Was it worth it?

[leftyhunter]

This wasn't a rebellion, this was a secession.
But if you want to call it a rebellion, its okay with me. The Declaration of Independence says people have a right to overthrow an oppressive government. So it seems you are putting the south in the moral right. 160 years ago the civil war ended so the return of the south to the fold is a long done deal. Thank you for admitting the South was in the morally stronger position.

Per the US courts it was indeed a rebellion that even many Southerners fought against.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Texas V. White was weird in that it ruled that Confederate States were always full-fledged US states, with all the rights and privileges of a US state even during the Civil War. It just rejects the Confederate government as illegitimate.

Congress however, made the opposite decision. Confederate States were not US states and had no rights as a state after the Civil War. They had to be readmitted into the US. Texas was readmitted in 1870.

What is the purpose of this? Well it technically declared all of reconstruction unconstitutional but nobody did anything.

That's not really accurate. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Guarantee Clause, mandates that the United States shall guarantee to every state a "Republican Form of Government". This means the Federal government has ultimate decision to make sure each state government is being conducted in accordance with the Constitution and represents the will of all the people, in a democratic process. Reconstruction is a prime example of the Federal Government exercising this power. With the newly freed slaves being vulnerable politically, it was deemed necessary to impose some restraints on the states in order to assure they were being operated in accordance with the Guarantee Clause.

The Supreme Court in Texas v. White called the administration of the Guarantee Clause a "political question" and not a judicial one, so its beyond the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Congress and the President are the sole determining body in making sure the Guarantee Clause is complied with. So the Supreme Court most assuredly did not declare reconstruction unconstitutional. It said that Congress and the President must decide for themselves if it was Constitutional. And since they did, it was.

Is this reasoning a reach? Perhaps. But that was basically the legal justification for Reconstruction and since Congress and the President were the sole determiners of what was legal in this area (since the Supreme Court said it was a political question), its legally unassailable.

So while the states never left the Union, the Federal Government determined that until it was confident the state was being governed consistent with the Guarantee Clause, the state would be barred from participating in the Federal Government (i.e., the decision making body). But Federal laws still applied in the southern states during reconstruction, tariffs were still collected in the ports, Federal Courts were operating, mails were being delivered, and other indicia of being within the US were ongoing during Reconstruction. Its inaccurate to say states had to be re-admitted to the US. They were re-admitted to Congress and participation in the Federal Government, but they were always within the US.

 

[rvbgrif]

Is this reasoning a reach?

That you for the response that was well written.

What I wrote was from the dissenting opinion that was mostly taken by Republican justices (Noah Swayne and Samuel F. Miller) who disagreed with Chase over the status of the stathood of Texas during and after the Civil War. However, one of the dissenting justices, Robert Grier, was a democrat who was primarily concerned with the creditors in Texas V. White.

The question still remains that Texas is forever a US state in Union with the United States, except when it is "non republican", in which case the Union can end at the will of DC. "Non republican" isn't a measurable criteria unless it is meant literally, a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship or military government. Which... is what reconstruction was, a military government. The end result is DC can take away power reserved to states arbitrarily...

Spoiler

What happens if Trump figures this one out and starts kicking "non republican" states out of the Union who don't declare that he won the 2020 election.

I don't know if that will hold up constitutionally...

Not that any Supreme Court decision is bulletproof. That is why there are 9 justices, 9 opinions, and each side writes their arguments.

And no one is ever going to go back and declare reconstruction unconstitutional...

 

[archieclement]

That's not really accurate. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Guarantee Clause, mandates that the United States shall guarantee to every state a "Republican Form of Government". This means the Federal government has ultimate decision to make sure each state government is being conducted in accordance with the Constitution and represents the will of all the people, in a democratic process. Reconstruction is a prime example of the Federal Government exercising this power. With the newly freed slaves being vulnerable politically, it was deemed necessary to impose some restraints on the states in order to assure they were being operated in accordance with the Guarantee Clause.

The Supreme Court in Texas v. White called the administration of the Guarantee Clause a "political question" and not a judicial one, so its beyond the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Congress and the President are the sole determining body in making sure the Guarantee Clause is complied with. So the Supreme Court most assuredly did not declare reconstruction unconstitutional. It said that Congress and the President must decide for themselves if it was Constitutional. And since they did, it was.

Is this reasoning a reach? Perhaps. But that was basically the legal justification for Reconstruction and since Congress and the President were the sole determiners of what was legal in this area (since the Supreme Court said it was a political question), its legally unassailable.

So while the states never left the Union, the Federal Government determined that until it was confident the state was being governed consistent with the Guarantee Clause, the state would be barred from participating in the Federal Government (i.e., the decision making body). But Federal laws still applied in the southern states during reconstruction, tariffs were still collected in the ports, Federal Courts were operating, mails were being delivered, and other indicia of being within the US were ongoing during Reconstruction. Its inaccurate to say states had to be re-admitted to the US. They were re-admitted to Congress and participation in the Federal Government, but they were always within the US.

By disinfranchising the majority in most the former states seems odd if trying guarantee a Republican form of government.

Certainly would think if one is being honest initially reconstruction was to try to disenfranchise a Democrat majority to favor a Republican minority. It's then kind of hard to spin that either was actually favoring a democratic process or was to ensure the will of the majority. It would seem actually the quite the opposite.

If the goal or role is as you say is ensuring representing the will of the people, the majority is actually quite necessary, whether you agree with them politically or not..........

 

[JerryD]

By disinfranchising the majority in most the former states seems odd if trying guarantee a Republican form of government.

Excellent point.

Certainly would think if one is being honest initially reconstruction was to try to disenfranchise a Democrat majority to favor a Republican minority. It's then kind of hard to spin that either was actually favoring a democratic process or was to ensure the will of the majority. It would seem actually the quite the opposite.

Another excellent point. I think the historic record is pretty clear this was a goal of many in the GOP.

If the goal or role is as you say is ensuring representing the will of the people, the majority is actually quite necessary, whether you agree with them politically or not..........

Yep. In an ideal world. But of course, following the Civil War we were not in an ideal world.

I think what needs to be remembered is that the disenfranchised voters should be happy they were still alive or not in jail, since they did commit treason, and lost. And we also need to keep in mind that the virulent hatred towards the newly freed slaves, as evidenced by the vast number of massacres the white population imposed on them, made for a very difficult situation. So bottom line was, there was no easy solution. If given their way, the southern states would have (and in fact tried) to impose slavery in all but name on the newly freed people, so clearly something had to be done to protect them. The failure of Reconstruction was not in failing to allow traitors to control their state governments, but in ending before justice could be guaranteed to those who most needed protection from irrational and virulent hatred. The way slavery ended was not ideal by any means. So people were trying to make the best of a bad situation, and I think its rather pompous of us who criticize them for not doing a better job. Was there some corruption? When is there not?

The failure of Reconstruction was due primarily to the intrenched and deep seated hate that existed in the southern whites, the lack of will of the northern states to fight that hate until the job was done, and the desire of most to achieve some kind of reconciliation for the country so it could move on from this ugly era. Its hard to seek reconciliation when the opposing party routinely commits massacres as a form of terrorism to control the disadvantaged.

 

[JerryD]

That you for the response that was well written.

What I wrote was from the dissenting opinion that was mostly taken by Republican justices (Noah Swayne and Samuel F. Miller) who disagreed with Chase over the status of the stathood of Texas during and after the Civil War. However, one of the dissenting justices, Robert Grier, was a democrat who was primarily concerned with the creditors in Texas V. White.

The question still remains that Texas is forever a US state in Union with the United States, except when it is "non republican", in which case the Union can end at the will of DC. "Non republican" isn't a measurable criteria unless it is meant literally, a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship or military government. Which... is what reconstruction was, a military government. The end result is DC can take away power reserved to states arbitrarily...

Spoiler

What happens if Trump figures this one out and starts kicking "non republican" states out of the Union who don't declare that he won the 2020 election.

I don't know if that will hold up constitutionally...

Not that any Supreme Court decision is bulletproof. That is why there are 9 justices, 9 opinions, and each side writes their arguments.

And no one is ever going to go back and declare reconstruction unconstitutional...

I still disagree that if Texas had a non-republican form of government that it would no longer be a state. That is not the ruling of the majority of Texas v. White, which is the only one that really counts. If the government determined Texas, for example did not have a republican form of government that would mean the Federal Government would be obligated to come in and run the state government in some way until such time as the Federal Government was satisfied that Texas could be run with a Republican form of government. Which is pretty much what happened during Reconstruction.

But the residents of Texas during this period would still pay US taxes, Federal Courts would still operate, and other indicia of being in the US would continue. The only difference would be that the US would be running the state government. That is my reading, at least.

Agree, though, that what constitutes a Republican form of Government is pretty vague. The thing to remember, though, is that dealing with the aftermath of such a destructive war, and faced with the virulent hostility of the southern population, put the country in a very difficult situation. Was their response perfect? Not at all. But I do think it was an honest attempt to arrive at some conclusion that gave some modest protection to the newly freed slaves and assuring that the leaders who incited the rebellion were not put back into office where they could continue their mischief.

To be honest, I still sometimes think that a few executions of the fire-eaters who pushed for secession in the first place might have been a good thing. Not the men who fought the war itself, as the motivations for them could be very varied. But the men like Ruffin and Rhetts who pushed for secession very clearly were advocating treason, and they led the seceding states down the path to ruin. I wonder if the people who suffered the most from the war would have really been that upset if a dozen or so of the people most responsible for pushing it upon them were hanged.

 

[genbeau]

Per the US courts it was indeed a rebellion that even many Southerners fought against.
Leftyhunter

Then my latter statement applies. The south was in the morally superior position.

 

[genbeau]

Texas V. White was weird in that it ruled that Confederate States were always full-fledged US states, with all the rights and privileges of a US state even during the Civil War. It just rejects the Confederate government as illegitimate.

Congress however, made the opposite decision. Confederate States were not US states and had no rights as a state after the Civil War. They had to be readmitted into the US. Texas was readmitted in 1870.

What is the purpose of this? Well it technically declared all of reconstruction unconstitutional but nobody did anything.

The Union certainly fought the confederacy as if were a country.

 

[rvbgrif]

I still disagree that if Texas had a non-republican form of government that it would no longer be a state.

Its not that its non-republican, its that there is no measurable criteria, no judge, and the definition of "republican" being loosely defined to mean it lacks in any democratic quality, not that it literally isn't a republic. Which would be okay, except it violates the balance of powers and the perpetual union clause.

So... the federal government can take away powers from states whenever it deems them "non-republican". And strip them of their members of congress and right to vote in the presidential election. And it doesn't have to define it, it doesn't have to prove it, it won't be checked by another branch....... Hmmm.....

On top of that, the argument falls apart when Reconstruction was done to change the government in the Southern US and grant citizenship and voting rights to people who, at the start of reconstruction, did not have them. So... how could it be deemed "non-republican" at the start of reconstruction when the actual act wasn't restoring a republic but changing the way it operated, and replacing the republican government with a military government.

I think that the power of the federal government to strip states of every power they have even statehood, just because they were deemed non-republican in any democratic criteria (not that they literally have a non-republican government) is unconstitutional. But nobody has and will never push this again so it doesn't matter. The moment a president does it will probably be deemed unconstitutional.

I also think that the dissenters were right, that what the Supreme Court ruled did conflict with what Congress was doing. Not that that matters necessarily, the Supreme Court should come to an independent decision and not base their choice on what Congress is doing.

 

[leftyhunter]

Then my latter statement applies. The south was in the morally superior position.

Except even Southners called themselves es rebels. Fighting to keep humans as livestock is a rather dubious moral position.
Leftyhunter

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Then my latter statement applies. The south was in the morally superior position.

Hold on.

The south. That kept millions of people in bondage. That sacrificed god knows how many lives. To maintain the institution of slavery for a measly four more years.

…was in a morally superior position?

Glad you finally put it in plain English, at least, for everyone to see. You're joining the others on ignore.

 

[Belfoured]

Then my latter statement applies. The south was in the morally superior position.

Your "latter statement" is wrong and you're not even consistent, to boot. You keep claiming that you believe slavery was an unmitigated evil and that its end was a positive good. And then you turn around and claim that the secession which resulted in the war was a "morally superior position."

 

[Belfoured]

Except even Southners called themselves es rebels. Fighting to keep humans as livestock is a rather dubious moral position.
Leftyhunter

Especially coming from a poster who claims to believe that slavery was evil. More questions than answers ...

 

[archieclement]

Excellent point.

Another excellent point. I think the historic record is pretty clear this was a goal of many in the GOP.

Yep. In an ideal world. But of course, following the Civil War we were not in an ideal world.

I think what needs to be remembered is that the disenfranchised voters should be happy they were still alive or not in jail, since they did commit treason, and lost. And we also need to keep in mind that the virulent hatred towards the newly freed slaves, as evidenced by the vast number of massacres the white population imposed on them, made for a very difficult situation. So bottom line was, there was no easy solution. If given their way, the southern states would have (and in fact tried) to impose slavery in all but name on the newly freed people, so clearly something had to be done to protect them. The failure of Reconstruction was not in failing to allow traitors to control their state governments, but in ending before justice could be guaranteed to those who most needed protection from irrational and virulent hatred. The way slavery ended was not ideal by any means. So people were trying to make the best of a bad situation, and I think its rather pompous of us who criticize them for not doing a better job. Was there some corruption? When is there not?

The failure of Reconstruction was due primarily to the intrenched and deep seated hate that existed in the southern whites, the lack of will of the northern states to fight that hate until the job was done, and the desire of most to achieve some kind of reconciliation for the country so it could move on from this ugly era. Its hard to seek reconciliation when the opposing party routinely commits massacres as a form of terrorism to control the disadvantaged.

I think it should be noted as well, by carrying out a policy of vindictivness to disenfranchise the majority, which never would been sustainable over time, it was more a question how long they could. It likely contributes to vindictivness in return.

Should using ex slaves to try disenfranchise the actual majority been foreseeable as unlikely to improve relations, and actually going to worsen it long term, I personally would think so.

There's always a rather striking disconnect how northerners reacted freeing slaves with insignificant percentages, and how they thought southerners should with far more significant percentages.

Northern states generally had freed slaves leaving them disenfranchised and well with black code restrictions as they had fears/doubts how it might go and racial bias. Even though those being freed were rather negligible. Rather remarkable to think those facing far larger percentages were not going to have same fears and reaction. If they had those fears over 1% or less, how was states with 20-40% not rather foreseeable.

 

[JerryD]

Hold on.

The south. That kept millions of people in bondage. That sacrificed god knows how many lives. To maintain the institution of slavery for a measly four more years.

…was in a morally superior position?

Glad you finally put it in plain English, at least, for everyone to see. You're joining the others on ignore.

Some people have an odd idea of what is moral.

 

[Belfoured]

Some people have an odd idea of what is moral.

It also calls into question the sincerity of statements that the institution of slavery was evil and its end - which was brought about by the war - was a positive achievement.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Except even Southners called themselves es rebels. Fighting to keep humans as livestock is a rather dubious moral position.
Leftyhunter

Also rather morally dubious-at least to me-is the reprehensible incitement of a wholly unnecessary civil war by a bunch of malcontents because they lost an election.

 

[atlantis]

The federal gov't cannot allow Federal property to be taken by force, nor can it allow states to simply leave the union without the consent of the congress. Neither the constitution or Articles of confederation allow unilateral secession.
Upholding the constitution is worth it.

 

[JerryD]

I think it should be noted as well, by carrying out a policy of vindictivness to disenfranchise the majority, which never would been sustainable over time, it was more a question how long they could. It likely contributes to vindictivness in return.

I think its pretty clear that the "vindictiveness in return" as you put was well in place way before Reconstruction started. So its pretty cute to blame the US trying to bring some semblance of peace the region for inciting vindictiveness. Reality is, many southerners were not willing to accept being conquered and occupied, no matter how benevolent the occupiers were going to be, and they were never going to accept blacks as their legal and political equals. Note that this refusal lasted for a century and more, well beyond the lifespan of any sore loser vindictiveness would have been put in its grave.

Sorry, but your argument really does not pass the laugh test.

 

[archieclement]

What are you suggesting the north wasn't being vindictive?

That certainly doesn't pass the laugh test.

Or that the north shouldn't realized southerners would have had the same concerns northerners had with abolition, again laughable. They certainly did.

But if you wish to believe trying to temporary elevate the freed slaves above disenfranchised whites was going to improve racial harmony somehow, go ahead.......but i would say if that was intent, it was a rather failed experiment, if anything increased resentment.