Were Southern whites disfranchised during Reconstruction?

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
You'll have to explain that one. Are you pushing blame on how Southern Whites treated Blacks after Reconstruction onto the Radical Reconstruction that temporarily offered some benefits?

Reconstruction did nothing to improve pre-war concerns about uncontrolled blacks. I place most of the blame the radical white leadership that used blacks to keep them in power, you might say as useful dupes to be abandoned when they were no longer needed.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The Radical politicians pitted race against race for their own benefit. Disfranchisement wasn't the only thing on their program.

Item from the Albany (NY) Argus reprinted in the Daily Constitutionalist (Augusta, GA), December 1, 1866:

"The spirit which actuated Robespierre, Danton, Marat, and others, is no stranger in our country. It is every where manifested by extreme men, and is not concealed by those whose feelings and motions they control. It is most usually exhibited toward those who mistook their duty and engaged in the late rebellion; but recently it has extended to nearly every white man resident in the secession States. Now it reaches all, wherever they reside, who do not subscribe to and sustain the theories and their practical application by the Radical Republicans. Observing men discover unmistakable evidence of this spirit throughout the active and controlling portions of the Radical party. It is more or less apparent in every neighborhood. A disposition to exterminate those of independent and differing opinions is everywhere manifested, and toward Southern white men it is openly avowed. The purpose of exterminating the Southern men, and the confiscation and distribution of their property, has been proposed by those in high places who control the action of their party." (my emphasis)

Yet, there are some here shocked by Southern white resentment.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
"This government cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing. Those enemies must understand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt."

--Abraham Lincoln in a letter to August Belmont, July 26, 1862.
So 300,000 dead, scores of towns and cities burned to the ground, livestock destroyed, houses and barns burned wasn't enough revenge?...there had to be more?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
After the eleven years of radical domination, it is little wonder.

Hardly.

When considering what happened to other rebels in other times and nation, it's not a wonder.

It was almost a unique event in the entire world that white South men suffered so little from the victorious North for bringing on one of the most bloody rebellions in our nations history.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
So 300,000 dead, scores of towns and cities burned to the ground, livestock destroyed, houses and barns burned wasn't enough revenge?...there had to be more?

You roll the dice of rebellion, gambling all that you will be the victor. That's what the Slaveholding elite did. They put those 300,000 dead, scores of towns and cities, livestock, houses and barns down on that bet.

Where's your outrage for those who were so casual about betting such on an effort to keep slavery?
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
Reconstruction did nothing to improve pre-war concerns about uncontrolled blacks. I place most of the blame the radical white leadership that used blacks to keep them in power, you might say as useful dupes to be abandoned when they were no longer needed.

Yes let's blame the people who assisted with improving Blacks positions (some for selfish reason some not however) for the crimes and views held against them by those that suppressed them. That makes sense.

Clearly they should've put kid gloves on and coddled the racist White southerners who had concerns about uncontrolled blacks rather than worry about helping assist those freed from slavery.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Location
Southwest Mississippi
A temporary disenfranchisement is history's mildest punishment ever meted out by the victors to failed rebels.
It's really not that simple.

Without getting into modern politics, the so called "reconstruction" (or lack thereof) set the stage for the Jim Crow era.

So yeah, as has been said in this thread . . . revenge begets revenge.

Nope. Southerners were never disenfranchised because they had white skin.

White skin ?

That's interesting.
Can you elaborate?
 
Last edited:

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
Unfortunately for blacks, they bore the brunt of the Radical Reconstruction debacle long after the Carpetbaggers went home and the scalawags slipped away in the shadows.
There's no question that a cowardly white/Republican government, still dominated by the North, threw America's blacks under the train in the late 1870s (and kept them there). It's also appropriate to remember just who was driving the train. It wasn't a righteous time for anybody in this great country -- nothing to be proud of -- nothing to point fingers about (unless we all point them at 'ourselves').
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Yes let's blame the people who assisted with improving Blacks positions (some for selfish reason some not however) for the crimes and views held against them by those that suppressed them. That makes sense.

Clearly they should've put kid gloves on and coddled the racist White southerners who had concerns about uncontrolled blacks rather than worry about helping assist those freed from slavery.

You are right, the freed blacks should have been encouraged to move North where they would have been welcomed, safe, and coddled.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Hardly.

When considering what happened to other rebels in other times and nation, it's not a wonder.

It was almost a unique event in the entire world that white South men suffered so little from the victorious North for bringing on one of the most bloody rebellions in our nations history.

That explains everything, thanks for sharing. :unsure:
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Andersonh1,

It's not me trying to justify anything.

I'm just expressing concern over those who are surprised or dismayed such disenfranchises took place at all.

Unionblue

It's not surprising, but I would point out that it was the North, the United States, who insisted that the goal was to put the Southern states "back in their proper constitutional relation" with the rest of the United States. The South didn't ask for that and didn't want it, they wanted out of the system entirely. By denying those men the franchise, he North was violating their own stated goals and standards.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It's not surprising, but I would point out that it was the North, the United States, who insisted that the goal was to put the Southern states "back in their proper constitutional relation" with the rest of the United States.

Not surprising when you really give it some thought after four years they were out of "their proper constitutional relation."

The South didn't ask for that and didn't want it, they wanted out of the system entirely.

Hence that four year rebellion in order to keep fellow human beings as slaves.

By denying those men the franchise, he North was violating their own stated goals and standards.

So, no harm, no foul, for four years of rebellion, war, and bloodshed, all in the name of preserving chattel slavery?

"This government cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing. Those enemies must understand they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt."

They got off lucky.

Unionblue
 
Top