|
In .0 I have tried to give the simplistic view of Reconstruction.
However, it was not that simple.
Lincoln had a mild Reconstruction policy - he wanted to re-admit
states if 10% of the pre-secession electorate had taken oaths
to the Union. This was too mild for the Radicals who successfully
had it blocked. Lincoln vetoed their own proposal, the Wade-Davis
bill.
However, at his death it seemed as if Lincoln and the Radicals
were moving to a common ground. This was tragically interrupted
by Lincoln's assassination.
Andrew Johnson was a completely different kettle of fish.
From a poor Tennessee background, he also harboured a
profound antipathy to blacks, typical of many "poor whites".
He was an inflexible and stubborn man, and his vision of
what he thought was Lincoln's policy remained fixed in
this mind.
Liberal pardons were handed out to ex-Confederates. Many
southern legislatures meeting under the agreed guidelines
passed "Black Codes" regulating black labour, so that
blacks would remain in perpetual peonage as a resevoir
of cheap labour for whites. This attempt to continue
slavery under another guise was too much for Congress,
who effectively negated Johnson and left him a
powerless and lame-duck President. An attempt to
impeach Johnson narrowly failed.
Congress, with Thadeus Stevens and Sumner in
the lead, passed amendments to the Constitution to
solidfy and protect Black Civil Rights. However, in the
South, illegal organisations like the Ku Klux Klan
began terrorizing black voters and white Republicans.
It proved impossible to get Southern juries to find
guilty the perpetrators of these crimes.
The Freedman's Bureau, set up to improve the lives
of the freed slaves, was usually ineffective. Hampered
by the white racist attitudes then prevalent North
and South, it generally moved to co-operate with
whites in providing cheap black labour.
Despite the fact that the promise held out to blacks
at Emancipation was never fulfilled and they only
enjoyed full civil rights for a brief period,
nevertheless the Reconstruction period saw real
improvement for blacks in entry to professions,
land ownership, income and literacy.
During Grant's Presidency it became increasingly
clear that the North could not pursue indefinitely
its policy in the South. White Southerners stubbornly
resisted any compromise with black equality. In the
North, many grew increasingly disenchanted with the
need to keep a virtual garrison in the South, and
many more grew concerned at a military threat
to free institutions.
In the the mid-1870's a great Economic Depression
struck the USA, and many more fast came to the
conclusion that it was futile to continue a losing
struggle for Negro rights. Of course, racist doctrine
would soon "demonstrate" that the black man was
inferior to the white, and incapable of full participation
in democracy. In any event, this was the majority white
opinion of that era.
In the return to the 2 party system, blacks were also
a liability in impeding alliances between voting
blocs in Congress. Hence what it now known as the
Compromise of 1876 came about, when the army was withdrawn
from the South, and the ex-Confederate states were allowed
run their own affairs.
Of course the new "Redeemer" governments of the Southern
states, spread the propaganda of the corruption of their
predecessors. However, many of these new governments
were just as corrupt as the ones they replaced.
The real losers were the black people of the South, who
entered a long night until the period of the 1950s and
1960s brought about what some historians are now
call the Second Reconstruction.
Toby
|
| I dimly remember something about the election of 1876. The election
was up for grabs as the Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, had
received more votes than the Republican standard bearer, James
Garfield, although neither man had a majority. The Southern States
originally intended to toss their electoral votes to Tilden, ending the
complete Republican hold on the government with the hope that a Democratic
president would be more favorably inclinded to see the southern point of
view.
The Republican's did a lot of arm twisting and ultimately promised to
remove the federal troops from the south and liberalize federal control
over the southern states in exchange for supporting Garfield.
The feeling is that if they were not faced with loosing the White
House, the republican's were likely to keep the troops in place and
press the southern states on continuing the trend towards civil rights
for blacks. This could have resulted in blacks achieving equality in
word and fact a hell of a lot sooner than it did. However, since the
Presidency meant more to the Republicans than the blacks did they set
their principles aside and abandonded blacks to their old masters.
The black population was thrown to the wolves solely for the political
benefit of the ruling party/class. This was a very sad chapter in
America's history and is a good illustration of how, even in a
democratic republic, the "professional" politician is very often the
enemy of the people.
Comments?
Marv
|
|
Personally, I think the Democrats were pushing at an open door
when they demanded withdrawal of the Federal army from the South.
Even under Grant, the Government had failed to act in suppressing
the reign of terror in states like Mississippi, where black election
meeetings were attacked by armed men. The Federal government had
in fact thrown up its hands in despair.
The Southern States also benefitted from the revulsion and disillusion
that inevitably follows periods of excess. The North wanted no more
strife, particularly when economic depression loomed, and was
quite willing to sacrifice the blacks in order to re-unite the
white nation.
In fairness, many Northern politicians conscientiously shrank
from imposing military rule on the South. In fact, the South won
"Home Rule" in the same way that countries like Ireland have
secured independence in the 20th century - a combination of
illegal violence, combined with political pressure. Eventually
they wore out the North, which even came round to accepting the
logic of the South's position. This was made easier by the
prevailing opinion on blacks i.e. that they were naturally
inferior and unfit to participate in democracy.
So the North preserved the Union, but the South preserved States'
Rights, particularly the right to maintain social control over
its black population. In essence, both sides could claim
a victory.
Such was the Compromise of 1876. While it was occasioned by the
Presidential dispute, it was probably the logical outcome of
the failure of Reconstruction.
Toby
|
| I'm surprised no one caught this yet or maybe you all are just being
nice to me. Anyway, in .2 I mentioned the election of 1876 and
erroneously named Samuel Tilden and James Garfield as the candidates.
Of course we all know it was Rutherford B. Hayes who was the Republican
candidate and not Garfield.
Garfield's claim to fame came a few years later, unfortunately for
different reason.
Marv
|
|
RADICAL REPUBLICANS
-------------------
I think that the Radical Republicans had some very ambitious
civil rights goals. Considering the resistance to some forms
of equal treatment for blacks in the 1960's (and, alas, even
today), it is hardly surprising that they were resisted at a
time when in the U.S.A.:
* Women could not vote in any state
* Native Americans were being herded onto shriniking reservations
* Mexicans and Chinese were widely considered to be of inferior
races
* Even immigrants from groups that would today be considered
"white" such as Irish, Italians, and Jews were frequently
discriminated against
I see a desire to "punish" the South by making blacks legally equal
to whites, followed by second thoughts. Even those opposed to
slavery might not have believed in full equality. If the slavery
issue had been resolved by negotiation rather than war, I can see
a period of freedom but no vote for blacks (can you say Apartheid?)
extending into the present century.
By supporting greater rights for blacks, the Radical Republicans
can be seen as the predecessors of the civil rights movement, but
I think they are ignored because the present civil rights advocates
are mostly Democrats who don't want to lend comfort to the enemy.
CARPETBAGGERS
-------------
After the Civil War, the South was devastated, and it attracted
both investors who hoped to make a profit rebuilding it and idealists
who wanted to improve the lot of blacks by starting schools for
them and getting them involved in politics. From the point of view
of a loyal Confederate who has been conquered physically but not
spiritually, even the most well-meaning of such people must have
seemed objectionable, and the immigrants no doubt had their share
of con men and opportunists. And it must be hard to see the vote
given to uneducated ex-slaves and offices held by recent enemies,
while those former (C.S.A.) officials you most respect are barred
from politics. And why should profits from rebuilding the South go
to the Northern capitalists who wrecked it, while local folks who
put their fortunes into Confederate bonds are penniless?
The carpetbaggers were necessary to rebuilding the South, but as
is the case with the Radical Republicans, their contribution has
been tainted by the Southerners who seem to have written the
history of Reconstruction.
|