RECONSTRUCTION!!!

[thea_447]

I have listed places where it might be possible to find the number of black troops, but I think perhaps this portion of Reconstruction has put too much emphasis on just the black troops.

It wasn't just the idea of "uppity negroes" (sorry if that offends, but it was the vernacular of the day and is used in this discussion appropriately). It's hard to dismiss the fact the smart-aleck Yankee troops were putting up flags on everything in sight for Southerners (women particularly found it galling) to have to cow-tow to; but this bullying of women and children when you've won the war, you've burned their homes, farms, left them with nothing, and have put charge over them to the most disreputable class of people, namely those who didn't take up arms against the Union, not so much out of familial feeling with the Union, but that they were just lazy slackards was more than most could bear!

Also, I would request that you all return and read Neil's post #47. The lengths to which these soldiers pushed this widow at once show the complete demoralization of the Southern people only too well. Thank you Neil, for presenting it.

I am not concentrating on an old man's buttons and can certainly do without such condescending remarks; also, the suggestion to MobileBoy to read, perhaps at Christmas break the lengthy article I have listed several times only imparts to me that perhaps you found it difficult reading. I'm quite sure that MobileBoy, being a teacher, will make short shrift of it.

I will simply not reply further to such obvious sarcasms, especially when used to demean the better known facts about the horrors of Reconstruction. It is a very simplistic view to think that what was visited on the South was either "what they deserved" or "not so bad". I wonder how any of you Unionists would feel if you read about your relatives being burned out, left in yards with young children, no food, no way to make a crop and only the clothes on their backs, and begging for mercy because of the children. Oh yes, there will be a few of you that can comment. Anyone with relatives involved in Chambersburg, please present your evidence...an abject apology for your suffering relatives will be forthcoming promptly.

Setting aside the pettiness and getting back to Reconstruction: with the assassination of Lincoln it was up to Johnson. Now I would like to get into some detail of how the process of Reconstruction began under Andrew Johnson. I want to show that the differences in what Johnson wanted, what the Radical Republicans wanted, what the demoralized South wanted, and all the accompanying political factors such as the Freedmans' Bureau, the cotton brokers, etc. did to accumulate the disaster that became Reconstruction.

Congress May 29, 1865: Johnson issued a proclamation stating that the Constitution guaranteed to every state in the Uniona republican form of government. Since the rebellion, waged " in the most violent and revolting form," had now been almost entirely overcome , leaving North Carolina without any form of civil government, he as President "was bound by solemn oath to take care that the law be faithfully executed and the people of North Carolina secure the enjoyment of a republican form of government."
He appointed Wm. W. Holden provisional governor of N.C. Holden was to prescribe such rules and regulation as were necessary and proper for convening a convention of delegates to be chosen by the loyal people for the purpose of altering or amending their existing constitution. He also gave these delegates the powers necessary " to enable such loyal people to restore their state to its Constitutional relations to the Federal Government."

These items Johnson laid out with all his "supposed" constitutional scruples so that he didn't leave the "sovereign state officials" to go their own way. He required them to meet certain conditions and he imposed his own authority when they did not comply. He was not accepting his own theory of their status. (some paragraphs paraphrased for shortness from Reconstruction in North Carolina, J.G. de Roulhac Hamilton, (New York, 1914), pp. 106-147)

What's more important about Johnson's program for reconstructing the South is that it aimed only at political reconstruction. The Southern people themselves were permitted to carry out the program, and in the next few months the same process was extended to Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida. (Johnson did suggest to Miss. Gov. Wm. L. Sharkey that certain Negroes be given the vote, but Sharkey alone was left to decide.)

"If you could extend the elective franchise to all persons of color who can read the Constitution of the United States in English and write their names, and to all persons of color who own real-estate valued at not less than $250 and pay taxes thereon, you would completely disarm the adversary and set an example the other states will follow. This you can do with perfect safety, and you would thus place Southern states in reference to free persons of color upon the same basis with the free states...And as a consequence the radicals.....will be completely foiled."

It was a suggestion, not a command.

Congress in December, 1865: Johnson announced:

"I have....gradually and quietly and by almost imperceptible steps, sought to restore the rightful energy of the General Government and of the States. To that end, provisional governors have been appointed for the states, conventions called, governors elected, legislatures assembled, and senators and representatives chosen to the Congress of the United States."

Had reconstruction been only a problem of restoring the Union and bringing peace to war-weary people, Johnson's report would have indicated real progress. Under existing conditions however, it served only to show that the war had become the carrier of a social, political, and moral revolution and had left its early impulses far behind. The great masses were eager to see the army disbanded and looked forward to a more normal life. But there were persons in and out of Congress who wouldn't believe the war had come to an end until those who'd caused it were adequately punished.

At some point during this period the Republican party traveled from cooperation with Johnson to an open break, as they realized that nothing would ever be the same again.
They now had to face what they meant by terms such as "secularity," "Southern humility," "change of heart," and "Southern repentence."

On the other hand the South never quite understood what was being demanded. It acted accordingly and now the Republicans realized what they required of the Southand what the South would take.

Republicans began to see that the old political conflict with Democrats still existed. Wm. H. Seward, with his mind on the political future, had in '64 and '65 organized a powerful lobby to forward adoption of the 13th Amendment and the elimination of slavery. He'd converted a number of conservative Democrats to the cause and had taken steps to form an alliance of conservatives from both parties, with Seward in a dominant role and Johnson as its figurehead. (Politics,Principles, and Prejudice, 1865-1866, LaWanda and John H. Cox,(New York, 1963), pp. 1-30)

Another prominant family, the Francis Blairs had developed similar ideas. Together they represented a political effort that would fuse in which Republicans and Democrats would push the Radical Republicans aside. All these things added up to the quick return of a nonrepentent South unless Republicans acted quickly; afterall, were not the great moral obligations involved being ignored? They viewed the South as being restored to national life and they realized that economic interests were also at stake. They began to understand what they wanted Reconstruction to do. It had to include a social revolution that would give the Negro security in Southern life and gain his support for the Republican party. It was not just the Negro, as some say; it was the whole modern world that must be made safe. The Negro was only one item, but right now, the important one.

END PART I

[thea_447]

1865 America saw the Southerner representing the only white American who had ever known total defeat, absolute poverty, and subjection to an armed enemy. He had a very vague notion of what was expected of him but he didn't interpret the Republicans as requiring a social and economic revolution. He accepted that he'd been conquered by superior numbers and resources, but he was certain he'd fought well for a cause which he thought worthy. He would accept defeat and meet the demands of the victor, but he was not inclined to grovel in the dust. He wasn't acting in a spirit of defiance; like an American he felt awkward at playing humble and repentent because he wasn't sure he was either.

Southerners were badly divided and much debate would ensue as to what defeat entailed, how to deal with the Negro, what to do about Confederate debts, and how to proceed with economic recovery. A suspicious North listened.

The economic situation, however, was something else. In some places people were starving. Delay was impossible; some economic stability was absolutely and immediately necessary. A crop had to be raised and sold before any recovery was possible. Yet this involved the most important and the most emotion-charged issue in all Reconstruction--the Southern belief in Negro inferiority and the need for rigid control for effeciency. Most Republicans united in opposition to this attitude.

For solution of this problem, either the North or the South would have to undergo a psychological revolution! A social, economic, and intellectual revolution was also involved, yet few had been thinking in terms of revolution. Perhaps security required it. Perhaps repentence did also.


Under Johnson's "provisional governors" the Southern states tried to carry out the President's plan under difficult circumstances. Three different authorities were now exercising a degree of control. 1. Provisional governors, 2. The Army, with its own acting governors who'd already taken a hand in running civil affairs, and 3. the Freedman's Bureau, established March 3rd, 1864, to feed and care for the refugees who'd drifted along with the army, and to take charge of lands abandoned by owners as they served the Confederacy or had fled before the approaching invaders. By its right to seize property under the Confiscation Acts, and to settle refugees wherever, the Bureau had considerable influence with the Negroes.

Conflict of authority was inevitable and the situation made more difficult because at no time did there exist a clear understanding of just what the Republicans of the North demanded of the South. Johnson encouraged them to think he spoke with authority for the nation, however he spoke only for himself. And it became quite clear that the Republicans didn't even agree among themselves. It took a lot of time and effort from Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner to pull them away from Johnson.

The differences of opinion increased at this time because of the quality of the individuals involved and because the work of Reconstruction was strictly in Johnson's hands at this point. His personality became an important factor; few have ever argued his honesty or his courage, but even these qualities didn't always serve in a proud, sensitive man where tact, firmness, and common sense were essential. Above all, opposition and unfair criticism brought his crudeness and prejudices to the surface.

Johnson, in choosing to act alone, in what was possibly an impossible situation became the victim of his own constitutional theory, and in doing so, lost control over the Southern states. As soon as they were newly reorganized, he left them in the main free to act as sovereign states and to ignore even his own preorganization demands. He could then only beg them for their compliance. (An excellent discussion in Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, Eric L. McKitrick (Chicago, 1960), pp. 186-212. Here Johnson not only allowed Miss. Gov. Sharkey to override his own wishes, but to defy a Union general and mislead the Southern states as to the power they possessed.)

Republicans were at odds with Johnson over his plan. Also it must be noted that some Republicans had bluntly opposed Lincoln and that Congress had been openly resentful of the way he'd taken charge and relegated Congress to a secondary role. It now seemed Johnson was attempting the same thing with Reconstruction. The result: an inflexible executive now faced a Congress becoming increasingly under the influence of more radical leaders, many who matched and even surpassed Johnson in bizarre qualities. It boggles the mind, except for the abnormal conditions following the war, that a group such as Sumner, Stevens, George Julian, Benjamin Wade, and Salmon Chase could have obtained great influence. They were abstractionists, oblivious of practical politics and certain that ends justified means where a cause was just. (in their opinion....) They contribute nothing to stability.

Plus the very leaders from the old South who were intelligent and could have helped ease the South's re-entry into the Union had scattered. Judah Benjamin had moved to England and many of the more intelligent Confederates who'd served in positions of influence before the war, had moved in exile, many to Brazil. Other old and experienced leaders had been refused amnesty and forced to apply personally for pardon if they wished to play any part in public affairs. That led to a flood of requests and it left many, perhaps the best men, outside. In the confusion many ex-Confederates (pardoned or not) were elected by the people and this looked like defiance to the North.

With many superior men barred from office or in exile, the South was in for trouble. It hadn't developed a large, politically active or socially minded middle class. Only a comparatively small group of farmers or tradesmen had entered politics or shared in the shaping of public policy until quite recently. Three-fourths of the Southerners held few or no slaves, the non-slaveholder viewed the Negro as a rival. From the planters, lawyers, editors, and men of wealth had come those who'd ruled the old South and who when once in office had remained there as by right. With this element now partly gone, Johnson had to depend on a rather limited group of middle-class, racially conscious men who had
opposed the war and who could easily qualify for pardon. Unless they asked for pardon, he couldn't turn to the more experienced men who realistically accepted defeat and northern demands, and only wanted to get on with a new start. It should have been good theory to reward the loyal Union men, but in practice this couldn't replace the old leadership of the South.

Another factor that clouded the atmosphere in which presidential construction took place was the presence, throughout the South, of agents of the U.S. Treasury Department who were seeking and seizing Confederate property under the Confiscation Acts. Cotton was the great object, the Confederacy had built its diplomacy and hopes for European recognition on cotton, and it had accumulated stores of this scare and valuable article through the war. Much still remained unsold. However, no way existed of always distinguishing government cotton from that which was privately owned. Agents working on a 25% commission were inclinded to see all cotton as Confederate cotton. Wholesale robbert resulted, and Southerners with nothing of value to sell except cotton were bitter victims. Agents made fortunes, and fake agents, in the uncertain confusion, joined in the plunder. Agent jobs were bought and sold at high prices--even an assistantship bringing
as high as $25,000. One agent in Demopolis, Alabama, later boasted that he had made $80,000 in one month.

So wild did the game become that planters were forced to pay from $5 to $10 a bale on their own cotton against threats of seizure. In all, according to government records, something like $500 million worth of cotton was seized, but the government received only $34 million; or, on over 3,000,000 bales seized, the government got only 114,000 bales. Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch later denounced the whole business, and some 40,000 persons were reimbursed. But the immediate effect was to produce contempt for all government officials and a reckless determination on the part of Southerners to look out for themselves and their interests.(Reconstruction: The Ending of the Civil War, Avery Craven, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp.101- 102)

To be continued......

[unionblue]

Thea,

Concerning my post #47 to which you refer, I hope you understand that the first story I give had NOTHING to do with Northern/Union troops. The 'Northern boys' refered to in the first story of the post, were those men who were Unionist or men who supported the North, not soldiers. Sorry I did not make this clear.

Also, all the stories in that post #47 do not concern themselves with Reconstruction, but with the time immediately after Lincoln's assasination. I feel they all would be taken out of context if the impression were given that they were typical of occupation during Reconstruction. Perhaps the title of the work I gave confused you, but all the stories given related to the time period immediately following the assasination.

I find it difficult to see unless the stories about brutal occupation were blown far out of proportion, to understand how 15,000 troops could cause so much anger spread out among 11 Southern states, and then realize a lot of those were sent out West to defend the frontier and Texas during the Indian Wars.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[samgrant]

Not sure how this fits, but I somehow think it may have a slant on the 'reconstruction' issue, if only on a "What If" basis:

This, well stated. from Elektratig on another post:


The problem, from the perspective of the southern radicals, is that waiting was, for other reasons, probably not a viable option. I am surprised how little noted it is that, but for the precipitous actions of the radicals, the Constitution almost certainly would have been amended, resulting in a “Compromise of 1861” that would have dramatically weakened the southern radicals.

Even before Lincoln’s inauguration, both the House (on February 28, 1861) and the Senate (on March 2, 1861) passed, by the requisite two-third majorities, a proposed Thirteenth Amendment:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"’Article Thirteen

"’No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’''

President Lincoln publicly and unequivocally endorsed the proposed Amendment in his First Inaugural. Several States had already ratified the proposed amendment even before Lincoln gave his Inaugural Address, and from what I have read it appears likely that three-quarters of the states would have been willing to ratify the amendment if the seceding states had agreed to return to the Union.

If ratified, the amendment (unless itself unconstitutional – boy, I’d love to discuss that question with Justice Scalia!) would have forever barred eradication of slavery except on a state-by-state basis. This would have eliminated one of the main arguments that the radicals advanced when they stampeded the South into secession in 1860-61, namely that the Republicans would use patronage and other means to encourage border states to become free, hemming slavery into the deep South, then ultimately pass a Constitutional amendment barring slavery altogether. From the standpoint of southern radicals, it was now or never.

Off topic, it is scary to contemplate how long it would have taken to eliminate slavery if the Thirteenth Amendment had been adopted in 1861. The radicals were probably correct that, over time, the border states would have become free. But the deep South would have become more and more black, making the white population in those States ever more resistant to the idea of granting freedom. Notwithstanding the bloodshed and horror of the war, I am often grateful that the radicals acted as foolishly as they did.

[cash]

Eric Foner dispells myths about Reconstruction:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5133942

Regards,
Cash

[elektratig]

It so happens that over the weekend I reread Kenneth Stampp's book, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877.

It's simply a wonderful book. In about 200 short pages, easily readable in a single day, Professor Stampp provides an overview of events and, more importantly, his typically piercing analysis of and insights into the personalities, motivations and events he describes. Although originally published in 1965, Stampp's debunking of the Reconstruction myths remains a classic and a must-read if you're interested in the period.

A piece of trivia: I note that my paperback copy, probably purchased in the mid- to late-70's, cost $2.95. The current price on Amazon is $10.36. Oh well.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039...lance&n=283155

[cedarstripper]

"’Article Thirteen

’No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.’''

Originally Posted by samgrant

"If ratified, the amendment (unless itself unconstitutional – boy, I’d love to discuss that question with Justice Scalia!) would have forever barred eradication of slavery except on a state-by-state basis.

Sam,

Do you see anything in the Corwin amendment that would prohibit its own repeal? Personally, I question the ability of one Congress to declare their act off limits, thus forever binding every future Congress in what they can and cannot amend. And given the evolving world view towards slavery, it seems unimaginable that the US would then allow slavery to forever become untouchable.

I'm interested in yours and everyone else's opinion on this.

Cedarstripper

[elektratig]

Cedarstripper,

It was originally my speculation that the proposed and never-ratified Thirteenth Amendment, which would have precluded forever any further amendments permitting Congress to interfere with state slavery, might itself be unconstitutional.

I have found no definitive answer -- almost certainly because there is none --but I am intrigued to see that Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar has also raised the issue whether an amendment may constitutionally preclude further amendment and very tentatively suggests that at least some such amendments might themselves be unconstitutional:

“[O]ne might plausibly infer from the Preamble’s text about the rights of “our Posterity” and from the very act of ordainment that what We, the People originally established, We could later amend. Ongoing popular sovereignty formed the Constitution’s bedrock principle, which could not be abrogated without undermining the very foundation of the document. On this view, if some putative amendment purported to eliminate the right of a later generation to adopt still further amendments, such an attempted abrogation of a genuinely inalienable right would not be a permissible amendment of the Constitution’s general project. Rather, it would represent an impermissible repudiation of the basic legitimating concept. Thus, in general the Constitution had to remain subject to amendment.”

Akhil Reed Amar, The Constitution: A Biography, p. 292.

[elektratig]

Returning to the nominal topic of this thread – Reconstruction – I thought I’d throw some fat on the fire by offering a few thoughts and opinions on one aspect of the period.

What is most remarkable to me is that in the brief period of their ascendancy the “Radical Republicans” were able to obtain passage of two amendments to the Constitution (the Fourteenth and Fifteenth) that profoundly altered the relationship between the Federal government and the States and ultimately – after almost 100 years – changed the face of the nation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, is particularly remarkable. Before its passage, the Bill of Rights applied only to the States. The States had no obligation under the Constitution to permit freedom of speech, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, jury trials, or any of the rights we take for granted today. It was for this reason that, before the War, southern States were able, for example, to suppress all speech and press that questioned slavery. The Constitution simply did not forbid them from doing so.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Historical research over the past twenty years or so has made it clear that the purpose of the “privileges or immunities” clause in Section 1 of the Amendment was, at a minimum, to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Section 5 of the Amendment also gave Congress the power to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. Although the Nineteenth Century Supreme Court virtually interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of existence, beginning in the 1920’s the Court used other parts of the Amendment (principally the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) to largely correct its mistake.

Had the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (the latter prohibiting abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude) not been passed during the immediate postwar period, it is inconceivable that any similar amendments would have been enacted until at least the 1960’s. There would have been no basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), nor would Congress have had the power to enact the Civil Rights laws of the early 1960’s. For this, IMHO, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to "radical" postwar Congresses. However much we may disagree with how the Supreme Court has applied the Due Process Clause in some instances – e.g., Roe v. Wade and its progeny – I am confident that virtually none of us can imagine or would countenance a system in which the Constitution did not protect us from incursions by the States on the rights we take for granted today.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by cedarstripper

Do you see anything in the Corwin amendment that would prohibit its own repeal? Personally, I question the ability of one Congress to declare their act off limits, thus forever binding every future Congress in what they can and cannot amend. And given the evolving world view towards slavery, it seems unimaginable that the US would then allow slavery to forever become untouchable.

I'm interested in yours and everyone else's opinion on this.

Cedarstripper

There was nothing in the amendment that wasn't already understood. It was only a re-affirmation of one of the rights that the states already posessed. Slavery, in the states, was already untouchable. This amendment added nothing new which is probably why it was given little attention by the Southern states and little resistance by the Northern states.

Rose

Rose