RECONSTRUCTION!!!

[MobileBoy]

Rob,
Good post buddy.Had our founding fathers seen what through the future the North would do to the South I have no doubt most of the North's ancestors would be lined up against there erring descendants.In any case they would be ashamed of their kin for acting like the government they fought to break away from.Our Northern friends should really hold their heads high about what their wonderful section of the country did during Reconstruction.Surely their good example of the nature of humans was very impressive and enlightening to the rest of the world.

I'm with you I'd fight again to the death rather than suffer under that oppression.I'm sure Lee said that.I've read it but I can't remember the words exactly, but you paraphrased it good enough.Lee couldn't conceive of the way Reconstruction was handled because he was a man of descent character who had a difficult time seeing other Americans in their true light.
I'm pretty good from 300 yards in with my deer rifle.I could have been a good sniper or guerilla fighter (assuming I can magically take it back with me),but there's no way I would've made some of the charges the men made.For that matter I wouldn't have stood in line in a field and shot at someone either.Now I could reload and shoot from the ground on my belly,but I'm way too scared of being sawed on by a Confederate field surgeon.
Ashley

[cash]

Originally Posted by Alabaman

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.

R. E. Lee's most comprehensive biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman, who is not in any way a "Northern folk," proves it's a fabricated quote in Volume IV of his biography of Lee.


The problem with the proconfederate malarky is that little of it conforms in any way to the actual history. Johnson tried the soft approach in Presidential Reconstruction. At that point the Radicals had virtually no sway in Congress at all. They were a minority faction of the Republican Party. What gained support for them was the actions of the southern states in attempting to reestablish a form of slavery, enacting black codes, keeping blacks from voting, and reestablishing the oppression against blacks that had been in place before the war. When Johnson went along with this, as Lincoln would NOT have done, more and more moderates went over to support the radicals. Congress then enacted its own reconstruction program. What southerners then described as oppression of them was actually black men being able to vote and hold political office. Oh, the horror!! Add to that the sight of black men in uniform with guns. Oh, the humanity!!

Had southerners dealt fairly with blacks after the war, they would have been able to maintain home rule throughout Reconstruction. Instead, just like with the destruction caused by the war, they brought down on themselves what they complained about.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

MobileBoy and Alabaman,

A question, please. How many US troops occupied the South during Reconstruction?
And how many of those troops were colored regiment?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[MobileBoy]

Neil,

I have absolutely no idea how many colored troops occupied the South.Man I honestly don't recall me commenting on black troops in this discussion.I know answering a question with a question is goofy but forgive me.You are a man of character in my opinion Neil ,your slavery obsession aside.Would you personally change nothing about Reconstruction if you could do so?I believe I know your character well enough to know that you would eliminate some of the bad things the North did during Reconstruction.I'm also certain Johan and Ole are good poeple who would also change some things.I don't list their real names because I forget and they don't have interesting debates with that British genius Mr. Torrens to help me remember it.Neil I'd bet my life on the fact that all of you guys would change some things the North or some of its citizens did.And I'd be safe because despite that I have disagreed with all of you about something none of you are bad human beings. So please let me and Rob complain about a dark page in the South's history that I seriously doubt you're really proud of.You won't see me or Rob quizzing you for any vent you have against poeople who mistreated civilians.I know Rob very well and he's an upstanding Christian.I guarantee you can all blast away at Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson.etch..and the Confederate general who burned part of Pennsylvania.Neither he nor I will ask you any questions for ranting about immoral poeple who committed heinous acts.
Ashley

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

I am not commenting one way or the other when I ask my question. Rob brought up the idea in his post #70 that the true intent of Reconstruction could be judged by the use of many colored troops used in the South. You agreed with him in a following post.

I want to know if you or Rob know the number of Federal troops that were stationed in the South during Reconstruction and how many of those troops were colored?

That is all I am doing, asking you both if you know, or is this what you both have been told or what you have only heard. The following is what I know from my research earlier on this thread:

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=55

And plus, I would like to know.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil,
I don't know the number of black troops either so I "googled" and found these sites that you might try. (As you told me long ago not to add the "cached parts" or CWT wouldn't take my post, I have not added those.)


You might find the answers here, but I bet Ed would know for sure.


Reconstruction and its Failure (Black Experience chapter 6 cont)
During Reconstruction blacks played a significant political role throughout the
... The federal military forces stationed in the South were too small to be ...
www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx06b.html


Practitioner of Emancipation
... and 2) reconstruction in those areas of the South which were gradually added to
... Two of the brigades were made up chiefly of colored troops" (fn33). ...
www.aotc.net/article5.htm Historic Context for the African American Military Experience ...
... between the black troops and white citizens of the South during Reconstruction
... During their service to the Army the scouts were stationed at Forts ...
https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ ES-Programs/Conservation/Legacy/AAME/aame2b.html


I would also like to add this concerning Federal troops in the South after the war ended:
...."relations between the Federal soldiers stationed in the principal towns and the native white population were not, on the whole, so bad as might have been expected. If the commanding officer were well disposed, there was little danger of friction, though sometimes his troops got out of hand. The regulars had a better reputation than the volunteers. The Confederate soldiers were surfeited with fighting, but the "stay-at-home" element was often a cause of trouble. The problem of social relations between the conquerors and the conquered was troublesome. The men might get along well together, but the women would have nothing do with the "Yankees," and ill feeling arose because of their antipathy. Carl Schurz reported that "the soldier of the Union is looked upon as a stranger, an intruder, as the 'Yankee,' the 'enemy.' . . . The existence and intensity of this aversion is too well known to those who have served or are serving in the South to require proof." In retaliation the soldiers developed ingenious ways of annoying the whites. Women, forced for any reason to go to headquarters, were made to take the oath of allegiance or the "ironclad" oath before their requests were granted; flags were fastened over doors, gates, or sidewalks in order to irritate the recalcitrant dames and their daughters. Confederate songs and color combinations were forbidden. In Richmond, General Halleck ordered that no marriages be performed unless the bride, the groom, and the officiating clergyman took the oath of allegiance. He explained this as a measure taken to prevent "the propagation of legitimate rebels."

The wearing of Confederate uniforms was forbidden by military order, but by May 1865, few soldiers possessed regulation uniforms. In Tennessee the State also imposed fines upon *wear wearers of the uniform. In the vicinity of military posts, buttons and marks of rank were usually ordered removed and the gray clothes dyed with some other color. General Lee, for example, had the buttons on his coat covered with cloth. But frequently the Federal commander, after issuing the orders, paid no more attention to the matter and such conflicts as arose on account of the uniform were usually caused by officious enlisted men and the Negro troops.

The Negro troops, even at their best, were everywhere considered offensive by the native whites. General Grant, indeed, urged that only white troops be used to garrison the interior. But the Negro soldier, impudent by reason of his new freedom, his new uniform, and his new gun, was more than Southern temper could tranquilly bear, and race conflicts were frequent. A New Orleans newspaper thus states the Southern point of view: "Our citizens who had been accustomed to meet and treat the Negroes only as respectful servants, were mortified, pained, and shocked to encounter them . . . wearing Federal uniforms and bearing bright muskets and gleaming bayonets . . . . They are jostled from the sidewalks by dusky guards, marching four abreast. They were halted, in rude and sullen tones, by Negro sentinels." (The Sequel of Appomattox, a Chronicle of the Reunion of the States, Walter Lynwood Fleming, Chapter 1) http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelap.htm

[ole]

MobileBoy:
Thea has posted a link to "blackmask" that you should read, come Christmas Break. She quotes some of the hard parts of it, but all in all, it appears to be quite a study of Reconstruction -- at least to start with.

I haven't finished it myself yet, but I'm not going to quit until I do. It would appear that Reconstruction was not much fun for the Confederacy. A lot of it had to do with bureaucratic bungling (however well intentioned). I believe we can all relate to that.

Some of the harsher measures were influenced by Northern fire-eaters demanding retribution (the South had no monopoly on those). And a goodly portion of the turmoil was caused by the southerners themselves. Continued reading will firm up or debunk those statements.

As to the number of troops stationed in the south. I don't have a number either, but it couldn't have been many. The entire Federal Military Apparatus was precipitously hacked to tiny pieces after the final surrenders. The volunteers were demobbed (I like that word better than "demobilised" (spelling intended). The regulars, reduced from their pre-war numbers, were mostly out murdering native americans from the southern border to the northern.

Small garrisons were scattered throughout the former Confederacy to maintain order, if necessary, when the local constabulary was overwhelmed. Quite a number of these were USCT. That may arguably have been intentional, or it may have simply been gainful employment of those coloreds who remained in the army. Maybe both. But Southern sensibilities and resentment of the uppity ******* is hardly pertinent. Kind of "whatsoever ye sow" sort of thing, don't you think?

Perhaps, as this thread develops, we may all come to a better appreciation of Reconstruction. My view, at this time, is that it wasn't as bad as you've believed for years, and it wasn't as benevolent as your opposites would like to believe. It was a trying time, for sure, but so long as we concentrate on cutting buttons off a uniform to humiliate a veteran officer, we're never going to see a remotely factual picture of it.
Ole

[unionblue]

Thea,

Thank you for the web sites you provided. I have already added one to my Favorites list.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[MobileBoy]

Neil,
I see your point now.I was agreeing that it would be like rubbing gasoline in their wounds.I was thinking more along the lines of black Congressmen and judges etch.. in the South.That is just funny to me.Can you imagine how a slaveowner would feel for his former slave to be a Congressman or a judge?That is a comical scenario.Black troops would also be like rubbing there nose in defeat too.I really don't know how many colored troops there were.I wasn't being evasive I don't know.The stuff with former slaves doesn't make me bitter Neil.I think it was rubbing it in ,but I harbor no resentment for that.Its the other mistreatmant of Southern civilians that makes me mad.Particularly the quote carpet baggers and scalawags.I also don't think former Confederates should have had their state and local governments disrupted for so long.I can rationalize quite easily the need for Union troops.There presence didn't bother me ,but many of their actions did.

Ole,
You could quite possibly be right about Reconstruction.I was always the kid who wanted the piece of the bully.I'm just a person who gets infuriated when poeple pick on or abuse other poeple.It's just hard for me to excuse that type of behavior.

Have a great one,
Ashley

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

What I am trying to get across is there wasn't a lot of Union troops, black or white, to get upset about. 10,000 to 15,000 across eleven states means these troops were spread mighty thin, so I wonder just how badly it was rubbed in, by the use of these troops, and just how did their actions get out of hand if there wasn't that many to interact with Southern civilians and ex-soldiers?

Sincerely,
Unionblue