"Reconstruction in South Carolina - 1865-1877" by John S. Reynolds

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
In which Andersonh1 reads through another old history book and summarizes. :smile:

There is a lot of discussion about the Dunning School whenever Reconstruction comes up, and I've been meaning for some time to sit down and read one of the histories cover to cover and see if it really is as flawed as is often said.

To set this up, in a thread on Dunning I once posted a quote by Eric Foner, author of a widely praised history of Reconstruction, from a book analyzing Dunning and his students and their approach to history: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/th...-reconstruction150.121583/page-9#post-1667151

All these writers developed insights still valuable to current historians-for example, that slavery was the fundamental cause of the Civil War, and that regional and class differences within white society helped shape Reconstruction politics. Anticipating recent scholarship, Dunning and Burgess insisted that Reconstruction must be understood in a national context, as part of the nineteenth century's nation-building process. The Dunning scholars also pioneered in the use of primary sources to tell the story of Reconstruction. J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton scoured the South for documents, helping build the remarkable Southern Historical Collection of the University of North Carolina. Mildred Thompson conducted in-depth research in public documents, newspaper archives, and the personal papers of Georgia leaders such as the Reconstruction governor Joseph E. Brown. The Dunning School narratives included material that could be used for very different purposes-for example, by W. E. B. Du Bois, whose account of Reconstruction in individual states in Black Reconstruction relied heavily for factual information on these studies. A century after they were written, some of these works remain the only full-length accounts of Reconstruction in individual southern states.
Foner believes there is much of value in what Dunning and his students produced. But he goes on:

Of course, the fundamental flaw in the Dunning School was the authors' deep racism. (Haworth, not always included in accounts of the group because he studied the election of 1876, not a southern state, was an exception; he insisted that the South's racial problems arose from white racism, not black incapacity.) As some of the essays make clear, the Dunning School's racism cannot simply be bracketed, leaving the rest of their volumes intact, for racism shaped not only their interpretations of history but their research methods and use of historical evidence. William W. Davis pioneered in the use of oral history to study the Klan but interviewed only white Floridians-the experience of Klan victims was not worth investigating. Fleming closely read testimony before congressional committees, but he discounted statements by Republicans while accepting at face value Democratic claims, such as one that the extent of violence had been grossly exaggerated. A number of Dunning studies recycle overblown Democratic charges, originating in the Reconstruction era, about political corruption and the ignorance and poverty of black officeholders, without actually investigating chem. As Paul Ortiz notes of Davis-a comment applicable to most of the Dunning studies-his historical imagination could not encompass black Southerners. To these scholars the South meant the white South. Thus, while they merit praise for raising the level of historical scholarship by intensive research in the documentary record, their use of that research was seriously flawed by ingrained racist assumptions.
I want to keep that analysis in mind as I read, and I've chosen to read the history of my own state, South Carolina, written by John S. Reynolds. I have my radar on for racist assumptions that need to be challenged, but I am also looking for how facts are presented, how sources are acknowledged, and whether this history deserves to be dismissed or simply read and analyzed carefully, with an eye toward the flaws.

The book is written roughly in chronological order (with a few exceptions), and the chapters are for the most part divided by whoever the governor is at the time all the events within the chapter take place. Chapter 5 breaks from that format to deal with the KKK, chapter 8 covers the campaign of 1876, chapter 9 the period when two governments claimed to be the legitimate winner, and chapters 10 and 11 summarize.

The book has no footnotes or endnotes. The book is not without sources however. To the contrary, it's full of source documents quoted in part or in full, and they are noted as they are used within the narrative. The author is at times an objective relater of facts and details, and at times clearly in full sympathy with the views of the white population of South Carolina during the Reconstruction era. On racial matters in particular he shares their views, and I would agree with Foner that this means many of his conclusions when it comes to race cannot be taken at face value.

Reconstruction in South Carolina - 1865-1877
by John S. Reynolds, 1905
514 pages + index, no footnotes or bibliography

Chapter 1 - The Provisional Government
The book dives right into the post-war chaos in South Carolina with no context, so the author seems to assume that reader is aware of the war and the Confederate loss and needs no real explanation. The state was essentially without government, with only local government and the military to maintain order.

"...even the appearance of any power save that of the army of the United States was altogether wanting. There was no organized State government, no central civil authority, no militia, to which the people might look for the protection of life or property. The district governments, whose functions were limited and whose powers were quite inadequate to meet existing difficulties, maintained an apparent authority, but how far, in the changed order of things, their powers really extended it might have been difficult to determine." (p 3)​

South Carolina was under military control. Military tribunals took the place of civil courts. Reynolds says that administration of justice was harsh, but it did keep the peace. On May 15th, black men and women were declared "free citizens of the United States" whose rights must be respected. Anyone who failed to report this fact to their former slaves was subject to legal penalties and land confiscation. The army supervised freedmen work contracts.

So far, so good, but once the subect shifts to "negro troops", we begin to see Reynold's attitude towards the black man, and it's not pretty. He is probably accurate when he describes the post-war white attitude towards the black, because his feelings are not all that far removed from theirs. He describes black soldiers as "arrogant", "impertinent:, "insulting:, "brutish". I think back to the old "bottom rail is on top now" comment from the former slave to his former master during the war, and I don't doubt that the same attitude existed among soldiers stationed in former slave states, but Reynold's attitude seems to be that the fault was entirely on the black side, and that whites bore no responsibility.

Reynolds tells of an instance in Chester where black soldiers clubbed and bayoneted an older man who died from his wounds. I have no doubt that the incident occurred, and that the black soldiers should not have taken such action except in self-defense, but we do not get both sides of the story to enable us to judge the situation. We're left to assume the black troops were simply being "brutish". They were eventually removed. He relates other instances where black soldiers accosted white citizens, and in each instance, the emphasis is on disruptive black soldiers attacking white citizens. It is just assumed the black men were in the wrong, but not enough evidence is given to make an objective judgment. And this may turn out to be the pattern of the book, where the black man is always assumed to be in the wrong, no evidence needed.

Already I am beginning to see where more recent historians find grounds to dismiss this history and others like it, because it is one sided in the depiction of what could well be actual events, and the author renders judgment based solely on race rather than impartial facts. But I have read modern histories of the era where the opposite approach is taken, and the assumption is always white guilt and black innocence. You can't believe anything those racist whites said. As always, I'll read and make up my own mind, probably after further research. Reynolds believed that the black troops were deliberately used in the South to harass the defeated whites, and he seems to place the blame on Stanton, who he accuses of "hatred" towards the Southern people.

Andrew Johnson and the Congress discussed the disposition of the conquered southern states, and Reynolds lists five prominent doctrines under discussion.

1 - Restoration - secession acts were invalid, no state had actually left the union, but state leaders were simply committing illegal acts. As soon as government was restored, the states would be back in proper relation to the Union
2 - The Presidential Doctrine - originated with Lincoln, the President could impose terms designed to prevent further possibility of "rebellion" before the state could return to the old relation to the Union
3 - Davis-Wade Doctrine - Henry Davis of Maryland and Benjamin Wade of Ohio wanted strict supervision of the southern states to make sure they met a number of goalposts before being allowed back in proper relation with the Union, with "civil and military leaders of the Confederacy" prohibited from holding office, among other things.
4 - Charles Sumner viewed the declarations of secession as "state suicide" where a state gave up all rights under the Constitution and became a territory. Congress had complete control.
5 - Thaddeus Stevens said that the Constitution was suspended where it could not be enforced. The termination of the suspension would be decided by who won. Had the South won, the suspension would be permanent. Since the North won, they got to set the terms and decide when the suspension of the Constitution ended.

The first of Reynold's identified source documents is presented here in the form of Andrew Johnston's May 29, 1865 amnesty proclamation, based on option 2, which Lincoln had been developing. This book has no footnotes or endnotes that I saw while scrolling through, so I'm going to note sources as they're given. The entire document is reproduced here.

The white people of South Carolina wanted a restoration of the state and reestablishment of civil government. They resented the presence of the military among them, especially the black soldiers. They appealed to President Johnson for a provisional governor and had a list of suggested names. Among them was Benjamin Perry, former newspaper publisher, member of the state legislature and Confederate States district judge, and Johnson appointed him provisional Governor of South Carolina. Perry had been one who opposed secession, but who went with his state when it happened. Perry got to work, encouraged citizens to take the amnesty oath, and advised those who could not take the oath to apply for a pardon.

Reynolds lays out in detail the members of the state convention to carry out Johnson's re-admission plan. Wade Hampton was among the men elected, but he was in North Carolina and did not attend. The convention met in Columbia to frame a new state Constitution. Slavery recognized as having been abolished, voting qualifications were established, the election of governor was transferred from the legislature to the people, and various other changes were made, including the abolishment of the parish system for determining representation. The convention also repealed the ordinance of secession.

An election was held under the new state constitution, offices were filled, and the 13th amendment was ratified. The Secretary of State proclaimed that Johnson's conditions had been fulfilled on December 18, 1865.

next: Chapter 2, Orr's Administration
 
Back
Top