Black Votes: Frederick Douglass Meets With Andrew Johnson 2/7/1866 Reconstruction150


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#63
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,141
Location
Central Florida
#64
You obviously cannot read minds but can make vast assumptions.
I have read no minds and made no assumptions but I did show my work which shows Johnson tried to follow Lincoln plans for Reconstruction...

As I see it either Lincoln plan was a flop or the radicals laid out too many hurdles in the way ... I go with Lincoln plan was a flop because of Grants thoughts on Reconstruction years later.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#65
I have read no minds and made no assumptions

Yes, you did when you claimed in your post#62 that I had not read about Andrew Johnson and his presidency
.

but I did show my work which shows Johnson tried to follow Lincoln plans for Reconstruction...

You showed a source you believe
.

As I see it either Lincoln plan was a flop or the radicals out to many hurdles in the way ... I go with Lincoln plan was a flop because of Grants thoughts on Reconstruction years later.
You're wrong.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,141
Location
Central Florida
#68
Lincoln laboured under his Constitutional duties, and his personal convictions
Andrew Johnson labor as well... Civil Rights Bill 1866

The bill was introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, and mandated that “all persons born in the United States,” with the exception of American Indians and children born to foreign diplomats, were “hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” The legislation granted all citizens the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.”

Ironically, as historian Eric Foner noted in his 2015 book Gateway to Freedom:

"Lyman Trumbull, now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, used the infamous 1850 statute [Fugitive Slave Act] as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which revolutionized American jurisprudence by establishing the principle of birthright citizenship and extending to black Americans many of the rights previously enjoyed exclusively by whites. To do so, Trumbull drew on the Fugitive Slave Act’s enforcement mechanisms and civil and criminal penalties, and the way it super-imposed federal power on state law in order to establish a national responsibility for securing constitutionally protected rights. ‘The act that was passed that time for the purposes of punishing persons who should aid Negroes to freedom,’ Trumbull declared, ‘is now to be applied . . . to the punishment of those who shall undertake to keep them in slavery.’” (p. 224)


Here is Andrew Johnson laboring with the law... with some racist overtones

President Andrew Johnson disagreed with the level of federal intervention implied by the legislation, calling it “another step, or rather a stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the national Government” in his veto message. Specifically, he wrote:

"In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go indefinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored against the white race. They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States; with relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State; an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited power, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, towards centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government.”

He may be trying to save the government from overreaching which we can say he was right because the SCOTUS will side with his view in the coming years... Score one for him again...
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,371
Location
Long Island, NY
#70
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,395
Location
Lost, Somewhere in London
#71
Well, I never heard Johnson about Colonization. Lincoln did. Wouldn't that be a horrible racist?
Lincoln only ever endorsed colonization on a voluntary basis and abandoned it after meeting with black leaders when they made clear to him that it was something the majority of African Americans opposed. I'd say he beats Johnson in that respect, as he does in just about every way fathomable.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,063
#73
I have always heard President Johnson didn't use Lincoln's plan of reconstruction. After a little more study, the plans seem to be the same and the Radical Republican party is what threw the plans askew. All clarification will be appreciated.:smile:

"Abraham Lincoln had thought about the process of restoring the Union from the earliest days of the war. His guiding principles were to accomplish the task as rapidly as possible and ignore calls for punishing the South.

In late 1863, Lincoln announced a formal plan for reconstruction:

1. A general amnesty would be granted to all who would take an oath of loyalty to the United States and pledge to obey all federal laws pertaining to slavery
2. High Confederate officials and military leaders were to be temporarily excluded from the process
3. When one tenth of the number of voters who had participated in the 1860 election had taken the oath within a particular state, then that state could launch a new government and elect representatives to Congress.

The states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee rapidly acted to comply with these terms. However, the Lincoln plan was not acceptable to Congress.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h177.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Government, Reconstruction

The Radical Republicans voiced immediate opposition to Lincoln’s reconstruction plan, objecting to its leniency and lack of protections for freed slaves. Congress refused to accept the rehabilitation of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

In July 1864, Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, their own formula for restoring the Union:

1. A state must have a majority within its borders take the oath of loyalty
2. A state must formally abolish slavery
3. No Confederate officials could participate in the new governments.

Lincoln did not approve of this plan and exercised his pocket veto.

An angry Congress would later pass the Wade-Davis Manifesto (August 1864), which charged Lincoln with usurping the powers of Congress. This statement would have little impact on the public, as the military news from the South improved; Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign restored Lincoln’s popularity and helped assure his reelection.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h126.html
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,141
Location
Central Florida
#74
Not sure why you would point to this prezi. It does not document anything, it just asserts that Lincoln=Johnson and Lincoln \Johnson=Good and Radicals=Bad
I was just looking for a simplified way of comparing Reconstruction plans... most people know little of Johnson presidency except he was impeached and history has trashed him... He followed a titan so it was not going to go well for him anyway...
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,615
Location
Laurinburg NC
#75
I have always heard President Johnson didn't use Lincoln's plan of reconstruction. After a little more study, the plans seem to be the same and the Radical Republican party is what threw the plans askew. All clarification will be appreciated.:smile:

"Abraham Lincoln had thought about the process of restoring the Union from the earliest days of the war. His guiding principles were to accomplish the task as rapidly as possible and ignore calls for punishing the South.

In late 1863, Lincoln announced a formal plan for reconstruction:

1. A general amnesty would be granted to all who would take an oath of loyalty to the United States and pledge to obey all federal laws pertaining to slavery
2. High Confederate officials and military leaders were to be temporarily excluded from the process
3. When one tenth of the number of voters who had participated in the 1860 election had taken the oath within a particular state, then that state could launch a new government and elect representatives to Congress.

The states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee rapidly acted to comply with these terms. However, the Lincoln plan was not acceptable to Congress.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h177.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Government, Reconstruction

The Radical Republicans voiced immediate opposition to Lincoln’s reconstruction plan, objecting to its leniency and lack of protections for freed slaves. Congress refused to accept the rehabilitation of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

In July 1864, Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, their own formula for restoring the Union:

1. A state must have a majority within its borders take the oath of loyalty
2. A state must formally abolish slavery
3. No Confederate officials could participate in the new governments.

Lincoln did not approve of this plan and exercised his pocket veto.

An angry Congress would later pass the Wade-Davis Manifesto (August 1864), which charged Lincoln with usurping the powers of Congress. This statement would have little impact on the public, as the military news from the South improved; Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign restored Lincoln’s popularity and helped assure his reelection.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h126.html
Reb,
I remember a history professor saying that the two plans were basically the same and that had Lincoln lived to carry his plan out that it would have suffered the same fate as Johnson's. The professor's reasoning was something to the effect that too much Northern blood had been shed, the radicals wouldn't have stood for it and that Lincoln didn't become a Northern martyr until after his assassination.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,063
#76
Johnson.

The looming showdown between Lincoln and the Congress over competing reconstruction plans never occurred. The president was assassinated on April 14, 1865. His successor, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, lacked his predecessor’s skills in handling people; those skills would be badly missed. Johnson’s plan envisioned the following:

* Pardons would be granted to those taking a loyalty oath
* No pardons would be available to high Confederate officials and persons owning property valued in excess of $20,000
* A state needed to abolish slavery before being readmitted
* A state was required to repeal its secession ordinance before being readmitted.

Most of the seceded states began compliance with the president’s program. Congress was not in session, so there was no immediate objection from that quarter. However, Congress reconvened in December and refused to seat the Southern representatives.

Reconstruction had produced another deadlock between the president and Congress.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h179.html
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,615
Location
Laurinburg NC
#77
I was just looking for a simplified way of comparing Reconstruction plans... most people know little of Johnson presidency except he was impeached and history has trashed him... He followed a titan so it was not going to go well for him anyway...

Then again Johnson, lived while Lincoln became a Northern martyr and therefore above reproach.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,063
#78
The postwar Radical Republicans were motivated by three main factors:

1. Revenge — a desire among some to punish the South for causing the war
2. Concern for the freedmen — some believed that the federal government had a role to play in the transition of freedmen from slavery to freedom
3. Political concerns — the Radicals wanted to keep the Republican Party in power in both the North and the South.

On the political front, the Republicans wanted to maintain their wartime agenda, which included support for:

* Protective tariffs
* Pro-business national banking system
* Liberal land policies for settlers
* Federal aid for railroad development

If the South were to fall back into Democratic hands, these programs would suffer. This threat brought many Republicans around to supporting the vote for blacks (15th Amendment). Grateful freedmen voting Republican would help to maintain the status quo.

The postwar Congress pushed through a number of measures designed to assist the freedmen, but also demonstrate the supremacy of Congress over the president. These measures included the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Tenure of Office Act and the Army Appropriations Act.

The culmination of this process occurred in 1867 and 1868, when Congress passed a series of Reconstruction Acts; these measures were implemented and constituted the final restoration program for the South. The Radical Republicans in Congress, however, were not satisfied until they dealt with their chief tormenter in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h126.html "

It appears they both were the same.
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,371
Location
Long Island, NY
#79
Reb,
I remember a history professor saying that the two plans were basically the same and that had Lincoln lived to carry his plan out that it would have suffered the same fate as Johnson's. The professor's reasoning was something to the effect that too much Northern blood had been shed, the radicals wouldn't have stood for it and that Lincoln didn't become a Northern martyr until after his assassination.
How did the professor account for the impact of the Black Codes on Congressional action and public opinion?
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top