Anatomy of a Failed Occupation

To All,

Found this one on another Civil War forum and thought it would be of interest for all of you here.

Anatomy of a Failed Occupation: The U.S. Army in the Former Confederate States, 1865 to 1877.

http://www.ausa.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/ILW Web-ExclusivePubs/LWP 66W.pdf

Enjoy,
Unionblue
UB, I almost stopped reading when he said, "To be sure, the major objectives of the war—preserving the Union of the United States and abolishing slavery—were achieved."

Frankly it sounds like a competent high school student wrote the thing.
 
UB, I almost stopped reading when he said, "To be sure, the major objectives of the war—preserving the Union of the United States and abolishing slavery—were achieved."

Frankly it sounds like a competent high school student wrote the thing.

RobertP,

What did you expect? He's an ex-officer. :smile:

But the fact remains, those were the two major objectives of the war for Lincoln and the Union.

Preservation of the Union, No.1, top priority.

Abolishing slavery, No.2, added objective to the overall mission of preserving the Union.

Hope you read the entire article.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
RobertP,

What did you expect? He's an ex-officer. :smile:

But the fact remains, those were the two major objectives of the war for Lincoln and the Union.

Preservation of the Union, No.1, top priority.

Abolishing slavery, No.2, added objective to the overall mission of preserving the Union.

Hope you read the entire article.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
So am I. Oops.
IconLOL.gif


I did read all of it and the Lt. Col. hit all the obvious talking points. IMO, the lack of will - which he listed, is why it failed; four years of a dreadful war left the Union citizenry in no mood to continue funding the occupation and re-construction. Outside of the most punitive Radicals and ardent Abolitionists there was just no overwhelming Northern political support for occupation nor moral support for the freedmen. American slavery had been eradicated and the citizenry was certainly happy because of it, but that's pretty much where it stopped for the average Joe. As long as what was happening was in someone else's backyard they were good with it and it was time to get on with their lives.
 
First, I don't think he's clear on what the objective of Reconstruction was.

Second, I think he left out a few factors. One of these is the lack of support from some army commanders who treated freedmen as if they were still slaves. Foner goes into a number of cases where freedmen going to the army for protection were told instead to go back to their "employers," i.e., the folks trying to still oppress them, and do what they were told. A second factor was the deaths of leading Radicals. Thaddeus Stevens died in 1868 and Charles Sumner in 1874, for example. A third factor was the opposition of Andrew Johnson as President.
 
Gen. Thomas had only regiment of cav to cover a large area and then due to budget cuts he lost that thus he had no quick way or responding to hostile armed groups. Gen Thomas had to tell a women who's husband was a former Union soldier being harassed by former Confederates that he did not have the manpower to help her. There is a book but i didn't get it that argued that the immediate post war Tn State Militia was very effective but then a pro CSA supporter became Gov and disbanded it. The militia had white and black units. Per the History Channel the post war militia in Ark was effective against the KKK. If the US Govt spent more money on having troops plus support local militias then yes the grip of the KKK and similar groups could have been broken but has it has been pointed out the American people where sick and tired of the CW and wanted to move on throwing blacks and Unionists to the wolves.
Leftyhunter
 
I have begun reading the piece and I'm thinking that it is written to support contemporary Army thinking as to the nature and goals of occupation. The author and his employer want to draw parallels with contemporary experiences. That is a good use of history, but I wonder if they started with the verdict and then found the evidence.

I question the premise that the occupation failed. The original war aim of the Union was to restore the Union with the followup of destroying the underlying cause, slavery. Congress later established universal (male) suffrage and sanctions against the leadership class, never a Lincoln Administration war aim. In the end the Union was restored and slavery, at least technically, no longer existed.
 
Gen. Thomas had only regiment of cav to cover a large area and then due to budget cuts he lost that thus he had no quick way or responding to hostile armed groups. Gen Thomas had to tell a women who's husband was a former Union soldier being harassed by former Confederates that he did not have the manpower to help her. There is a book but i didn't get it that argued that the immediate post war Tn State Militia was very effective but then a pro CSA supporter became Gov and disbanded it. The militia had white and black units. Per the History Channel the post war militia in Ark was effective against the KKK. If the US Govt spent more money on having troops plus support local militias then yes the grip of the KKK and similar groups could have been broken but has it has been pointed out the American people where sick and tired of the CW and wanted to move on throwing blacks and Unionists to the wolves.
Leftyhunter

Can we get a better source than that one?

Sorry, leftyhunter, but this paragraph or whatever you want to call it is sooooooooo lacking in nuance and authenticity that it's....well, just not very good. Maybe you should have gotten that book! :smile:
 
I have long been appalled at the lack of planning and coordination, not to mention effort, that went into Reconstruction. That's one reason it's so difficult to discuss in any cohesive fashion. Reconstruction in one place was successfully and conscientiously carried out. Other spots, not so much, and in others it was a miserable failure.
 
I have long been appalled at the lack of planning and coordination, not to mention effort, that went into Reconstruction. That's one reason it's so difficult to discuss in any cohesive fashion. Reconstruction in one place was successfully and conscientiously carried out. Other spots, not so much, and in others it was a miserable failure.
I'm shocked, shocked that the Union Army lacked planning and coordination.
 
Can we get a better source than that one?

Sorry, leftyhunter, but this paragraph or whatever you want to call it is sooooooooo lacking in nuance and authenticity that it's....well, just not very good. Maybe you should have gotten that book! :smile:[/quot
From the book "George Thomas Virginian for the Union" by Christopher Einolf 2007 Univ of Ok Press Einolf teach's at the Univ of Richmond. Page 311 Thomas had 25k men under his command has of Jan 1866. By May all Vol regiments where mustered out leaving his command with 4k men to occupy five states. On the same page he wrote to a woman that who's Unionist husband was being threatened that there was nothing he could do. page 312 Thomas had only one regiment of Cav for five states. Page 312 president Johnson would not allow Thomas to use a military tribune to try the leaders of a deadly riot that occurred in Memphis. Page 323 Thomas had by Sept 1868 only 1,800 men and his Cav was sent to fight the Indians.
Leftyhunter
 
I'm shocked, shocked that the Union Army lacked planning and coordination.[/quote
I don't think per my above sources from" Thomas Virginian for the Union "that is an altogether fair statement. Gen. Thomas has the author pointed out did his level best but if by 1868 he has only 1400 men and no Cav to patrol a five state area what can he do? Rather the fault lies with President Johnson and in the case of President Grant a war weary public that does not want to commit to funding not only a federal army that can fight the KKK in the South but more importantly local militias or reserve US military forces composed of former members of the USCT and former Southern Unionists who had fought in the Union Army.
Leftyhunter
 

Is anyone over Thomas? Of course. That means the army is not coordinating. Unless Thomas is Commander in Chief or something, which he's not. Unless the History Channel gave him a promotion. :smile:
 
Is anyone over Thomas? Of course. That means the army is not coordinating. Unless Thomas is Commander in Chief or something, which he's not. Unless the History Channel gave him a promotion. :smile:
I am just pointing out that the US Army did not have the funding to maintain an adequate number of US troops in the South and also pay , equip and lead local security forces to fight the KKK. Therefore the blame is threefold but understandable a war weary public, a war weary congress and senate and also if I am not mistaken the US Govt is in serious debt due to massive borrowing to fund the CW. The milita in Ark was state funded but once the Gov was replaced with a more pro CSA leaning Gov he disbanded the Ark State Militia and replaced it with one that would not protect the Ark Unionists and blacks from the KKK. Same when Gov Brownlow was unseated.
Leftyhunter
 
Cooper says,

To be sure, the major objectives of the war – preserving the Union of the United States and abolishing slavery – were achieved. However, underlying the broad war objectives were assumptions [emphasis added] regarding the political transformation of Southern government and society; that transformation was unsuccessful.
As Union troops occupied Confederate territory there were still functioning governments in place, particularly at the county and municipal level (just that is worthy of a thread). But remember, government played little role in everyday life, particularly in rural areas. If slave state governments had a salient function it was to control the slave population. Lincoln's plan was to have ten percent of the antebellum voters constitute the next – not new – state governments and begin the process of bringing the states, not the people, back into sorts with the U.S. But Lincoln died. If the U.S. Army had a role post conquest it was to prevent the resurgence of Confederate military power.

Then come Cooper's assumptions, well, not his, but a new political agenda. This is both a continuation of the Civil War and even a new Civil War with new war aims completely apart from Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter. I think it's fair to say there were two occupations, one purely military, e.g., Sherman in Atlanta and Butler in New Orleans, and then the other a purely political program where troops are sheriffs, marshals, etc. I don't think the soldiers functioned as tax collectors, judges, county clerks, or operated state hospitals.

As for terrorism, intimidation, and ballot box stuffing, welcome to the United States of the 19th Century. Although other U.S. communities did not experience lynchings, there were gangs of toughs in Northern cities influencing voters and fraud at the ballot box. (In my study of Kentucky, an incumbent sheriff might have a saddle bag full of John Doe warrants and would arrest voters who voted against him (no boxes in those days, votes by voice). That was in the early 1800s.)

So, did the U.S. Army fail to do what the Radical Republicans wanted? I suppose so. An underfunded Army is a pretty poor instrument for social and political change. Did the ballpoint pen fail to paint the barn? Did the Army succeed in suppressing the shooting until all states were readmitted to the Union? Yes. Perhaps the Army's Mission Accomplished (apologies for modern politics) was in a hotel suite in New York in 1877 when Hayes was chosen president and the South got its harbors dredged. The South got their governments back, on their terms, of course and they were able to write their own history.

The Freedmen were left out of this, of course.

P.S. Co. B of the 7th U.S. Cavalry was on occupation duty until the beginning of 1876 when it was ordered to rejoin the regiment at Fort Abraham Lincoln for a campaign against the Sioux.
 
Back
Top