One of the most moving things is recounted in “Help Me Find My People” as freedpeople began to search for relatives that had been sold away, “taken” or “stolen” from them, as they said at the time.
The many legal aspects. Starting with the fundamental question of the very legal basis of Reconstruction. Some argued that with the end of the war, the states in the CSA immediately returned to their proper place in the Union. This meant the instant enjoyment of political rights, including representation in Congress. If Lincoln was right, in that the southern states never had left the Union, that position had legal appeal.
Conversely, others argued that secession was “state suicide,” and Congress essentially could treat seceded states as territories, running them as it deemed necessary. This permitted military-supported reconstruction.
A myriad of other interesting legal issues arose, not to mention the resulting statutes and Constitutional amendments that so changed our nation (albeit not immediately in many cases).
I have always enjoyed learning about the amazing courage and competence of the newly enfranchised and elected Black officials in the former Confederate states. So sad for our country that their tenure was so short.
The fact that the United States emerged from the Civil War and Reconstruction as a functioning democratic republic. We survived a war that killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed a large part of the country, caused the assassination of the president, and resulted in a bloody and very imperfect reconstruction period. We survived all of that and moved forward. We take all that for granted, but we shouldn’t.
I read a great essay by Eric Foner years ago “Why Reconstruction Matters” He makes a strong argument of the relevance of Reconstruction to today:
terrorism and the ways to suppress terrorism
The 14th Amendment and the equal protection under the law, birthright citizenship
Creation of a Black middle class and leadership class based on the churches
and many others!
Most of the historiography of Reconstruction focuses on the failures of era — all the things it did not do … I have read several works that focus on what Reconstruction did do … I find this perspective far more interesting.
Eric Foner’s “The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution” argues Reconstruction’s most profound accomplishments were the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments … this “second founding” abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship, and created a biracial democracy, fundamentally shifting the power to protect citizens’ rights from the states to the Federal government.
In “A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights”, Laura Edwards expands on this constitutional revolution, noting the war and Reconstruction permanently altered the American legal system … the Federal government expanded its jurisdiction to become a direct “legal ally” in citizens’ lives, actively guaranteeing individual, political, and social rights …. and the war created significant new authorities and the Federal gov’t and exercised substantially expanded jurisdiction which continued throughout Reconstruction … an income tax and a military draft redefined citizens’ obligation to the republic … and powers that had been reserved for the states – banking, currency, suffrage — were legislated out of existence.
Finally, Greg Downs’ “After Appomattox: Military Occupation and the End of the War” highlights the practical, tactical triumphs of the era … the Federal military occupation (with only 20K troops) prevented a legally codified caste system from replacing slavery and maintained baseline civil order … because of this, Freedmen were able to exercise unprecedented personal agency over their families, wages, and property, with 20 percent of Black farmers successfully achieving land ownership by 1880.
The 1876 Presidential election, when the Republicans got caught red-handed stuffing the ballot box in Florida – and it most likely occurred in Louisiana and South Carolina as well – and the South, faced with even more use of the Federal military to force it into compliance with the wishes of those who held power, wisely traded New Yorker Samuel J. Tilden’s win to yet another corrupt Ohioan, Rutherford B. Hayes, in exchange for an end to the unconstitutional Reconstruction.
Of course, this has been whitewashed into “free license for the South to implement Jim Crow” – the Southern name for the “Black Codes,” which had been firmly in place in the North for decades, and remained – but the obvious points are always avoided: Had the election not been stolen, would Jim Crow have occurred as it did in the South?; and, there was plenty blame to go around, but why is racial segregation and abuse, and election-rigging, and the usurpation of State governments by the North and the Federal Government never taught in schools, while Jim Crow is?
Let us never forget that slavery ended in America for good on December 6, 1865…in the North, six months after it ended in the South; and that 80% of race riots occurred in the North, not the South.
Really makes you wonder what he was teaching those folks in Vietnam.
Loading...
I’m primarily a military history buff, so Reconstruction doesn’t really pique my interest, but I do think it was shady how the Federal government threw Virginia Gov. Francis H. Pierpont out of office after he had been a close ally with the Reorganized Government for the entire war.
What aspect or event of Reconstruction do you find most interesting?
The Republican Party abandoned the newly freed Black slaves. Never again can the GOP be referred to as the Party of Lincoln .
The only thing worse is the gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the John Roberts SC.
One of the most moving things is recounted in “Help Me Find My People” as freedpeople began to search for relatives that had been sold away, “taken” or “stolen” from them, as they said at the time.
The many legal aspects. Starting with the fundamental question of the very legal basis of Reconstruction. Some argued that with the end of the war, the states in the CSA immediately returned to their proper place in the Union. This meant the instant enjoyment of political rights, including representation in Congress. If Lincoln was right, in that the southern states never had left the Union, that position had legal appeal.
Conversely, others argued that secession was “state suicide,” and Congress essentially could treat seceded states as territories, running them as it deemed necessary. This permitted military-supported reconstruction.
A myriad of other interesting legal issues arose, not to mention the resulting statutes and Constitutional amendments that so changed our nation (albeit not immediately in many cases).
The rise of the Ku Klux Klan and how President’s Johnson and Grant dealt with this group.
The debate about citizenship, for former Confederates and for former slaves
I have always enjoyed learning about the amazing courage and competence of the newly enfranchised and elected Black officials in the former Confederate states. So sad for our country that their tenure was so short.
The fact that the United States emerged from the Civil War and Reconstruction as a functioning democratic republic. We survived a war that killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed a large part of the country, caused the assassination of the president, and resulted in a bloody and very imperfect reconstruction period. We survived all of that and moved forward. We take all that for granted, but we shouldn’t.
I read a great essay by Eric Foner years ago “Why Reconstruction Matters” He makes a strong argument of the relevance of Reconstruction to today:
terrorism and the ways to suppress terrorism
The 14th Amendment and the equal protection under the law, birthright citizenship
Creation of a Black middle class and leadership class based on the churches
and many others!
As a special educator, I am aware that special education law and regs are based on the 14th Amendment’s concept of “equal protection”
Most of the historiography of Reconstruction focuses on the failures of era — all the things it did not do … I have read several works that focus on what Reconstruction did do … I find this perspective far more interesting.
Eric Foner’s “The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution” argues Reconstruction’s most profound accomplishments were the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments … this “second founding” abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship, and created a biracial democracy, fundamentally shifting the power to protect citizens’ rights from the states to the Federal government.
In “A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights”, Laura Edwards expands on this constitutional revolution, noting the war and Reconstruction permanently altered the American legal system … the Federal government expanded its jurisdiction to become a direct “legal ally” in citizens’ lives, actively guaranteeing individual, political, and social rights …. and the war created significant new authorities and the Federal gov’t and exercised substantially expanded jurisdiction which continued throughout Reconstruction … an income tax and a military draft redefined citizens’ obligation to the republic … and powers that had been reserved for the states – banking, currency, suffrage — were legislated out of existence.
Finally, Greg Downs’ “After Appomattox: Military Occupation and the End of the War” highlights the practical, tactical triumphs of the era … the Federal military occupation (with only 20K troops) prevented a legally codified caste system from replacing slavery and maintained baseline civil order … because of this, Freedmen were able to exercise unprecedented personal agency over their families, wages, and property, with 20 percent of Black farmers successfully achieving land ownership by 1880.
Well, it certainly was a “buyer’s market” as far as real estate went in those post-War years and areas.
The 1876 Presidential election, when the Republicans got caught red-handed stuffing the ballot box in Florida – and it most likely occurred in Louisiana and South Carolina as well – and the South, faced with even more use of the Federal military to force it into compliance with the wishes of those who held power, wisely traded New Yorker Samuel J. Tilden’s win to yet another corrupt Ohioan, Rutherford B. Hayes, in exchange for an end to the unconstitutional Reconstruction.
Of course, this has been whitewashed into “free license for the South to implement Jim Crow” – the Southern name for the “Black Codes,” which had been firmly in place in the North for decades, and remained – but the obvious points are always avoided: Had the election not been stolen, would Jim Crow have occurred as it did in the South?; and, there was plenty blame to go around, but why is racial segregation and abuse, and election-rigging, and the usurpation of State governments by the North and the Federal Government never taught in schools, while Jim Crow is?
Let us never forget that slavery ended in America for good on December 6, 1865…in the North, six months after it ended in the South; and that 80% of race riots occurred in the North, not the South.
You sure have gone out of your way to defend the racial and political terrorism practiced by the Southern redeemers.
Really makes you wonder what he was teaching those folks in Vietnam.
I’m primarily a military history buff, so Reconstruction doesn’t really pique my interest, but I do think it was shady how the Federal government threw Virginia Gov. Francis H. Pierpont out of office after he had been a close ally with the Reorganized Government for the entire war.