Reconstruction's Biggest Mistake?

[Horace Porter]

When you look at Reconstruction, I think you see several threads of argument Let me offer a few of them. Readers may have others to add.

1. The transition from slavery to freedom was going to be tough on both blacks and whites. Without confiscation and redistribution, blacks would find it tough to establish economic opportunity, and the vast majority of them lacked education (as did many whites, but that's not the point). And, let's be fair ... whites had racist notions of black inferiority engraved into their very being for generations, so to expect that to go away all of a sudden is really asking a great deal. Even non-slaveholding whites had been taught to fear the consequences of emancipation, so, already smarting from defeat, you can imagine that it was going to be a tough readjustment.

2. Let's say you don't believe blacks should have been brought along into political rights so quickly. Okay. But do you really think that the federal government was going to let former Confederate leaders take charge of the state and local governments, and send representatives to Congress? Really?

3. Let's say you have no problem with blacks voting and holding office. Surely you realize that many white southerners would not accept that order of things. Violence was to be expected. And, if you send federal troops down south, don't you do more to get people upset? And how long would northerners stand for that? After all, a majority of northerners were racist, too.

So maybe the problem in the first place was the rush to reestablish civil government in the South. No one was really ready for that. You couldn't have such governments without blacks (look at the track record in 1865-1866) or with them (1867-1877). Maybe you needed a much longer transition period under federal supervision. Would that be ideal? No. But could it be worse than what happened?

I'm not advocating this position: I'm posing this as something to stir some discussion along (I hope) fresh lines.

[ole]

Only read the title and thought, too much too soon.

Douglass was always on Lincoln's case because, to him, Lincoln acted too slowly to get done what both wanted done.

One good disagreement we have here is what would Lincoln have done had he served out his second term. I don't know what he would have done, but I think he would not have done what was done. He knew he couldn't change the social order by edict.

Ole

[DWMack]

When you look at Reconstruction, I think you see several threads of argument Let me offer a few of them. Readers may have others to add.

1. The transition from slavery to freedom was going to be tough on both blacks and whites. Without confiscation and redistribution, blacks would find it tough to establish economic opportunity, and the vast majority of them lacked education (as did many whites, but that's not the point). And, let's be fair ... whites had racist notions of black inferiority engraved into their very being for generations, so to expect that to go away all of a sudden is really asking a great deal. Even non-slaveholding whites had been taught to fear the consequences of emancipation, so, already smarting from defeat, you can imagine that it was going to be a tough readjustment.

2. Let's say you don't believe blacks should have been brought along into political rights so quickly. Okay. But do you really think that the federal government was going to let former Confederate leaders take charge of the state and local governments, and send representatives to Congress? Really?

3. Let's say you have no problem with blacks voting and holding office. Surely you realize that many white southerners would not accept that order of things. Violence was to be expected. And, if you send federal troops down south, don't you do more to get people upset? And how long would northerners stand for that? After all, a majority of northerners were racist, too.

So maybe the problem in the first place was the rush to reestablish civil government in the South. No one was really ready for that. You couldn't have such governments without blacks (look at the track record in 1865-1866) or with them (1867-1877). Maybe you needed a much longer transition period under federal supervision. Would that be ideal? No. But could it be worse than what happened?

I'm not advocating this position: I'm posing this as something to stir some discussion along (I hope) fresh lines.

One of the biggest problems was Johnson. Sherman's special field orders # 15 was revoked and properties given back to the plantation owners. Thats one of my complaints.

[RobertP]

One of the biggest problems was Johnson. Sherman's special field orders # 15 was revoked and properties given back to the plantation owners. Thats one of my complaints.

Sherman was drunk when he issued that.

[matthew mckeon]

First of all, it was Grant who was drunk. Sherman was crazy.

Actually Sherman was the only one who understood what had to happen. Large scale confiscation of the estates of members of the Confederate government and military leadership(let's say general officers). This would give the freedmen an economic base. Even so, it wasn't 1800, small scale agriculture wasn't the wave of the economic future.

A permanent Freedman's Bureau, at least fifty years, commited to not justimmediate aid(rations, blankets etc.) which it distributed to all regardless of race, as well as the adjustment of conflicts between the freedmen and white Southerners.

Expand it to include college scholarships, rebuilding project, legal aid etc. that would benefit all.

[matthew mckeon]

There's not guarentee that it would succeed either, but it had a much better chance of creating a improved standard of living and justice for all Southerners.

The flaws are obvious:
a. White southerners didn't want to cooperate. The prewar and wartime elite would lose power, but they would be replaced by populists who made white supremacy an article of faith.

b. The idea of social engineering to this degree, thorugh government action, was alien to the 19th century American mind.

So 90 years of squalid racial tyranny, then we try again in the 1950s and 60s. This time its a less racist society and with a stronger and more vigorous federal government.

[RobertP]

First of all, it was Grant who was drunk. Sherman was crazy.

Actually Sherman was the only one who understood what had to happen. Large scale confiscation of the estates of members of the Confederate government and military leadership(let's say general officers).

As an aside Wm. Sherman was the first superintendent of my school, L.S.U., in 1860 when it was a quasi-military seminary. So he knew something of the people of the South. And yes, he was crazy, and vindictive, and a pyromanic. But I digress.

There were 8 million slaves. I could be wrong but I don't believe all the CSA generals and government officials could possibly have owned enough land to give each one 40 acres (Sherman's plan). That redistribution would have had to extend to all the landowners of the South. If you're a Reparations aficionado that probably sounds pretty good. If you legally owned property, probably not. Reconstruction was a failure because of the way it was handled, followed by decades of exploitation and retribution that effectively made the region the North American equivalent of a bananna republic. It impoverished whites and blacks for generations and created animosities that obviously still linger. FDR in 1938, after seeing the results of the National Emergency Council report on the economic conditions of the South said "The South presents right now the Nation's #1 economic problem--the Nation's problem, not merely the South's" and wrote bluntly of "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section of the country's population." In other words, the South was raped for 75 years, only the opportunities that sprung from WWII enabled the region to begin to recover.

[matthew mckeon]

I believe there were four million slaves, but your point has validity: were there enough land in the categories I described to provide enough farmland for the slaves? Maybe not all(Union army vets gets first dibs?), but a lottery system could be used to put enough farmland into freedman ownership to create a significant economic base.

[matthew mckeon]

Beyond the practicalities of land redistribution, the very idea of massive federal intervention was not in the character of 19th century America.

I still think that, given the end of slavery, the historic results were not the best or only possible outcome.

[matthew mckeon]

I see I should have used a smiley icon with my Grant and Sherman joke.

You can criticize Sherman all you want, but crazy is the last way to describe him. Sherman understood exactly what he was doing, why he was doing it, and the results of his actions. That doesn't let him off the hook, if you disagree with his actions, quite the opposite.

Sherman wasn't crazy. He was modern.

I don't want to hijack your Reconstruction thread with a rant about Sherman. Maybe a new thread on Sherman is called for, while we continue with Reconstruction here.

[RobertP]

I believe there were four million slaves, but your point has validity: were there enough land in the categories I described to provide enough farmland for the slaves? Maybe not all(Union army vets gets first dibs?), but a lottery system could be used to put enough farmland into freedman ownership to create a significant economic base.

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.

[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.

[DWMack]

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? Seems highly illegal to me. No wonder Sherman's order was rescinded.

I think it would have been good policy to confiscate properties of those who aided the rebellion. It seems to me that everyone got off scott free. There was no accountability factor after the war. 620,000 on both sides lost their lives and no one had to pay.

[RobertP]

I think it would have been good policy to confiscate properties of those who aided the rebellion. It seems to me that everyone got off scott free. There was no accountability factor after the war. 620,000 on both sides lost their lives and no one had to pay.

No one had to pay? The War and Reconstruction devastated the South for 75 years. As a parallel, the Japan and Germany were running smoothly again 15 years after WWII.

[Elennsar]

In other words, the South was raped for 75 years, only the opportunities that sprung from WWII enabled the region to begin to recover.

This brings up my nomination. Not effectively countering the lies and slander and maliciousness of those who were proudly unreconstructed and spiteful about it (as part of attempting to rebuild and restore).

Jubal Early, to name one spiteful and acid-filled individual.

The South was not a victim of the North, it was a victim of its own leadership.

So perhaps also letting former Confederate leaders run for political office was a mistake. Maybe not, but it wasn't great either.

[DWMack]

No one had to pay? The War and Reconstruction devastated the South for 75 years. As a parallel, the Japan and Germany were running smoothly again 15 years after WWII.

Reconstruction was not (meant) as punishment. Unfortunately many southerners felt the impact. Southern leadership could have been held responsible in the end. Due to their actions, the "south" as a people suffered. The Federal Government failed at cleaning up the mess left by Davis and company - when it wasn't their mess to start with.

[RobertP]

This brings up my nomination. Not effectively countering the lies and slander and maliciousness of those who were proudly unreconstructed and spiteful about it (as part of attempting to rebuild and restore)...
The South was not a victim of the North, it was a victim of its own leadership.

Well let's see Elennsar. You like references, so here goes.
7/25/38 report of the National Emergency Council findings to the President (73 years after the war), and I quote:
1. The public utilities in the South are almost completely controlled by outside interests.
2. All major railroad systems are owned and controlled elsewhere.
3. Most of the great electric holding company systems are directed, managed and owned by outside interests.
4. Transmission and distribution of natural gas, one of the South's great assets, is almost completely in the hands of remote financial institutions.
5. The richest deposits of the iron ore, coal, and limestone are owned or controlled outside the region.
6. ditto for bauxite, zinc and sulphur.
7. For mining its mineral wealth and shipping it away the South frequently receives nothing but the low wages of unskilled and semiskilled labor.
8. The large absentee ownership of the South's natural resources and industry makes it possible to influence greatly the manner in which the South is developed and to subordinate that development to other interests outside the South.

Tariff rates and domestic charges for the use of RR freight blatantly discriminated against the South, impeding its ability to grow and compete. And I quote again "The southeastern manufacturer sending goods across the boundary into the Northeast is a a relative disadvantage of approximately 39% in the charges which he has to pay as compared with the rates for similar shipments entirely within the eastern rate territory. On the one hand, the freight rates have hampered its industry; on the other hand, our high tariff has subsidized industry in other section of the country at the expense of the South."

In short the South became an economic colony of the North, what was desired in the pre-war period. Arthur Schlesinger pointed out, "The technique of 'waving the bloody shirt'--that is, of freeing the slaves again every fourth year--enabled the Republicans long to submerge the fact that they were becoming the party of monopoly and wealth"

Very well said.

.

[Elennsar]

One is left wondering why no Southerners between 1865 and that report (which I'd like to know where you found a copy) did anything about that if it was so bad. There were rich Southerners.

Also, just as a railroad example

http://www.srha.net/public/History/history.htm

http://www.atouchofbusiness.com/busi...ncer-0158.html

I don't know what happened after Spencer died (the Southern Railway is well outside the area I've studied in learning about railroads in the 19th and early 20th centuries), but this sure doesn't sound like its dominated by outside interests.

And its making enough money that clearly there is money flowing.

Sure, its only one example, but this is hardly some insignificant line to nowhere, so it'll do as an example.

[RobertP]

I think it would have been good policy to confiscate properties of those who aided the rebellion. It seems to me that everyone got off scott free. There was no accountability factor after the war. 620,000 on both sides lost their lives and no one had to pay.

There were something like 1.1 million Confederate soldiers, 700,000 or so who survived in varying physical capacity, who obviously aided the rebellion? Should all their properties have been confiscated? What about the women who in their homes made blankets, socks and all for their loved ones? They we aiding the rebellion too. Should they have lost those homes? Then we have the farmers and ranchers who feed the army. I guess those lands should rightly have been confiscated too. Where did you want to it end? Seriously.

[Elennsar]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd go for generals, politicians, and the wealthy having their wealth and land confiscated (if one is going for confiscation, and I trust Abe on this - though the old aristocrats do need to be monitored).

Beyond that, those who survived have to make do somehow, and quite frankly unless they cause further trouble (the KKK, for instance), the war extracted all the blood and misery they needed to shed.

Soldier or civilian.

What the South needed was not so much retribution as ensuring that things would go smoothly, and there the Republicans dropped the ball and the anti-Yankees abused the situation for all it was worth, legally and otherwise, leaving the average Southerner paying for debts he didn't owe, so to speak.

Speaking as a person of Radical sympathies but a preference for Lincoln's good brains.

He was good at handling painful situations. Nothing I've read, however favorable, suggests the likes of Thadeus Stevens was. Nor Andrew Johnson.

[RobertP]

One is left wondering why no Southerners between 1865 and that report (which I'd like to know where you found a copy) did anything about that if it was so bad. There were rich Southerners.

Because there weren't enough of them.

"Report to the President on the Economic Conditions of the South" 7/25/38 Library of Congress. "In 1937 the South had 28 per cent of the population, and 16 per cent of the tangible assets, including factories, machines, and the tools with which people make a living With more than half the country's farmers, the South has less than a fifth of the farm implements. In 1930 there were nearly twice as many southern farms less than 20 acres in size as in 1880. The total endowments of the colleges and universities of the South are less than the combined endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The South must educate one-third of the Nation's children with one-sixth of the Nation's school revenues. In 1937 the ave. annual income in the South was only $314, while the rest of the country averaged $604. Tenant farmers averaged $73 for a year's work; sharecroppers varied from $38 to $87, depending on the state. Whites and Negroes have suffered alike. Of the 1,831,000 tenant families in the region, about 66% are white (South's pop. was 71% white) living under conditions almost identical with those of Negro sharecroppers."

In a nutshell, over the decades the national policies of the Republicans had raped the region while the actions of many state and local Democrats too often were designed to preserve the assets of a select few at the expense of just about everyone else. Always follow the money.

[bama46]

This thread pretty much follows the history of my family as I know it from about 1900 on. My gg grandfather owned a sawmill in South Alabama. During a dispute, he was shot dead and within 24 hours someone else owned the sawmill, the man who shot him was allowed to go to Texas and my great grandmother (pregnant at the time) was forced out of her home and had to make a 200 mile trek to North Alabama in a wagon with 6 small children..

[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.