoned" members tried to take their seats in Congress, the Radical Republicans took measures that prevented them from doing so. Then this "Rump" Congress took control of the legislative branch - at the height of this Rump Congress these people attempted the removal by impeachment of their own president.
These were the people who administered Reconstruction; no wonder it was a disaster.
New elections were held under their control, and the loyalty oaths were thrown out. This meant that no former Confederates were either allowed to vote or even run for office. This resulted in both the state governments and congressional delegations being
composed solely of freed black slaves or Union men (often not even residents of that state). All governments, even down to the local level, were made up of these candidates elected by a minority of the state residents. Minority rule.
This was the actual commencement of Reconstruction, and represented the temporary victory of the Restructure Strategy camp.
It also led to the birth of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, associated with those like Bedford Forrest; he considered the promises on which he ceased hostilities to have been false. As indeed they were. The position of those who had refused to give a loyalty oath was strengthened - the diehards. It turned out that they were right when they claimed that the offer of pardon was false, a typical Yankee deceit. Few could doubt them after that, and any voices of moderation that reunion with the North could be achieved were quiet. The Southern position began to harden.
One of my sources in this matter is Eric Fohner and his works. It was one of that author's conclusions that one of the results of this Reconstruction and the laws promulgated under its authority was establish a ground for "future Federal interventions" in the South. He does so in the context that "future" means the present era.
According to that thesis the result of the Civil War was to establish a federal right to use armed force against Southern states in the future.
Then problems started, and not those of doings by Southern opponents.
Northen industry was in serious trouble. Union veterans seeking work were finding it difficult to get (a harbinger of unrest). Reduced factory capacity at a time when large numbers of Union veterans were being discharged brought about an economic depression in the North, and many a veteran was to be seen in his uniform begging on the streets.
In fact the scorched earth policy of the Union Army had destroyed their former source of raw materials in the South - the plantations. These were ruins inhabited by the starving former slaves who had worked on them. They couldn't resume full production and employment until those sources were restored.
Enter the "Carpetbaggers". These were northerners who often with no more than a carpet material suitcase to their name arrived in the South, and bought these ruined plantations. Usually for a bare pittance of their value. They then attempted to restore the once lucrative cotton trade.
To their dismay they found that the experienced former slave workers wanted no part of cotton farming. Many of these freedmen felt betrayed; they expected their former plantations to be divided up and given to them (the famed 40 Acres and a Mule). These would not even work cotton for wages. It would have been better for the northerners had this policy been instituted; these freedmen and their families would have been able to support themselves, while contributing taxes and their votes and bettering their lives. Most of the plantation owners were dead or imprisoned, and whites didn't live on these plantations so they would not have been displaced.
This was not to be. The northern factory owners wanted their cheap cotton, molasses, and turpentine, while the Carpetbaggers wanted their wealthy estates supplying these. The same entrepreneurial greed that had given rise to plantation slavery now deprived the freed slaves of the chance for a better life, making them refugees in the process.
They "defected" from the plantations and went to the cities.
In fact the Union troops occupying the South would soon find themselves rounding up any unemployed former slaves (vagrants) and taking them to plantations, where they were compelled to work cotton for wages. If they left the next sweep by Union troops would catch them and bring them back.
The only way to avoid this was for them to leave the South, which they did in increasing numbers. They went to the North and West. In the North they found themselves in competition with Union vets for work, and this became a source of racial friction. It would in fact lead to the unreal phenomenon of Union men establishing Ku Klux Klan groups in northern states.
So it wouldn't be unfair to say that the result of the Civil War in this context was the exodus of most freedmen (and their votes) from the South, and the spread of the Klan to the North.
By now Reconstruction was in serious difficulty.
The Freedmen were no longer contributing to the minority government with their votes.
The cost of maintaining an army of occupation in the South was becoming an irritant. The Annihilation Strategy camp waiting in the wings for their turn had lost none of their determination to step in and implement their Draconian solution. The failure of the Restructure Strategy camp would give them their chance.
Then fate intervened. After Southern partisans expelled the minority government of Louisiana from office by force, President Grant ordered Union troops to restore that government by force. These did so, but to his dismay Grant found himself being pilloried in the northern press for his action; he was portrayed as a brutal monarch barbarically suppressing the people of Louisiana with bayonets.
It is my opinion that he, being accustomed to praise, was unsettled by this reaction and decided to not be so aggressive in the future. This and other incidents had begun the rumblings of renewed fighting among Southerners, who were probably coming to the conclusion that the promises of Appomattox were lies intended to buy time for their destruction.
This would have resulted in guerrilla warfare as a resumption of the Civil War. This danger no doubt played a large part in the thinking of the Grant Administration, which was beginning to hear the first rumblings of the corruption scandal that would later erupt.
Whatever the cause, not only was the Annihilation Strategy camp not given a fuller hearing, the Restructure camp would soon find themselves facing an increasingly hostile Southern population as a withdrawal of Union Army occupation troops was quietly begun.
The Beginning of the End.
Increasingly the Carpetbaggers found themselves being regarded as colonial overlords. The worst of them would call on federal troops whenever they wanted their way in any dispute, be it with Southern whites or freed slaves. They found themselves targeted by groups like the Klan for death - some found it wiser to give up and return north after selling out for whatever they could get.
Even the better ones, those who sought to become part of the community, found themselves increasingly in danger. Especially those who held political office as well; Southerners regarded any office held by virtue of Reconstruction to be fraudulent, so any effort to integrate by these people was cooly received at best.
It didn't help that Southern citizens were subject to military law. Habeas corpus didn't exist for Southerners, and abuses of military courtmartials for civilians by vengeful Union officers did more to destroy Reconstruction than any thing else. These Union Army types were untouchable - the state government, even a Reconstruction one, had no power over them. Further they had their powerful patrons in Washington; Congressmen who could and did add the power of their office to their support.
This was a formula for disaster. Freed slaves could haul any white they wished before a drumhead courtmartial, where the judgement could be more medieval than Constitutional, and there would be no appeal. Once the Union Army was gone these freedmen would pay a dreadful price for doing this - usually at the behest of some northerner.
Then came the terrible day when the last Union troops left. The Carpetbaggers and freedmen found themselves facing a Southern population bent on retribution for what had been done to them by Union occupation troops. The lucky ones got out in time.
The official end of Reconstruction came because the Republicans parlayed a hung presidential election victory for a promise to end Reconstruction, and this time they kept their word. Overnight the Reconstructionists were swept from office by huge majorities of formerly disenfranchised Confederates whose voting rights had been restored.
"Jim Crow" laws were instituted to make sure they never gained elective office again.
The official Ku Klux Klan disbanded, having achieved victory - the later Klan would be a mimic of the first but not the one that consisted of Confederate veterans led by their former officers - it had at least some semblence of discipline.
The Civil War had ended at last - not in 1865 but in 1878.
The same result could have been achieved without 18 years of an unnecessary and brutal war.
What about the view that even with losing the Civil War on the battlefield, the South tried to win through legislation & laws that still denied blacks their rights and continued to send back to Congress the same men who advocated secession and who refused to uphold the 13th amendment?
In fact, because the Southern states still refused to carry out the law and obey the Constitution, was not the 14th and 15th amendments added solely because states simply could not be counted on to enforce the law of the land?
As for the idea the North had lost it's resources for continued economic growth by the South losing its plantations, that may not be true at all. Didn't economic growth in fact continue to expand in the North for quite some time after the war? Didn't the expansion to the West absorb most of those Union veterans and create new jobs and opportunities?
Good post, by-the-way, I eagerly await your continuation.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I'm just afraid that is is just the end of the beginning!
suwannee, have you ever considered writing alt-history novels ala Peter G Tsouras, Newt Gingrich, or Harry Turtledove? I think you've got the right stuff.
Maybe you could do one on Vietnam, and the hero in the U.S. victory over the ANV could be .... YOU!
(By the way I am not "mocking" you, so feel free to reply as to how ignorant I am.)
Have a nice Day!
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
I, at one time, was a Texas high school history teacher. The Civil War was only part of our curriculum once!! The middle school said the high school would cover it and the high school said the middle school would cover it. Needless to say it hardly got covered at all. You'd be surprised how much civil war could be crammed into a cuple of days. To the dismay of my fellow teachers I covered more than they. On the first day I would have my students come up of a list of "things" that they already knew about the war. Most knew that Texas was a "rebel" state. The only other bit of info they knew for sure was that the south wore gray. I would read lists about the Silver War and big guns booming, not bombing, the "bad" guys. Granted this was not all students but the vast majority of my school had no concept about the causes or effects of the conflict. So much time and emphasis in Texas is placed on the TAKS test. This test must be passed at different grades and the schools are rated on the performance of the students. Like they say ***t rolls down hill and the schools have fallen into teaching the test and the students over all education is being watered down so the school can get a acceptable rating. At least no child gets left behind.
And so is mt155, in that US history is taking a BIG hit in our schools. There is a real push to not teach any American history in Ohio before the 1900's. That only leaves out the creation of the country, Rev war, Indian problems, Civil War, Indian problems, social unrest, Spainish American War and little things like that.
As for anyone becoming aware of the problems of reconstruction, how is it possible when the Civil War is usually cut down to a couple of paragraphs or if you have a really good teacher, an entire chapter of your history book?
However, thanks to boards like this one with folks willing to contribute their time and energy, we have a chance to learn and to sometimes challenge what is considered historical fact after doing our own researched when challenged.
Hopefully, some of our high shcool students sometimes stumble across boards such as this and it helps to spark their own interest in the war and that time of history.
You never know who else reads what we all post here.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The irony is that some states are paying almost $10,000 per student... and geting abysmal results. It's a broken machine that needs to be completely overhauled. When I went to HS I had 8 classes a day: Math, Science, English, Social Studies, Art, Gym, 1 advanced class per semester (chem or algebra etc) and a study hall. I think I came out pretty well educated in the basics; College was a shock but not a brutal one.
A decade and more ago I was a volunteer that helped scout foreign exchange students and place incoming exchange students. I was shocked at the state of the SC educational sys; Charleston was no doubt the best... I came back to the midwest w/ higher expectations and was shocked to see what had happened to Iowa & Illinois school systems. I'm not certain what is on the curriculim of schools anymore... but math, science, english and social studies certainly are not on that list.
Maybe we need a return to one room school houses... they did fine by many of our parents.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
...The official Ku Klux Klan disbanded, having achieved victory - the later Klan would be a mimic of the first but not the one that consisted of Confederate veterans led by their former officers - it had at least some semblence of discipline.
The Civil War had ended at last - not in 1865 but in 1878. ...
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and Reconstruction was not particularly pretty by American standards. That said, your long and interesting post leaves a few things out and is not always accurate in what it does put forth.
On this particular part above, you fly in the face of the testimony before Congress of the reputed first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Testifying in 1871, he told the Congress that he had the organization broken up and disbanded. He spoke as vaguely as he could, but seems to have said this was done sometime from late 1867 to 1868. Some accounts say it was as late as the Spring of 1869, and Memphis KKK members said they got the order from the Grand Wizard 10 days after the August 1869 re-election of conservative Republican Senter as governor, breaking Radical power in Tennessee.
Why he did that is unclear, as is most other information about that period. One theory is that he shut it down because it was growing out of control, with more and more of the new Dens acting out in ways the original leadership could not accept. But in the history of the KKK, that is when the First Klan ended: 1867-1869. Not the best part of a decade later.
The irony is that some states are paying almost $10,000 per student... and geting abysmal results. It's a broken machine that needs to be completely overhauled. When I went to HS I had 8 classes a day: Math, Science, English, Social Studies, Art, Gym, 1 advanced class per semester (chem or algebra etc) and a study hall. I think I came out pretty well educated in the basics; College was a shock but not a brutal one.
Hmm. I went to a Catholic high school, so things were a little different, but similar.
To begin with, there was a competitive exam to get in and my parents paid to put me there while still paying school taxes, so there was a bit of pressure to buckle down and good "parental supervision" for most of us.
Everyone took much the same classes. Four years of Math, with the only difference in which elective you took in Senior year. Four years of History and English. Four years of Religion (even some that wasn't Catholic). Three years of Spanish or French, with an elective fourth year (third year you had to take the Spanish or French SAT Achievement test as part of your grade), and there was an advanced class in fourth year if you wanted it. Two years of Latin. Everyone took a year of Physics, a year of Biology, a year of Chemistry. Four years of Gym. Senior year I took an extra history course as an elective. Study Hall was only 20 minutes -- you were supposed to study at home.<g>
If true - I can't see the leader of an illegal organization saying he was so in front of a panel of those who would eagerly hang him for being so - then that would account for Tennessee.
Not Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Lousiana, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia - which remained active until all traces of Reconstruction were gone.
Not to mention the klaverns in places like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland..... to my knowledge those never disbanded, but then they weren't the Southern Klan.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Reconstruction 
Linear Mode
