Reconstruction's Biggest Mistake?

[matthew mckeon]

You are not mistaken, the courts in fact ruled it was illegal.

But I am saying it would be good national policy to confiscate land from the former Confederate leadership and redistribute it former slaves.

By union army vets, I meant the USCT.

[Horace Porter]

You are not mistaken, the courts in fact ruled it was illegal.

What's the name of the ruling in question?

[matthew mckeon]

Darn you, Robert, I was afraid you'd ask that. I remember that the former owners of some of the confiscated land sued to have it returned and won their case. I'll have to look up the actual ruling.

[matthew mckeon]

According to wikipedia, Andrew Johnson, my least favorite president, revoked Sherman's Special Field Order 15, returning confiscated land to its original owners.

I'm still remembering a court case, and will dig further.

[Remember1864]

A tourist stated the following to me earlier this year. "Reconstruction was cruel to the south." I replied, "Yes, it was meant to be." I actually believe that to some extent. It's my theory that reconstruction began on 15 April 1865 when Lincoln died. Abe was all about a reunited nation and a peaceful process to smooth over issues created during the war. He and U.S. Grant both wanted to get back to the business of being one, whole country, as soon as possible after the Civil War.

But once John Wilkes Booth fired that Derringer, Lincoln no longer had a say in the matter. However, people like Edwin M. Stanton did. Regardless of whether certain cabinet members "liked" or "got along" with Lincoln while he was alive; that anti-Lincoln sentiment was pushed aside in favor of punishing the South for what Booth had done. I'm saying this was this mind-set in 1865-1866. I don't see this as playing a part of reconstruction in the late 1800s/early 1900s. In the post-war environment, Abe Lincoln could've been the best friend the south had.


John Marler
Franklin, Tn

[ole]

I wouldn't go quite that far, John, but there was certainly an element of vengeance in there. Just one hint was stationing colored troops to enforce order. That was clearly an "in your face" moment.

[Horace Porter]

I wouldn't go quite that far, John, but there was certainly an element of vengeance in there. Just one hint was stationing colored troops to enforce order. That was clearly an "in your face" moment.

It may have been, but there was a logical reason for it. With the end of the war the terms of service of the white volunteers had ended. USCT enlisted under somewhat different terms as federal volunteers.

[RobertP]

[quote=Remember1864;160954 In the post-war environment, Abe Lincoln could've been the best friend the south had.


John Marler
Franklin, Tn[/quote]
Yes, and I think most people in the South believe that.

[larry_cockerham]

A tourist stated the following to me earlier this year. "Reconstruction was cruel to the south." I replied, "Yes, it was meant to be." I actually believe that to some extent. It's my theory that reconstruction began on 15 April 1865 when Lincoln died. Abe was all about a reunited nation and a peaceful process to smooth over issues created during the war. He and U.S. Grant both wanted to get back to the business of being one, whole country, as soon as possible after the Civil War.

But once John Wilkes Booth fired that Derringer, Lincoln no longer had a say in the matter. However, people like Edwin M. Stanton did. Regardless of whether certain cabinet members "liked" or "got along" with Lincoln while he was alive; that anti-Lincoln sentiment was pushed aside in favor of punishing the South for what Booth had done. I'm saying this was this mind-set in 1865-1866. I don't see this as playing a part of reconstruction in the late 1800s/early 1900s. In the post-war environment, Abe Lincoln could've been the best friend the south had.


John Marler
Franklin, Tn

This probably reflected the thoughts of many Southerners concerning Lincoln:

Somerville, April 26, 1865.
Brig. Gen. R.S. Granger,
Commanding U.S. Forces, North Alabama:

SIR: I have seen your letter and also that of General Thomas, addressed to the citizens of this county. Thanking you for your kind intentions, I beg leave to make the following statement: There is at this time a considerable force of Confederate cavalry in this section of country. I have received no notification of General Lee's surrender except through Northern channels. Although I do not doubt that it is so, yet you are aware that I can take no action in the premises unless I had official information of the fact, and it would be impossible for citizens of the county, with any degree of propriety, to make any engagements which would compromise them with a command which is composed of their relatives and friends. I make free to state, general, that if General Lee has surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, it leaves, in my judgement, our cause in a hopeless condition. A further shedding of blood would be suicidal. Guerrilla or partisan warfare would be the only warfare we could resort to, and that would prove disastrous alike to friend and foe. However much may have been said heretofore of guerilla warfare as a last resort, yet no good man, however patriotic he might be, would encourage, much less participate in, such a struggle. It is impossible for any action to be taken at this time. I will, however, communicate with General Roddey, and use my excretions to bring about such joint action on the part of the people and this command as will best secure life and property. In the meantime I respectfully ask that you refrain from any offensive operations for twenty days and I will do the same. You will please communicate with me immediately at this place as to what action you will take in this premises. You will perhaps not deem it improper for me to state no good man or brave spirit in our army takes pleasure in the assassination of President Lincoln. The deed has met with the universal condemnation of our troops, so far as I have heard an expression.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOSIAH PATTERSON,
Colonel, Commanding Fifth Regiment Cavalry.

[ole]

What's the name of the ruling in question?

A legitimate question, but simple logic tells me that the order was well beyond the authority of Sherman.

The Congress can confiscate property and redistribute it. Sherman's order was without due process and well beyond his pay grade.

Ole

[bama46]

A legitimate question, but simple logic tells me that the order was well beyond the authority of Sherman.

The Congress can confiscate property and redistribute it. Sherman's order was without due process and well beyond his pay grade.

Ole

Yet one more reason why Sherman is not revered in the South!

[Freddy]

What's the name of the ruling in question?

If you are referring to this post the ruling in question would be Texas v. White 1869.

Posted by RobertP:
"Tell me if I'm mistaken. From Lincoln's perspective the rebellious states seceded illegally and therefore technically were still in the Union throughout the war. After all, the number of stars on Old Glory wasn't reduced, was it? So, if the southern states were still part of the U.S., it follows that the citizens of those states were still citizens of the U.S. Are you still saying it would have been good national policy to confiscate private land in the South and redistribute it to Yank veterans and slaves? Where has that happened other than say the October Revolution of 1917? Seems highly illegal to me. No wonder Sherman's order was rescinded."

[Horace Porter]

How did Texas v. White rule on confiscation and redistribution? That's the issue under discussion from my question.

I can't help it if someone can't tell who posted what, although I can see that maybe Freddy simply followed a previous poster's error in misidentifying the source of the question. See posts #23 and #24.

If you are referring to this post the ruling in question would be Texas v. White 1869.

Posted by RobertP:
"Tell me if I'm mistaken. From Lincoln's perspective the rebellious states seceded illegally and therefore technically were still in the Union throughout the war. After all, the number of stars on Old Glory wasn't reduced, was it? So, if the southern states were still part of the U.S., it follows that the citizens of those states were still citizens of the U.S. Are you still saying it would have been good national policy to confiscate private land in the South and redistribute it to Yank veterans and slaves? Where has that happened other than say the October Revolution of 1917? Seems highly illegal to me. No wonder Sherman's order was rescinded."

[ole]

I think Mr. Porter was looking for the case in which Sherman's order was declared illegal.

Ole

[Horace Porter]

I think Mr. Porter was looking for the case in which Sherman's order was declared illegal.

Ole

Thank you.

[larry_cockerham]

I think Mr. Porter was looking for the case in which Sherman's order was declared illegal.

Ole

I'm not looking at details (surprise?), but yes, Sherman's orders concerning the surrender of the AOT were questioned. As I recall that was quickly resolved. Many of the soliders had headed home by that time anyway. I'll post a couple of excerpts from my files here in a moment.

[larry_cockerham]

April 24, 1865 General Grant reached Sherman's headquarters in Raleigh and brought with him the news that President Johnson had disapproved Shermans agreement with Johnston. Sherman was ordered to give forty--eight hours notice and then resume hostilities if there was no surrender. Sherman was incensed both by the disapproval and the large amount of material on the subject in the New York papers including the dispatch of March 3, 1865 from Lincoln to Grant stating the generals should accept nothing but surrender and should not negotiate peace. Sherman said he never received the message. The fiery general soon raged against Stanton and Halleck, claiming he had not gone beyond Lincoln's wishes. While historians differ, it does seem that Sherman had gone beyond military obligations, and that he did try to make a peace agreement. Grant was now under orders to direct military movements and left Sherman to carry them out. General Johnston was ordered to suspend the truce at once. President Davis approved Johnston's agreement with Sherman, not knowing it had been rejected by the Union.