The Best Way to study Reconstuction

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Present Civil War Reconstruction histories that focus almost entirely upon the South (e.g. Eric Foner's) fail to take into account how simultaneous Northern events shaped – and sometimes dictated – Southern Reconstruction.

One example involves Amos Akerman who was one of President Grant’s five attorneys general. He served for about a year from November 1870 to December 1871. Although born in New Hampshire, at the age of twenty-one in 1842 he moved to North Carolina. By 1850 he was a Georgia lawyer. Although initially opposed to secession he remained loyal to the South and served as a Confederate officer during the Civil War.

In prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan, Akerman was the most vigorous of President Grant’s attorneys general. He expanded the powers of the then newly created Federal Justice Department to expedite prosecutions. About 600 convictions were obtained and two-thirds of the offenders went to jail.

Grant, however, revealed the Republican Party’s secondary priorities on racial justice when Akerman was unexpectedly asked to resign in December 1871. In addition to opposing Southern racial violence, Akerman was critical of federal subsidies to railroads and may have suspected the long-festering Crédit Mobilier scandal that would soon become public. In June 1871 Akerman had denied land and bond grants to the Union Pacific Railroad, which was intimately connected with Crédit Mobilier, which in turn had paid bribes to both of Grant’s vice presidents as well as future President James Garfield who committed perjury when he denied it.

Shortly before resigning Akerman told the previous attorney general who was representing a railroad’s claim for land grants that the applicable railroad had not completed the requirements for the grants. Nearly simultaneously Interior Secretary Columbus Delano complained to President Grant that Akerman had annoyed railroad moguls Collis Huntington and Jay Gould with rulings unfavorable to their interests. Grant replaced Akerman with George Williams who would later resign under accusations of bribery.

Grant biographer William McFeely concluded: “[After Akerman’s resignation] the finest champion of human rights in the Grant administration went home to Cartersville, Georgia where he practiced law privately for only eight more years. He had given up on his native North and on Northerners.”

Contemporary historians too often ignore, or minimize, how developments in the North impacted Southern Reconstruction. Yet a valid picture of Reconstruction cannot be appreciated without integrating the history of the Gilded Age with that of Reconstruction.

Sources:

William McFeely Grant Kindle locations 8391-8582

John Y. Simon (1998). Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Papers of Ulysses S. Grant 22. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 188.

Claude Bowers The Tragic Era 396-398
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Present Civil War Reconstruction histories that focus almost entirely upon the South (e.g. Eric Foner's) fail to take into account how simultaneous Northern events shaped – and sometimes dictated – Southern Reconstruction.

One example involves Amos Akerman who was one of President Grant’s five attorneys general. He served for about a year from November 1870 to December 1871. Although born in New Hampshire, at the age of twenty-one in 1842 he moved to North Carolina. By 1850 he was a Georgia lawyer. Although initially opposed to secession he remained loyal to the South and served as a Confederate officer during the Civil War.

In prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan, Akerman was the most vigorous of President Grant’s attorneys general. He expanded the powers of the then newly created Federal Justice Department to expedite prosecutions. About 600 convictions were obtained and two-thirds of the offenders went to jail.

Grant, however, revealed the Republican Party’s secondary priorities on racial justice when Akerman was unexpectedly asked to resign in December 1871. In addition to opposing Southern racial violence, Akerman was critical of federal subsidies to railroads and may have suspected the long-festering Crédit Mobilier scandal that would soon become public. In June 1871 Akerman had denied land and bond grants to the Union Pacific Railroad, which was intimately connected with Crédit Mobilier, which in turn had paid bribes to both of Grant’s vice presidents as well as future President James Garfield who committed perjury when he denied it.

Shortly before resigning Akerman told the previous attorney general who was representing a railroad’s claim for land grants that the applicable railroad had not completed the requirements for the grants. Nearly simultaneously Interior Secretary Columbus Delano complained to President Grant that Akerman had annoyed railroad moguls Collis Huntington and Jay Gould with rulings unfavorable to their interests. Grant replaced Akerman with George Williams who would later resign under accusations of bribery.

Grant biographer William McFeely concluded: “[After Akerman’s resignation] the finest champion of human rights in the Grant administration went home to Cartersville, Georgia where he practiced law privately for only eight more years. He had given up on his native North and on Northerners.”

Contemporary historians too often ignore, or minimize, how developments in the North impacted Southern Reconstruction. Yet a valid picture of Reconstruction cannot be appreciated without integrating the history of the Gilded Age with that of Reconstruction.

Sources:

William McFeely Grant Kindle locations 8391-8582

John Y. Simon (1998). Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Papers of Ulysses S. Grant 22. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 188.

Claude Bowers The Tragic Era 396-398
Interesting about Akerman. Akerman is not a well known figure. Einholf's biography of George Thomas hits the nail on the head. Due to huge military cutbacks their simply was not enough federal troops to fight the KKK and othe Democratic Party para military groups. Thomas had a huge area under his command and only one cavalry regiment which was sent west to fight the Indians. The federal government failed to establish and fund local security forces composed of Unionist and USCT veterans. The American taxpayer was burned out after 4 hard years of fighting and spending. Then of course Hays made a deal with the South no federal troops and he becomes president not Tilden. The blacks and Unionists where stabbed in the back.
Leftyhunter
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Some books of interest:

The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901 by Heather Cox Richardson (2004):

Historians overwhelmingly have blamed the demise of Reconstruction on Southerners' persistent racism. Heather Cox Richardson argues instead that class, along with race, was critical to Reconstruction's end. Northern support for freed blacks and Reconstruction weakened in the wake of growing critiques of the economy and calls for a redistribution of wealth.​

The Doom of Reconstruction: The Liberal Republicans in the Civil War Era by Andrew L. Slap (2010):

In the Election of 1872 the conflict between President U. S. Grant and Horace Greeley has been typically understood as a battle for the soul of the ruling Republican Party. In this innovative study, Andrew Slap arguesforcefully that the campaign was more than a narrow struggle between Party elites and a class-based radical reform movement. The election, he demonstrates, had broad consequences: in their opposition to widespread Federal corruption, Greeley Republicans unintentionally doomed Reconstruction of any kind, even as they lost the election. Based on close readings of newspapers, party documents, and other primary sources, Slap confronts one of the major questions in American political history: How, and why, did Reconstruction come to an end? His focus on the unintended consequences of Liberal Republican politics is a provocative contribution to this important debate.​

“We Will Be Satisfied With Nothing Less”: The African American Struggle for Equal Rights in the North during Reconstruction by Hugh Davis (2011);

Historians have focused almost entirely on the attempt by southern African Americans to attain equal rights during Reconstruction. However, the northern states also witnessed a significant period of struggle during these years. Northern blacks vigorously protested laws establishing inequality in education, public accommodations, and political life and challenged the Republican Party to live up to its stated ideals.​

In "We Will Be Satisfied With Nothing Less", Hugh Davis concentrates on the two issues that African Americans in the North considered most essential: black male suffrage rights and equal access to the public schools.
- Alan
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Some books of interest:

The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901 by Heather Cox Richardson (2004):

Historians overwhelmingly have blamed the demise of Reconstruction on Southerners' persistent racism. Heather Cox Richardson argues instead that class, along with race, was critical to Reconstruction's end. Northern support for freed blacks and Reconstruction weakened in the wake of growing critiques of the economy and calls for a redistribution of wealth.​

The Doom of Reconstruction: The Liberal Republicans in the Civil War Era by Andrew L. Slap (2010):

In the Election of 1872 the conflict between President U. S. Grant and Horace Greeley has been typically understood as a battle for the soul of the ruling Republican Party. In this innovative study, Andrew Slap arguesforcefully that the campaign was more than a narrow struggle between Party elites and a class-based radical reform movement. The election, he demonstrates, had broad consequences: in their opposition to widespread Federal corruption, Greeley Republicans unintentionally doomed Reconstruction of any kind, even as they lost the election. Based on close readings of newspapers, party documents, and other primary sources, Slap confronts one of the major questions in American political history: How, and why, did Reconstruction come to an end? His focus on the unintended consequences of Liberal Republican politics is a provocative contribution to this important debate.​

“We Will Be Satisfied With Nothing Less”: The African American Struggle for Equal Rights in the North during Reconstruction by Hugh Davis (2011);

Historians have focused almost entirely on the attempt by southern African Americans to attain equal rights during Reconstruction. However, the northern states also witnessed a significant period of struggle during these years. Northern blacks vigorously protested laws establishing inequality in education, public accommodations, and political life and challenged the Republican Party to live up to its stated ideals.​

In "We Will Be Satisfied With Nothing Less", Hugh Davis concentrates on the two issues that African Americans in the North considered most essential: black male suffrage rights and equal access to the public schools.
- Alan
Hi Forever Free,
Would you not agree with the premise that the main reason reconstruction failed was that the people of the United States where simply burned out from the CW and didn't have the desire to engage in a long counter-insurgency war to protect blacks and Unionists from the Democratic Party paramilitaries? The US Army knew how to fight guerrillas since they had plenty of experience in doing so. The US Army had successful COIN commanders but the US Govt simply was not interested (especially President Johnson) and Congress was not interested in funding an adequate COIN effort. The state of Arkansas showed how to fight the KKK. It involved using locally raised troops (former Union vets from Ark and Mo) and let them loose to do what they have to do. COIN war is not pretty nor cheap but if done right it works. Would you not agree apathy killed Reconstruction?
Leftyhunter
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Hi Forever Free,
Would you not agree with the premise that the main reason reconstruction failed was that the people of the United States where simply burned out from the CW and didn't have the desire to engage in a long counter-insurgency war to protect blacks and Unionists from the Democratic Party paramilitaries? The US Army knew how to fight guerrillas since they had plenty of experience in doing so. The US Army had successful COIN commanders but the US Govt simply was not interested (especially President Johnson) and Congress was not interested in funding an adequate COIN effort. The state of Arkansas showed how to fight the KKK. It involved using locally raised troops (former Union vets from Ark and Mo) and let them loose to do what they have to do. COIN war is not pretty nor cheap but if done right it works. Would you not agree apathy killed Reconstruction?
Leftyhunter
I think the racists had something to do with it.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I think the racists had something to do with it.
Of course . Apathy does not occur in a vacuum their are reasons for it and not caring enough to protect blacks and Unionists is the main reason for apathy. Perhaps the voters and taxpayers had a good instinct for how much such a COIN war would cost. I am now studying a conflict some what similar to Reconstruction and that of course would be "The Troubles " 1969 to 1993. That conflict was very expensive has you know and their where only a small amount of armed fighters that the British and local security forces had to fight. Perhaps in hindsight the voters knew that a COIN war against the Democratic Party paramilitaries would be very difficult due to the large size of the territory involved and they would have to fight a larger enemy. Not to say the voters had foresight in that they knew of a future event but they could but 2 and 2 together and realize a low level COIN War over a very large area would be costly and time consuming.
Leftyhunter
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Hi Forever Free,
Would you not agree with the premise that the main reason reconstruction failed was that the people of the United States where simply burned out from the CW and didn't have the desire to engage in a long counter-insurgency war to protect blacks and Unionists from the Democratic Party paramilitaries? The US Army knew how to fight guerrillas since they had plenty of experience in doing so. The US Army had successful COIN commanders but the US Govt simply was not interested (especially President Johnson) and Congress was not interested in funding an adequate COIN effort. The state of Arkansas showed how to fight the KKK. It involved using locally raised troops (former Union vets from Ark and Mo) and let them loose to do what they have to do. COIN war is not pretty nor cheap but if done right it works. Would you not agree apathy killed Reconstruction?
Leftyhunter

The primary cause for the "failure" of Reconstruction was the resistance of white southerners to (a) social and political equality for all southerners and (b) economic independence for all southerners.

If we want to know why Reconstruction failed, just look at this monument to what is now called the Colfax Massacre:

Expired Image Removed

This monument mentions that three (white) men died fighting for white supremacy. It doesn't mention that over 150 African Americans were killed, many after they surrendered.

In fact, a number of legal, political, social, economic, and extralegal (eg, the kind of violence we saw at Colfax) means were used to thwart the integration of the freedmen into an egalitarian southern society. This is the ultimate and primary reason why the Reconstruction Era failed.

After identifying this "massive resistance" as the primary issue, it can next be asked, could not, why should not, and why did not, "northerners" do "more?"

It must first be acknowledged that the "North," especially the Republican Party, did a lot during the first 6 years after the War. The 14th and 15th Amendments were vital toward African American progress. Various laws, such as the Reconstruction Acts (1867-8), the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Enforcement Act of 1871 (AKA Ku Klux Klan Act), prescribed several measures to counter massive resistance, and many of these had important, but unfortunately short term, effects.

I have seen many interpretations for why those efforts were not sustained beyond the early to mid 1870s. There are so many interpretations that I can't document them all. But I have seen the following:

• Andrew Johnson failed to exercise the executive leadership and action needed to spur an egalitarian society. Johnson was pro-white southerner, in part because he sought to create a southern constituency that would support him politically.

• Over time, the power of the Republicans waned. Democrats, who had always been associated with white supremacy, gained more power, and were an obstacle to progress.

• The North was distracted, or otherwise occupied, with economic, social, and political issues of its own, and a long term focus on the South was not viable. Of note is that corruption and scandal damaged and distracted the Republican Party and US Grant.

• Northerners were never really invested in creating an egalitarian society. Their goal had always been to preserve the Union; and they went beyond that goal in creating the post-war occupation, various pro-equality legal initiatives (such as the various acts and amendments mentioned above), and other actions. That is, northerners felt that they had achieved their victory, aided the freedmen "a lot," and so had "done enough." Northerners did not feel the need or desire to devote more resources to Reconstruction, especially military resources.

• Northerners did not make the important, but controversial, policy decision to distribute land to the freedmen. Such plans (specifically rejected by president Andrew Johnson, for example) would have given the freedmen some measure of economic independence. Instead, the freedmen were bound to labor systems that put former slave owners in a position to exploit the former slaves. In The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901, Heather Cox Richardson says that Republicans and African Americans were seen as favoring such policies, which appeared to be socialist or communist to many northerners, and this caused a negative political response in the North.

• Some have suggested that in order to facilitate the reunion of the country (distinct from southern reconstruction), northern and southern whites bonded, in ways which marginalized black progress, "dis-remembered" the emancipation cause, adopted the "Lost Cause," and otherwise created memories and narratives of history which forestalled social, political, legal, and economic equality.

• Especially post Reconstruction, the Supreme Court dismantled the egalitarian state that Republicans and other others had sought to create via the Reconstruction laws and amendments. Some cite SCOTUS as the most important factor in creating the segregated society that persisted until the 1950s and 1960s (when we saw various anti-segregation Court rulings, the Civil Rights Movement, and various Civil Rights laws).
********

In general, I see a lot of reasons for the failure of Reconstruction, which are not all military in nature. Having said that, it is clear that the post-Civil War South was not a "safe" place for African Americans in general, freedmen in particular. They were outgunned, outmanned, and under-resourced compared to the white (former Confederate) population. The resulting state of violence was the backbone of the segregated society that persisted into the middle of the 20th century. Had the black population been able to live free of violence, or the threat of violence (that is, had they been able to operate freely as full citizens), the history would have been quite different, for sure.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Of course . Apathy does not occur in a vacuum their are reasons for it and not caring enough to protect blacks and Unionists is the main reason for apathy. Perhaps the voters and taxpayers had a good instinct for how much such a COIN war would cost. I am now studying a conflict some what similar to Reconstruction and that of course would be "The Troubles " 1969 to 1993. That conflict was very expensive has you know and their where only a small amount of armed fighters that the British and local security forces had to fight. Perhaps in hindsight the voters knew that a COIN war against the Democratic Party paramilitaries would be very difficult due to the large size of the territory involved and they would have to fight a larger enemy. Not to say the voters had foresight in that they knew of a future event but they could but 2 and 2 together and realize a low level COIN War over a very large area would be costly and time consuming.
Leftyhunter
I think that the active and violent resistance of racist organizations in the South eventually defeated Reconstruction. I doubt that many Northerners in April 1865, when hearing the news of Lee's surrender, would have believed that a decade of armed struggle remained. By 1876, it had been a quarter century of a political scene dominated by the slavery/emancipation question most years of which saw some form of political violence. As long as Southern whites were willing to kill and die to maintain dominance over blacks, the North would have to continue paying for a counterinsurgency. Because Northern whites were ambiguous about adequately arming and supporting their black allies in the South to carry out military operations against other whites, the effort began to collapse. Of course, treating Southern white resistance as an insurgency might have widened white resistance.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The primary cause for the "failure" of Reconstruction was the resistance of white southerners to (a) social and political equality for all southerners and (b) economic independence for all southerners.

If we want to know why Reconstruction failed, just look at this monument to what is now called the Colfax Massacre:

Expired Image Removed

This monument mentions that three (white) men died fighting for white supremacy. It doesn't mention that over 150 African Americans were killed, many after they surrendered.

In fact, a number of legal, political, social, economic, and extralegal (eg, the kind of violence we saw at Colfax) means were used to thwart the integration of the freedmen into an egalitarian southern society. This is the ultimate and primary reason why the Reconstruction Era failed.

After identifying this "massive resistance" as the primary issue, it can next be asked, could not, why should not, and why did not, "northerners" do "more?"

It must first be acknowledged that the "North," especially the Republican Party, did a lot during the first 6 years after the War. The 14th and 15th Amendments were vital toward African American progress. Various laws, such as the Reconstruction Acts (1867-8), the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Enforcement Act of 1871 (AKA Ku Klux Klan Act), prescribed several measures to counter massive resistance, and many of these had important, but unfortunately short term, effects.

I have seen many interpretations for why those efforts were not sustained beyond the early to mid 1870s. There are so many interpretations that I can't document them all. But I have seen the following:

• Andrew Johnson failed to exercise the executive leadership and action needed to spur an egalitarian society. Johnson was pro-white southerner, in part because he sought to create a southern constituency that would support him politically.

• Over time, the power of the Republicans waned. Democrats, who had always been associated with white supremacy, gained more power, and were an obstacle to progress.

• The North was distracted, or otherwise occupied, with economic, social, and political issues of its own, and a long term focus on the South was not viable. Of note is that corruption and scandal damaged and distracted the Republican Party and US Grant.

• Northerners were never really invested in creating an egalitarian society. Their goal had always been to preserve the Union; and they went beyond that goal in creating the post-war occupation, various pro-equality legal initiatives (such as the various acts and amendments mentioned above), and other actions. That is, northerners felt that they had achieved their victory, aided the freedmen "a lot," and so had "done enough." Northerners did not feel the need or desire to devote more resources to Reconstruction, especially military resources.

• Northerners did not make the important, but controversial, policy decision to distribute land to the freedmen. Such plans (specifically rejected by president Andrew Johnson, for example) would have given the freedmen some measure of economic independence. Instead, the freedmen were bound to labor systems that put former slave owners in a position to exploit the former slaves. In The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901, Heather Cox Richardson says that Republicans and African Americans were seen as favoring such policies, which appeared to be socialist or communist to many northerners, and this caused a negative political response in the North.

• Some have suggested that in order to facilitate the reunion of the country (distinct from southern reconstruction), northern and southern whites bonded, in ways which marginalized black progress, "dis-remembered" the emancipation cause, adopted the "Lost Cause," and otherwise created memories and narratives of history which forestalled social, political, legal, and economic equality.

• Especially post Reconstruction, the Supreme Court dismantled the egalitarian state that Republicans and other others had sought to create via the Reconstruction laws and amendments. Some cite SCOTUS as the most important factor in creating the segregated society that persisted until the 1950s and 1960s (when we saw various anti-segregation Court rulings, the Civil Rights Movement, and various Civil Rights laws).
********

In general, I see a lot of reasons for the failure of Reconstruction, which are not all military in nature. Having said that, it is clear that the post-Civil War South was not a "safe" place for African Americans in general, freedmen in particular. They were outgunned, outmanned, and under-resourced compared to the white (former Confederate) population. The resulting state of violence was the backbone of the segregated society that persisted into the middle of the 20th century. Had the black population been able to live free of violence, or the threat of violence (that is, had they been able to operate freely as full citizens), the history would have been quite different, for sure.

- Alan
Your quite right Allan all of those factors are true. I would add to it the"Devils bargain " so to speak. While the various Democratic Party Paramilitaries did indeed use violence on blacks and for 5 to 10 years after the CW against the Unionists ( the Unionists had guns and fought back with various degrees of success) the paramilitaries did not fight to reestablish a Confederate state. In fact during the Spanish-American war Jefferson Davis encouraged young Southern men to enlist in the US Armed forces. Therefore the post Civil War Southerners where loyal to the US Govt other then ensuring that blacks would be second class citizens up until the 1960's and then of course we get into modern politics after that era.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I think that the active and violent resistance of racist organizations in the South eventually defeated Reconstruction. I doubt that many Northerners in April 1865, when hearing the news of Lee's surrender, would have believed that a decade of armed struggle remained. By 1876, it had been a quarter century of a political scene dominated by the slavery/emancipation question most years of which saw some form of political violence. As long as Southern whites were willing to kill and die to maintain dominance over blacks, the North would have to continue paying for a counterinsurgency. Because Northern whites were ambiguous about adequately arming and supporting their black allies in the South to carry out military operations against other whites, the effort began to collapse. Of course, treating Southern white resistance as an insurgency might have widened white resistance.
Quite right .In order to ensure that blacks where treated as equals a major military commitment would of had to be made. Even during the 1950's and 1960's the US Govt did on occasion have to send in the US Armed forces and federal law enforcement agencies to quell mob and KKK violence against black people and their white supporters. By that time Southern whites for whatever reason did not decide to have a insurgency war against the US Govt.
Leftyhunter
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Quite right .In order to ensure that blacks where treated as equals a major military commitment would of had to be made. Even during the 1950's and 1960's the US Govt did on occasion have to send in the US Armed forces and federal law enforcement agencies to quell mob and KKK violence against black people and their white supporters. By that time Southern whites for whatever reason did not decide to have a insurgency war against the US Govt.
Leftyhunter
Abraham Lincoln didn't have The Bomb.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Abraham Lincoln didn't have The Bomb.
The vast majority of reconstruction happened after Lincoln's death. Having the bomb didn't help the British in 1969 I doubt it would of helped the federals during reconstruction. COIN warfare requires a lot of time blood and money nuclear arms don't really help . Asjk the former Soviets how having the bomb helped in Afganistan or the US in Vietnam or the US in Iraq.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Mark Moyar in his book "A Question of Command counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq The Yale Library of Military History has a whole chapter on Reconstruction. Moyar points out their was quite a lot of fighting between Unionists and former Confederate supporters after the CW in particular east Tn and Mo. In east Tn the Unionists drove many former Confederates out of East Tn in revenge for their actions during the CW. Their was post CW fighting in Northern n Al between Unionists and former Confederates in he book "Loyalty and Loss the plight of Unionists in Alabama.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
From page 39 to 41 of Question of command their is a good discussion on Texas where their was quite a bit of resistance to equal rights for blacks and some white Texans murdered US soldiers. The worst instance of bad behavior from federal troops occurred when drunken soldiers burned down Brenham , Tx and Generals Sheridan and Griffen just didn't care. COIN warfare requires very well disciplined troops. In history its not always easy to find examples of well disciplined COIN troops its not fun or rewarding duty and COIN troops are not always going to take the murder of their fellow soldiers with good grace.
Leftyhunter
 
Top