Union Failures During Reconstruction

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No need to move them to the frontier. As just noted, the Freedmans bureau controlled 900,000 confiscated acres in 1865.
Wow you really want to confine them to poverty......there was almost 4,000,000 ex slaves......that would be less then 1/4 acre garden plot per ex slave........
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Wow you really want to confine them to poverty......there was almost 4,000,000 ex slaves......that would be less then 1/4 acre garden plot per ex slave........
First of all, those 4 million ex-slaves weren't all heads of households. Second, not every ex-slave had to be a farmer. As you suggested earlier, many ex-slaves had marketable skills at various trades.

900,000 acres would have been a great new start for many of the freedmen and their families.
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
No agriculture profitability requires cash crop to sell, reducing that crop, simply reduces any potential for profit.

During this era, agriculture profitability also required a labor force and a labor force has to eat. If you can't pay your labor force wages to buy food, then you have to provide them food as part of their wages, which is what we see happened. Just like gas is part of the production cost of later agriculture when farm equipment becomes available.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
During this era, agriculture profitability also required a labor force and a labor force has to eat. If you can't pay your labor force wages to buy food, then you have to provide them food as part of their wages, which is what we see happened. Just like gas is part of the production cost of later agriculture when farm equipment becomes available.
Indeed, and prior to reconstruction southern agriculture proved it could reach around 75% cash crop effeciency while feeding it's labor, by managing its acreage and labor.....during the same period in upper Midwest which was primarily small independent farms it was around only 5%.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
First of all, those 4 million ex-slaves weren't all heads of households. Second, not every ex-slave had to be a farmer. As you suggested earlier, many ex-slaves had marketable skills at various trades.

900,000 acres would have been a great new start for many of the freedmen and their families.
Actually in subsistence farming family members beside head of households generally do work. Even breaking no of slaves to family units of four, it's less then a acre a family, not much to try to subsist of off.

What programs did Freedmen's bureau have for ex slaves not wanting to farm?
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Actually in subsistence farming family members beside head of households generally do work. Even breaking no of slaves to family units of four, it's less then a acre a family, not much to try to subsist of off.

What programs did Freedmen's bureau have for ex slaves not wanting to farm?
Of course the whole family works on a family farm. I didn't suggest otherwise.

It wasn't just the Freedmens bureau. Aid societies were also trying to help freedmen transition to freedom.

What kind of support and suggestions did former slaveholders provide to aid the freedmen into becoming free and independent citizens? Or were their suggestions mainly aimed at keeping black labor under white overseers?
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Actually in subsistence farming family members beside head of households generally do work.

Generally, but not always. By withholding to varying degrees the labor of their wives and children, head of the freedmen households were able to use the ongoing labor shortages to gain managerial control over the grow operation.
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
What programs did Freedmen's bureau have for ex slaves not wanting to farm?

The Bureau administered a contract labor system between Freedmen and the white southern population to ensure a transition from a slave labor system to a free labor system. While these contract generally were used in the farming industry, I don't recall anything that would prevent the use of these contract in other industries. Basically, these were just a yearly agreement where one party agreed to compensate another party for services rendered that was overseen by a third party.

Did you have another type of program in mind?
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The Bureau administered a contract labor system between Freedmen and the white southern population to ensure a transition from a slave labor system to a free labor system. While these contract generally were used in the farming industry, I don't recall anything that would prevent the use of these contract in other industries. Basically, these were just a yearly agreement where one party agreed to compensate another party for services rendered that was overseen by a third party.

Did you have another type of program in mind?
No I just have never seen or heard of contracts outside placing them back on the plantations as sharecroppers.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Of course the whole family works on a family farm. I didn't suggest otherwise.

It wasn't just the Freedmens bureau. Aid societies were also trying to help freedmen transition to freedom.

What kind of support and suggestions did former slaveholders provide to aid the freedmen into becoming free and independent citizens? Or were their suggestions mainly aimed at keeping black labor under white overseers?
Again I've seen little to suggest formers slaveowners were asked or included in reconstruction planning as far as policy. One indeed finds examples of slaveowners continuing to care for and aid their former slavers personally, since they seemed to have been excluded from policy.

My family continued to provide for two former slaves who had proved loyal, until death for example.
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Again I've seen little to suggest formers slaveowners were asked or included in reconstruction planning as far as policy. One indeed finds examples of slaveowners continuing to care for and aid their former slavers personally, since they seemed to have been excluded from policy.

My family continued to provide for two former slaves who had proved loyal, until death for example.

And we have examples of former slaveowners cheating their former slaves out of their wages. What does that tell us? It tells us that humans are messy creatures often motivated by variety of reasons.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
And we have examples of former slaveowners cheating their former slaves out of their wages. What does that tell us? It tells us that humans are messy creatures often motivated by variety of reasons.
As we have examples of corrupt carpetbaggers, corrupt governmental officials and lazy labor? Don't see how this goes to reconstruction policy other then it addressed little effectively.
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
As we have examples of corrupt carpetbaggers, corrupt governmental officials and lazy labor? Don't see how this goes to reconstruction policy other then it addressed little effectively.
And we have examples of corrupt Redeemers, violent social leaders, and inept management. If we are diligent, I bet we can find similar figures with an assortment of traits from antebellum period as well. It's almost like avarice and altruism are often inherent to the human condition and while government often instill polices that might lessen these factors, I am unaware of any government able to successfully remove them from society.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Again I've seen little to suggest formers slaveowners were asked or included in reconstruction planning as far as policy. One indeed finds examples of slaveowners continuing to care for and aid their former slavers personally, since they seemed to have been excluded from policy.

My family continued to provide for two former slaves who had proved loyal, until death for example.
I'd be more impressed if former slaveholders simply gave 40 acre parcels to their former slaves in gratitude for their service.

Slaveholders wanted blacks to continue providing labor, and unfortunately there were not a lot of good options for the freedmen. In that type of power imbalance, the word "loyal" is pretty meaningless.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I'd be more impressed if former slaveholders simply gave 40 acre parcels to their former slaves in gratitude for their service.

Slaveholders wanted blacks to continue providing labor, and unfortunately there were not a lot of good options for the freedmen. In that type of power imbalance, the word "loyal" is pretty meaningless.
I'm sure anyone who ever worked for you will be glad if you give them 40 acres as well, go forth and spread joy.

Also personally appreciate those who are charitable and engage in philanthropy, though generally would imagine the % doing so that is in debt is rather small
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I'm sure anyone who ever worked for you will be glad if you give them 40 acres as well, go forth and spread joy.

Also personally appreciate those who are charitable and engage in philanthropy, though generally would imagine the % doing so that is in debt is rather small
Anyone who ever worked for me was paid a wage.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Anyone who ever worked for me was paid a wage.
Actually if comparing to sharecropping as far as actual compensation, it wouldn't have been much different, as slaves were gave room and board, and clothed as well, which seems the main focus of freedmen's bureau.

Wages will be lacking in both subsistence farming and and a poor economy. Why I would suggest if one wanted them to advance beyond room and board subsistence, one needed to address the overall economy. It does seem in our later successful reconstructions, we did improve their economies from war torn and in debt.
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Actually if comparing to sharecropping as far as actual compensation, it wouldn't have been much different, as slaves were gave room and board, and clothed as well, which seems the main focus of freedmen's bureau.

It should be noted that focus on relief efforts was not confined to the Freedmen as there are numerous instances, such as the during the Flood of 1867, in which those efforts benefited more of the southern white population than the southern black population. Just throwing that out there so we have a more complete picture of the agency's work.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Actually if comparing to sharecropping as far as actual compensation, it wouldn't have been much different, as slaves were gave room and board, and clothed as well, which seems the main focus of freedmen's bureau.
Actually, it's much different. When a person is paid a wage, they have the freedom to decide for themselves where they'll live, what they'll eat, and what they'll wear.

Not many people appreciate their bosses making those decisions for them.
 
Top