RECONSTRUCTION!!!

[ole]

Thea's excerpt is indeed in the article. Read the entire thing, the excerpts are only part of the story.
Ole

[samgrant]

"When General Weitzel questioned him about the treatment of Richmond's conquered people, Lincoln said: " If I were in your place, I'd let 'em up easy, let 'em up easy."

-from: Abraham Lincoln by Benjamin P. Thomas, et. al.



At his last cabinent meeting on April 14, 1865, Lincoln reportedly stated:

"We can't undertake to run state governments in all these southern states. Their own people must do that - though I reckon that at first some of them may do it badly."

-from: The Civil War by Shelby Foote



"As Lee himself put it: "I surrendered as much to Lincoln’s goodness as I did to Grant’s armies.""

- from: http://taemag.com/printVersion/print...rticleID=17474

[thea_447]

In speaking of Reconstruction it's important to have a perspective of what Lincoln wanted and what his advisers, his Cabinet and the rest of the Republicans wanted. Their ideas were so vastly different that when Lincoln was assassinated, although the South had already been thoroughly brought to heel, her lands burned, plundered, her peoples, soldiers and innocents alike either dead or starving, the second death of the South was now to come.

February 1865: Lincoln presented to his Cabinet a scheme for securing peace. His idea: Issue to the Southern states bonds equal in value to the cost of 200 days of the war--some $400 million--which they could use to "extinguish slavery" or for other purposes. (Cabinet members didn't go for it.) In April 1865 he suggested calling the old Virginia legislature together and allow it to re-establish the state's government. It was his opinion that permitting the "prominent and influential men of that state to undo their own work would turn them and their neighbors into good Union men." Again he got no response, but as the army took over ever wider areas in the Southern states he began to experiment with steps leading towards the establishment of local governments, which he knew must come sooner or later. (He was trying to give his party a conservative plan for restoring the Union, but he was not including social revolution or punishment in his proposals.)

Problems arose because through the war years the Congress had accepted his executive dictatorship but now Congress insisted on being recognized and if Lincoln didn't think there was a social purpose to the war, others certainly did.

The Independent insisted that "the crowning problem of all was: "What of the Negro?" and answered, given two things "the question solves itself--the easiest of all problems: Land and the Ballot--land that he may support his family; the ballot, that he may support his state...".

Right up until his death Lincoln had talked of compensation for the slaveholder and of the deportation of Negroes to some "congenial climate" outside the U.S. This of course was a pipe-dream that the vengeful North would never have agreed to. And The Independent's remedy didn't take into account the fact that black skin and an assumption of inferiority went together in the minds of most Americans. Even though this war had been fought, in part, to end slavery that certainly didn't mean that all men had suddenly become equal. The social revolution began with the war but it would not be completed until Americans learned that a man's skin color did not measure his intelligence.

One of the reasons that Reconstruction took such a harsh line was that from the very beginning of the fighting, people were willing to believe almost anything that was said against the South, the enemy. One New York Herald reporter told of Southern atrocities at Bull Run: "rebel fiends" thrust their bayonets and knives through the hearts of "our wounded and dying soldiers"; where "rebels" severed the heads of the Union dead and used them as footballs; and where from Yankee bones they carved bracelets for Southern belles. He concluded his story by stating that such barbarities, "unworthy of the Christian era," were but samples of the boasted chivalry of those "worse than fiends," the national product of a slaveholding society.

Such extremes, of course, diminished as the soldier learned to respect the qualities of the men he faced in battle, but attitudes of civilians changed little. (The Inner Civil War, George M. Fredrickson, New York, 1965, pp. 170-171.)

So when the war ended there was a demand for a sacrificial offering; that would be Jefferson Davis. On May 23, 1865, the New York Herald reported: "At about three o'clock yesterday all that is mortal of Jeff'n Davis, late so-called President of the alleged Confederate States, was duly, but quietly and effectively, committed to that living tomb prepared within the impregnable walls of Fortress Monroe. The 22nd of May, 1865, may be said to be the day when all the earthly aspirations of Jeff'n Davis ceased....No more will Jeff'n Davis be known among the masses of men....he is buried alive."

With seventy men guarding, shut away in a deep inner cell with only one small window well above his reach, denied sleep by a lamp burning night and day at his head and by guards walking constantly back and forth a few feet away, with heavy iron weights for a time riveted to his legs, denied all communication with the outside world, Davis was indeed buried alive. It wasn't until his health threatened death and European newspapers shamed the American people into action that his torture lessened. (But his health was destroyed.)

All these things could be forgotten if they didn't constitute the atmosphere in which Reconstruction began. Neither South nor North could forgive and forget all the bitterness and distrust that had been generated for decades before open war, or the blood and death that four years of war had brought.


Reconstruction would bring out all the long held belief in fundamental section differences before open war, or the blood and death that four years of war had brought. (Portions from Reconstruction: The Ending of the Civil War, Avery Craven, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969)

End Part I

[samgrant]

So, as the original question was poised, Miss Thea, do you think the South would have fared better under a 'Lincoln reconstruction' than that was forced by the Rads over the feeble Jonhson, etc., or do you think it would have been just as bad (I think it was terrible!) or worse?

[thea_447]

Hello samgrant!

Ah, you have brought up a really interesting question that I have long pondered. Although I would like to continue with some of my thoughts on what the South went through and the "ifs" and "whys" of it in my Part II, I will give you a very simplistic answer to your question. Naturally I have a lot of thoughts on what you've asked, but this will have to suffice for now because I have a ton of things to do today.

You asked would the South have fared better or worse under a Lincoln administered Reconstruction. The answer I fear is no, the South would not have fared better and there are many reasons why not.

It has been suggested by others on this board that Lincoln had been strong enough to corral his Cabinet and other "Fire-eaters" during the war so he would be able to do it again during Reconstruction. (sigh.....yes, I do know that the term "Fire-eater" has been used only as applicable to Southern hotheads, but I can assure you that the North had them too. They might not have been quite as bombastic as a Calhoun for example, but they had Seward, Chase, Stevens and Sumner, just to name a few!)

It was all well and good to let Lincoln have his dictatorship during war: he had some masterful touches, the people learned to like him, his prose alone was great, but now Congress wanted to assert itself. There would have been no stopping them.

Frankly Lincoln had become a liability with his talk of restoring the South and "bringing them back into the fold" so to speak. The Republicans were out for blood, but more importantly they wanted total dominance for their party and they wanted it to last forever!

After the assassination Johnson made his plan and considered reconstruction complete except for the admission of Southern representatives to Congress! Others spoke as though it had not begun and Thaddeus Stevens said that it was "the first duty of Congress to pass a law declaring the condition of these outside or defunct States and providing proper civil governments for them." "It matters little....whether you call them States out of the Union or now conquered territories...they are...only dead carcasses lying within the Union. In either case it is very plain that it requires the action of Congress to enable them to form a State government and send representatives to Congress." (Benjamin B. Kendrick (ed.), The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, pp. 138-140.)

To make a long story short, many would argue that the war was now over and that it had been fought for the purpose of restoring the Union. But Thomas Hendricks of Indiana stated ""Why, at the close of the war, Congressmen should adopt language which had not been used during the war in order to give a character to the rebellion which it had not had before? If they had fought to deny the right of secession, and insisted that it was only the people who were at fault, why now this talk of state suicide or conquered territory?" The answer is clear enough. Four years of fighting, hating, irremovable distrust and fear: this war wouldn't be over until the Southern people were "repentent" to the point of accepting intellectual, social, and economic changes, perhaps even a political rearrangment.

Your question has made me jump quite a few steps ahead but let me just crunch some numbers here. The Republicans could muster 141 votes in the House and 39 in the Senate. The old Democratic opposition controlled only 43 votes in the House and 11 in the Senate. But what if a restored South added 58 more votes in the House and 22 in the Senate; now add a conservative Republican vote on some issues, then control could easily pass to the Democrats! Benjamin Wade, in June 1865 wrote: "To admit the Southern states under Mr. Johnson's plan, is voluntarily....to surrender our political rights into the hands of those traitors we have just conquered...It is nothing less than political suicide.

Now we get to the "heart" of the matter which is that if the Democrats took dominance again, it would mean the end of Republican dominance in officeholding, and the end of tariffs now yielding such matchless returns . The war debt, in which so many had a stake, might not be paid in gold; lavish gifts to railroads now bridging the continent could be checked and corporations in general restricted. The South might even ask its share in all this lavishness. (Imagine that!)

Thaddeus Stevens, always blunt, stated plainly, the Southern states could not be restored until the Constitution had been so amended "as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union". If this isn't done the South and the Democrats "will at the very first election take possession of the White House and of the Halls of Congress....The Republican Party , and it alone can save the Union."

Republicans were interested in greater justice for the Negro, but he was not being overlooked for political value by any means. E.L. Godkin was afraid that the Southern states, if readmitted, would oppose taxation for payment of the federal war debt. They would be "determined repudiationists" and impair the nation's credit.(Howard K. Beale, "The Tariff and Reconstruction", American Historical Review, XXXV (Jan., 1930), 276-294; New York Tribune, Feb.26, 1879; Howard K. Beale, The Critical Years: A Study of Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (New York, 1930), pp.276-294) AND
one of Sumner's correspondents was certain that Southerners would vote with the Democrats to reduce greatly the tariff to free-trade levels and then demand repudiation!

This is only the tip of the iceberg but must suffice for now. To be honest Lincoln had become to much of an icon for the Republican party, he was now more of a liability. I believe it was either very fortunate for the Republicans that Booth assassinated him or that a couple of them actually had a hand in it. But I am unwilling to go there and be distracted from the theme of Reconstruction.

It is my humble opinion that Lincoln could not have curbed this Congress which was intent on revenge and on political and monetary gain; he'd have been reduced to no more than a figurehead. They might even have figured out a way to dishonor him enough to get him impeached, at the very least voted out of office at the next election.

Wow! Sure glad I decided to just give you a quick answer.
Till we meet again,
I remain YMOS,

[samgrant]

That's a 'quick' answer?

OK, the RadReps could curb Johnson, but I'm not so sure they would have had their way with Lincoln. What of public opinion? Lincoln as very popular after Appomattox.

[thea_447]

Sorry, samgrant, I respectfully disagree. The Radical Republicans had tolerated Lincoln's dictatorship during the war because he was able to get things done and he had no qualms about breaking laws to do it. However, these politicians all had egos and agendas of their own. And none of them included letting the South off easy.


And don't forget that in the election of 1864 even Lincoln's few close friends predicted he'd be defeated by the Democratic candidate, George McClellan, the general Lincoln had removed from command in '62. But, always the politician, Lincoln just increased his already heavy pressure on his generals for more victories at any cost. Sherman's devastation of Georgia gave Lincoln the ten percent margin he needed, bought with a bloody victory.


An officer attached to Sherman's command wrote of his disgust in a letter: "I tell you the truth when I say we are about as mean a mob as ever walked the face of the earth. It is perfectly frightful. If I lived in this country, I never would lay down any guns while a 'Yankee' remained on the soil. I do not blame Southerners for being secessionists now. I could relate many things that would be laughable if they were not so horribly disgraceful. (Edward A. Pollard, Southern History of The War, p. 20)


Revenge was uppermost; it ranked right up there with this golden opportunity to seize the forest lands that hadn't been destroyed, what cotton was left even though it might rightfully belong to Southern Unionists, etc; Lincoln would have been a hindrance to all that. Remember, he was only a compromise candidate to start with, and I don't believe they regarded him as anything more than a crude country lawyer who was sharp-witted enough and tough enough to bring down the South, with the aid of some single-minded generals such as Sherman, Sheridan and Hunter.


But I digress. I am more than willing to discuss the pros and cons of Lincoln vs. the Rad Reps later but I would like to continue with what actually happened to the South during Reconstruction as I don't believe everyone on this board fully understands that although the South had lost the war, it wasn't over for her yet. She had yet to be carved up and totally demolished.


But first let's look to the South at war's close.


Excerpts from The Sequel of Appomattox, a Chronicle of the Reunion of the States by Walter Lynwood Fleming


As I had stated before this is a lengthy piece but well worth the time to read in its entirety but I will quote some portions since many people are too busy to read this much material. (http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelap.htm)


Beneath a disorganized society lay a devastated land. The destruction of property affected all classes of the population. The accumulated capital of the South had disappeared in worthless Confederate stocks, bonds, and currency. The banks had failed early in the war. Two billion dollars invested in slaves had been wiped out. Factories, which had been running before the war or were developed after 1861 in order to supply the blockaded country, had been destroyed by Federal raiders or seized and sold or dismantled because they had furnished supplies to the Confederacy. Mining industries were paralyzed. Public buildings which had been used for war purposes were destroyed or confiscated for the uses of the army or for the new freedmen's schools. It was months before courthouses, state capitols, school and college buildings were again made available for normal uses. The military school buildings had been destroyed by the Federal forces. Among the schools which suffered were the Virginia Military Institute, the University of Alabama, the Louisiana State Seminary, and many smaller institutions. Nearly all these had been used in some way for war purposes and were therefore subject to destruction or confiscation.


......Much land was thrown on the market at low prices--three to five dollars an acre for land worth fifty dollars. (These lands were bought up by Yankee financiers for a song, including huge portions of Georgia's rich pine.)The poorer lands could not be sold at all, and thousands of farms were deserted by their owners. Everywhere recovery from this agricultural depression was slow.


...Many of the cities, such as Richmond, Charleston, Columbia, Jackson, Atlanta, and Mobile had suffered from fire or bombardment.


That there was a great need of supplies from the outside world is shown by the following statement of General Boynton: "Window-glass has given way to thin boards, in railway coaches and in the cities. Furniture is marred and broken, and none has been replaced for four years. Dishes are cemented in various styles, and half the pitchers have tin handles. A complete set of crockery is never seen, and in very few families is there enough to set a table .... A set of forks with whole tines is a curiosity. Clocks and watches have nearly all stopped . . . . Hairbrushes and toothbrushes have all worn out; combs are broken . . . . Pins, needles, and thread, and a thousand such articles, which seem indispensable to housekeeping, are very scarce. Even in weaving on the looms, corncobs have been substituted for spindles. Few have pocketknives. In fact, everything that has heretofore been an article of sale in the South is wanting now. At the tables of those who were once esteemed luxurious providers you will find neither tea, coffee, sugar, nor spices of any kind. Even candles, in some cases, have been replaced by a cup of grease in which a piece of cloth is plunged for a wick."


(Concerning the lands, property, etc. rightful owners couldn't prove their ownership (if they'd survived as soldiers) because generals such as Sherman systematically ordered the burning of courthouses and any other buildings which would contain deeds, etc. so that plantation owners, in particular, couldn't prove their ownership.)

" Unfortunately, some of the most spectacular frauds ever perpetrated were carried through in connection with the attempt of the United States Treasury Department to collect and sell the confiscable property in the South. The property to be sold consisted of what had been captured and seized by the army and the navy, of "abandoned" property, as such was called whose owner was absent in the Confederate service, and of property subject to seizure under the confiscation acts of Congress. No captures were made after the general surrender, and no further seizures of "abandoned" property were made after Johnson's amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1865. This left only the "confiscable" property to be collected and sold.

For collection purposes the states of the South were divided into districts, each under the supervision of an agent of the Treasury Department, who received a commission of about 25 percent. Cotton, regarded as the root of the slavery evil, was singled out as the principal object of confiscation. It was known that the Confederate Government had owned in 1865 about 150,000 bales, but the records were defective and much of it, with no clear indication of ownership, still remained with the producers. Secretary Chase, foreseeing the difficulty of effecting a just settlement, counseled against seizure, but his judgment was overruled. Secretary McCulloch said of his agents: "I am sure I sent some honest cotton agents South; but it sometimes seems doubtful whether any of them remained honest very long." Some of the natives, even, became cotton thieves. In a report made in 1866, McCulloch describes their methods: "Contractors, anxious for gain, were sometimes guilty of bad faith and peculation, and frequently took possession of cotton and delivered it under contracts as captured or abandoned, when in fact it was not such, and they had no right to touch it . . . . Residents and others in the districts where these peculations were going on took advantage of the unsettled condition of the country, and representing themselves as agents of this department, went about robbing under such pretended authority, and thus added to the difficulties of the situation by causing unjust opprobrium and suspicion to rest upon officers engaged in the faithful discharge of their duties. Agents, . . . frequently received or collected property, and sent it forward which the law did not authorize them to take . . . . Lawless men, singly and in organized bands, engaged in general plunder; every species of intrigue and peculation and theft were resorted to."

End Part II

I'll speak my Southern English
Just as natural as I please;
I'm in the Heart of Dixie -
Dixie's in the Heart of me.

[samgrant]

December 8, 1863 ....

http://www.classicallibrary.org/linc...nstruction.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841309.html

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/...ticle_55.shtml

[ole]

Excellent posts, Sam,

I downloaded two and bookmarked the other for later reference.

Thanks,
Ole

[Alabaman]

After the radical "Recostruction" of the South, I would have felt compelled, had I lived in that era, to start another war; this one a guerilla style war. General Lee upon being asked of a continuance of such a resistance gave a 'nay' as his response. It would bring further distruction upon parts of the South not yet ravaged, Lee thought. Gen. Lee, a man who considered his word as his honor, would have thought differently if he had witnesed the 'word' of the North being horribly twisted in decades to come.

Private 'non' citizen Lee, in 1870, reportedly second-guessed his decision of unconditional surrender at A. Court House in 1865 during a meeting. Of course, this was a rememberance by a Southerner not witnessed & legally documented by a Notary Public, thus Northern folk discount it as inaccurate. I totally believe it and fully agree with this "alleged' statement by Mr. Lee.

No. Reconstruction was way beyond bad! The reconstruction of the North and it's true intent, can be observed and diagnosed with many U.S. Colored troops pulling "occupation" duty in Southern territory. That was REAL intelligent by a "let'em up easy" North in an attempt to harbor no ill feeling, huh? This showed, I guess, the North wished to bring a quick healing of the South's disease through showing all men are created equal or was it rubbing a handfull of battery acid in the South's eyes?

Thnk You President James Earl Carter, albeit I disagree with most everything you administered, for restoring U.S. Citizenship to WBTS Southern leaders, as most belated as it was!

Rob Adams