Reconstruction

suwannee

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Location
the Glorious South
I often find that young people, when asked the years of the Civil War, have no idea. Yet that is nothing to the look of bewilderment you get if you ask them about Reconstruction - in that area they join most age groups.

I believe an accurate definition of Reconstruction would be that it was the result that the Civil War achieved. In other words why was the war fought; so that Reconstruction could take place.

Why use the word Reconstruction? In the main that was the word used for what would take place after the fighting - the South was to redesigned; this doesn't mean rebuilt. Reconstruction was not Rebuilding. Quite the opposite.

It was to be a systemic destruction of the old Southern order that caused a war. Yet there was fierce disagreement among the architects of Reconstruction as to how it would be carried out.
Some advocates held that it meant the South was to be depopulated, returned to a territorial status, then resettled by northerners or immigrants. At a later time states would be created from this "new" territory. Call this the annihilation strategy. According to these people, the Civil War had been a war of conquest, and the victors were entitled to possession of the land they took, by Right of Conquest. This outlook was quite popular; it would mean land being given to Union veterans as reward for their service. This would address the job shortages in the North - and no doubt the likes of Benjamin Butler intended to have their baronial estates in the South by this strategy.
This flew in the face of claims by those like Joshua Chamberlain who said that this had not been a war for land, and the strategy would be resisted by those of his persuasion in the North who otherwise supported the idea of Reconstruction.
Unfortunately for Native Americans it was they who would be the recipients of the Annihilation Strategy instead. The scenario was carried out in the West exactly as it would have been done in the South.

Another camp held that the Reconstruction would be political; the governing structure in Southern states was to be replaced with one that secessionists would have no influence in. Call this the restructure strategy. Both camps tried to assert dominance during Reconstruction, with the result that Reconstruction was never a coherent plan. Partisans of both camps would often try to sabotage the effort of the other camp.

This was the reason Reconstruction failed. Yes - Reconstruction was an complete and utter failure that achieved neither aim of either camp. Its only legacy was an unintended one, and a disastrous one at that.

It kicked off with folly. The northern members of Congress denied entry to elected southern Democrat members. This was in violation of a promise that any who swore a loyalty oath would be allowed to vote and hold office if elected.

Those who swore the oath as demanded voted for candidates who had also sworn the oath. Those who did not swear were not allowed either to vote or hold office.

Yet when these "pardoned" members tried to take their seats in Congress, the Radical Republicans took measures that prevented them from doing so. Then this "Rump" Congress took control of the legislative branch - at the height of this Rump Congress these people attempted the removal by impeachment of their own president.

These were the people who administered Reconstruction; no wonder it was a disaster.

New elections were held under their control, and the loyalty oaths were thrown out. This meant that no former Confederates were either allowed to vote or even run for office. This resulted in both the state governments and congressional delegations being
composed solely of freed black slaves or Union men (often not even residents of that state). All governments, even down to the local level, were made up of these candidates elected by a minority of the state residents. Minority rule.

This was the actual commencement of Reconstruction, and represented the temporary victory of the Restructure Strategy camp.

It also led to the birth of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, associated with those like Bedford Forrest; he considered the promises on which he ceased hostilities to have been false. As indeed they were. The position of those who had refused to give a loyalty oath was strengthened - the diehards. It turned out that they were right when they claimed that the offer of pardon was false, a typical Yankee deceit. Few could doubt them after that, and any voices of moderation that reunion with the North could be achieved were quiet. The Southern position began to harden.

One of my sources in this matter is Eric Fohner and his works. It was one of that author's conclusions that one of the results of this Reconstruction and the laws promulgated under its authority was establish a ground for "future Federal interventions" in the South. He does so in the context that "future" means the present era.

According to that thesis the result of the Civil War was to establish a federal right to use armed force against Southern states in the future.

Then problems started, and not those of doings by Southern opponents.
Northen industry was in serious trouble. Union veterans seeking work were finding it difficult to get (a harbinger of unrest). Reduced factory capacity at a time when large numbers of Union veterans were being discharged brought about an economic depression in the North, and many a veteran was to be seen in his uniform begging on the streets.
In fact the scorched earth policy of the Union Army had destroyed their former source of raw materials in the South - the plantations. These were ruins inhabited by the starving former slaves who had worked on them. They couldn't resume full production and employment until those sources were restored.

Enter the "Carpetbaggers". These were northerners who often with no more than a carpet material suitcase to their name arrived in the South, and bought these ruined plantations. Usually for a bare pittance of their value. They then attempted to restore the once lucrative cotton trade.

To their dismay they found that the experienced former slave workers wanted no part of cotton farming. Many of these freedmen felt betrayed; they expected their former plantations to be divided up and given to them (the famed 40 Acres and a Mule). These would not even work cotton for wages. It would have been better for the northerners had this policy been instituted; these freedmen and their families would have been able to support themselves, while contributing taxes and their votes and bettering their lives. Most of the plantation owners were dead or imprisoned, and whites didn't live on these plantations so they would not have been displaced.
This was not to be. The northern factory owners wanted their cheap cotton, molasses, and turpentine, while the Carpetbaggers wanted their wealthy estates supplying these. The same entrepreneurial greed that had given rise to plantation slavery now deprived the freed slaves of the chance for a better life, making them refugees in the process.

They "defected" from the plantations and went to the cities.

In fact the Union troops occupying the South would soon find themselves rounding up any unemployed former slaves (vagrants) and taking them to plantations, where they were compelled to work cotton for wages. If they left the next sweep by Union troops would catch them and bring them back.

The only way to avoid this was for them to leave the South, which they did in increasing numbers. They went to the North and West. In the North they found themselves in competition with Union vets for work, and this became a source of racial friction. It would in fact lead to the unreal phenomenon of Union men establishing Ku Klux Klan groups in northern states.

So it wouldn't be unfair to say that the result of the Civil War in this context was the exodus of most freedmen (and their votes) from the South, and the spread of the Klan to the North.

By now Reconstruction was in serious difficulty.
The Freedmen were no longer contributing to the minority government with their votes.
The cost of maintaining an army of occupation in the South was becoming an irritant. The Annihilation Strategy camp waiting in the wings for their turn had lost none of their determination to step in and implement their Draconian solution. The failure of the Restructure Strategy camp would give them their chance.

Then fate intervened. After Southern partisans expelled the minority government of Louisiana from office by force, President Grant ordered Union troops to restore that government by force. These did so, but to his dismay Grant found himself being pilloried in the northern press for his action; he was portrayed as a brutal monarch barbarically suppressing the people of Louisiana with bayonets.
It is my opinion that he, being accustomed to praise, was unsettled by this reaction and decided to not be so aggressive in the future. This and other incidents had begun the rumblings of renewed fighting among Southerners, who were probably coming to the conclusion that the promises of Appomattox were lies intended to buy time for their destruction.

This would have resulted in guerrilla warfare as a resumption of the Civil War. This danger no doubt played a large part in the thinking of the Grant Administration, which was beginning to hear the first rumblings of the corruption scandal that would later erupt.

Whatever the cause, not only was the Annihilation Strategy camp not given a fuller hearing, the Restructure camp would soon find themselves facing an increasingly hostile Southern population as a withdrawal of Union Army occupation troops was quietly begun.

The Beginning of the End.

Increasingly the Carpetbaggers found themselves being regarded as colonial overlords. The worst of them would call on federal troops whenever they wanted their way in any dispute, be it with Southern whites or freed slaves. They found themselves targeted by groups like the Klan for death - some found it wiser to give up and return north after selling out for whatever they could get.
Even the better ones, those who sought to become part of the community, found themselves increasingly in danger. Especially those who held political office as well; Southerners regarded any office held by virtue of Reconstruction to be fraudulent, so any effort to integrate by these people was cooly received at best.

It didn't help that Southern citizens were subject to military law. Habeas corpus didn't exist for Southerners, and abuses of military courtmartials for civilians by vengeful Union officers did more to destroy Reconstruction than any thing else. These Union Army types were untouchable - the state government, even a Reconstruction one, had no power over them. Further they had their powerful patrons in Washington; Congressmen who could and did add the power of their office to their support.
This was a formula for disaster. Freed slaves could haul any white they wished before a drumhead courtmartial, where the judgement could be more medieval than Constitutional, and there would be no appeal. Once the Union Army was gone these freedmen would pay a dreadful price for doing this - usually at the behest of some northerner.

Then came the terrible day when the last Union troops left. The Carpetbaggers and freedmen found themselves facing a Southern population bent on retribution for what had been done to them by Union occupation troops. The lucky ones got out in time.

The official end of Reconstruction came because the Republicans parlayed a hung presidential election victory for a promise to end Reconstruction, and this time they kept their word. Overnight the Reconstructionists were swept from office by huge majorities of formerly disenfranchised Confederates whose voting rights had been restored.
"Jim Crow" laws were instituted to make sure they never gained elective office again.
The official Ku Klux Klan disbanded, having achieved victory - the later Klan would be a mimic of the first but not the one that consisted of Confederate veterans led by their former officers - it had at least some semblence of discipline.

The Civil War had ended at last - not in 1865 but in 1878.

The same result could have been achieved without 18 years of an unnecessary and brutal war.
 
Back
Top