Reconstruction

[MrPresident]

Who's fault was it for the failure of reconstruction in the post-civil war American south? Was it President Johnson? The Republican controlled congress? or the North in general? The Republican Southern Regimes? the Southern whites? or the South in general?

 

[insurgent]

As I understood it, the Southern white politicians sabotaged much of reconstruction making it almost impossible for the freedmen to rise in social status. So I voted the Southern whites. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's not my area of expertise.

 

[Vrylakas]

I'm not so sure Reconstruction failed. Its aim was to successfully re-integrate the South into the U.S., and it did so quite successfully. Within 50 years of the Civil War Americans of all regions felt comfortable enough to elect a Southerner as president, with his regional background a non-issue. And Wilson held many views concerning race and the war that were typical of Southerners of his day, much to the embarrassment of modern pro-Wilsonians - like myself. I recall photos of old bearded men, veterans of both the Union and Confederate armies, meeting for 50th anniversary commemorative ceremonies at Gettysburg, former enemies chatting with each other very casually in 1913.

If anything, ending Reconstruction so abruptly may have prolongued some of the integrative effects. The very painful Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s for the South might have been mitigated by more studious efforts in the 1880s and 90s.

The South clearly will not have pleasant memories of Reconstruction and of course there was the usual corruption and excesses that occupying forces commit but to be quite frank as military occupations go, Reconstruction was very mild. Try Poland in 1939-49 or India in 1857 for a good comparison.

 

[Ace]

If it failed, the blame must rest with John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln! Reconstruction would have been vastly different if Lincoln had remained president.

 

[thedirk]

I think that the goals of reconstruction have succeeded in the long run. However, in the short term the failures and problems can't be narrowed down to any one source, both the north and the south could have done things differently.

 

[Kamilian]

i think that the Reconstruction both failed and succeeded.

it successfully integrated southern states and their economy into the US. it ended slavery.

however, it failed in replacing prejudice with equality. the KKK rose with the goals of restoring the Confederacy, and while it failed to do that, it did intimidate many southerners, even the non-racists, to vote for racist politicians. it continued to lynch and intimidate African-Americans and it still exists today. the Reconstruction didnt begin to integrate schools and public utilities and offices - gradually nor rapidly. many freed African-Americans still had no money or houses. in some ways, the Reconstruction made life worse for them, except for the fact that they were "free" and "equal". some even wanted to return to their old master's homes and work for them.

though it freed AFrican-Americans and successfully fused the North and South together into today's US, the Reconstruction failed in giving them better social status.

 

[MrPresident]

the KKK rose with the goals of restoring the Confederacy

I have to disagree with that. The KKK aimed to keep the freed blacks from voting and generally advancing their position. They wanted the blacks to remain in their suborinate position that slavery required them to be in. The KKK did however wish to restore the Confederacy as pretty much everyone accepted that the Confederacy was dead.

some even wanted to return to their old master's homes and work for them.

Not very surprisingly if they had a good master.

 

[The ANZAC]

I feel it was the South in general: it's culture, beliefs, people, etc It was just too well engrained in their minds and living that blacks were supposed to be subordinate. Reconstruction could have only worked if the North devoted an unreasonable and unrealistic amount of attention to the South.

 

[onejayhawk]

Reconstruction did not fail. However its success was long delayed by the lingering animosity between the parties. Northern interests were not alloweed to invest in the South, because southern people would not work for them and would sabotage the enterprise. This is assuming that the business was intended for legitimate purposes, and not to make a quick profit and run. There were many of those as well.

Southern investment was hurt by lack of capital. The Confederacy threw everything it had into the war, and received almost nothing of it back. What industry survived was taken over by the northern interests, often on very shaky grounds. Only things which require no investment beyond land and labor had much chance of success for the first decade.

Al that being said, two other things are also true. First, the North dominated Congress had no real interest in rebuilding its old enemy, and set about trying to keep it down. In a sense, this was much like France and Germany in the 1920's. Second, the period of reconstruction was lengthy, but the period just described was short. After about a decade business was returning to something like normal. Before the war the South had money, prestige, and little else. After the war they merely had little else.

Until the invention of air refridgeration, the south was a poor place to work. Industry stayed in the North in large part because of southern summer heat. Only industry which was largely open air, logging, farming, etc had much chance of really taking hold.

J

 

[Shady]

You can't say that Reconstruction failed because it didn't. It made obvious changes to the system in the South that were mostly successful at the beginning but sucked later on.

The cause for the resentment of Reconstruction in the South is not the resentment of Northerners because that's a byproduct of Reconstruction itself and wasn't there as much before. The introduction of the Civil War amendments that all of a sudden had the slaves running free as equals (in theory) to their former masters was just not acceptable. The carpetbaggers also did a lot to add to the hate as they acquired $100k savings from a $8k salary...clearly corruption which was widespread during the time. Also the presence of federal troops did a lot to pess the southerners off.

Sad part is that the former slaves, due to the poll tax, grandpa clause, literacy tests, and the clan were back in a position as a subservient labor force, workin for the old massas as sharecroppers along with a significant portion of poor white trash.

Reconstruction could have gone along better.

 

[MrPresident]

You can't say that Reconstruction failed because it didn't.

I think the African-Americans would see these differently.

Also the presence of federal troops did a lot to pess the southerners off.

There were hardly any federal troops in the South, especially considering it was a recently conquered enemy.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

It was probably the shock, recently freed slaves meet with poor whites. It didnt happen before since the slaves were kept in plantations and in rich whites' houses. That's the same reason why poor whites fought during civil war. I mean what was their point, fighting to keep slavery when they didnt own slaves? The same old stupid reason that 'whites are over blacks'.

 

[onejayhawk]

There is a famous saying, "Freedom is the choice of working and starving." Freed slaves had trouble no matter where they went. There are still laws officially on the books that restrict businesses from doing various things, most ly intended to restrict freed slaves from operating businesses at all, but with out saying so in so many words.

One such law, called "Green River' for reasons I don't understand, restricted door to door selling throughout much of the South until after WW II. It was drafted to attack itinerant tinkers and odd jobbers, primarily black, from hustling up work. That one was overturned by the Supreme Court on religious freedom grounds by Jehova's Witness missionaries in the 1970's IIRC.

The war may have been over in 1865, but the causes lasted much longer.

J

 

[Shady]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I think the African-Americans would see these differently.

How did reconstruction fail if we've got an obviously well integrated society nowadays with the most indiscriminate amount of opportunity in history? Sure there are deficiencies but there are just some prejudiced people that legislation can't reach.

How can you call the Freedmens' Bureau a failure if it did plenty in the area of education for the blacks? How can you call the quick establishment of black schools, communities, and churches a failure? None of these had immediate effects but they would eventually play a key role in the elevation of the status from 2nd class citizenry. How can you call the exponential expansion of black political influence, wielding 14 black representatives and 2 senators in congress?

Moreover the general changes that brough public school systems and women's property rights were leaps in that day and age compared to the feudal system in place before the war.

There were hardly any federal troops in the South, especially considering it was a recently conquered enemy.

By the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, Congress divided the south into 5 military districts.

1) Virginia - General Schofield
2) North and South Carolina - General Sickles
3) Georgia, Alabama, and Florida - General Pope
4) Mississippi and Arkansas - General Ord
5) Texas and Louisiana - General Sheridan

after the hyphans are listed the military governors of each of the districts. Tenesse escaped this due to their quick ratification of the 14th amendment.

What in the world are military districts doing there if they don't have any troops to use? Granted the number of troops was small in comparison to the numbers of the civil war (only about 20,000 were present), but how many troops did you need to surpress a few mean and angry southerners that would protest once in a while?

Furthermore, the carpetbaggers would never have had a chance in the south if it wasn't for federal troops. In 1968 out of 8 readmitted southern states, 6 voted republican in the presidental election while 2 voted democratic. In 1872 the number was 8 republican to 1 democratic and 2 independent democratic. In in 1876 when reconstruction gradually faded away by itself, only 3 states voted republican opposed to the other 8 democratic votes.

This military aspect of reconstruction ended in 1877 because of the elction of 1876 in which there 20 disputed electoral votes (each disputed state submitted 1 republican and 1 democratic return). The subsequent dispute was settled by hard laboring congressmen, numbering 8 republicans and 7 democrats. After a lot of debate a compromise was reached. The Republican returns would be accepted (making Hayes the President) if Hayes promised to install a southern cabinet member and end reconstruction. Voila, 1877 the soldiers go back home.

 

[MrPresident]

how many troops did you need to surpress a few mean and angry southerners that would protest once in a while?

Considering the success of the Ku Klux Klan, a lot more than were there.

 

[Shady]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Considering the success of the Ku Klux Klan, a lot more than were there.

That's true. More were needed to completely surpress the white supremacists. The Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 were really harsh from the Southern POV and authorized the federal troops to stamp out groups such as the KKK. This was successful actually in respect to the KKK because their activities declined rapidly. But by that time it was already too late. The KKK had done its work and had intimidated blacks and scalawags from voting. They also continued to do their intimidation in forms of dancing clubs, missionary societies, and rifle clubs.

I don't think that a complete supression of this wouldn have been wise though because the force acts were harsh as they were. If they were to work against those rifle clubs etc. then the 1st amendment would have to be stomped on and burned and that was just not going to work.