If secession wasn't legal as Johnson and Lincoln believed, how did military reconstruction pass constitutional muster? And if Johnson didn't agree with the radical Republicans about the nature of Reconstruction, why didn't he challenge the Union Army occupying the South? I am trying to come to grips with the unique nature of Reconstruction politics...

Any good books on this??

Couldn't leave but then had to be readmitted. Reconstruction was a terrible time that went from too harsh to too lenient when it should have been somewhere in between. Many of the racial issues we are currently dealing with could have been eliminated or lessened with Reconstruction policies that lived in the middle of rhe spectrum versus living on the extremes. I'm not a big fan of the political views of Eric Foner but I think his book on Reconstruction is still considered the best history: Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877.

What do you think should have been "in the middle"?

It became abundantly clear very early on that the defeated Confederate states were going to try and keep power in the hands of the ancien regime while denying any and all rights to the freed slaves. It would have been very close to the status quo ante bellum that led to 620,000 deaths in the first place.

CalebMcCreary06 said:

---

If secession wasn't legal as Johnson and Lincoln believed, how did military reconstruction pass constitutional muster? And if Johnson didn't agree with the radical Republicans about the nature of Reconstruction, why didn't he challenge the Union Army occupying the South? I am trying to come to grips with the unique nature of Reconstruction politics...

Any good books on this??

---

Foner's work on Reconstruction is the gold standard. There are works on individual topics like the Klan or Grant's administration, but very few worthwhile overviews.

In answer to your question, the Southern states had to be readmitted to the Union and until such a time were conquered territories under military administration. The fact that secession wasn't valid didn't change the existence of a state of rebellion in those territories. Johnson was limited from the beginning by a Republican Congress that never trusted him as he had been a Democrat.

Boy I could write an essay on that but let me do some high points:

The Federal government messed up primarily is an economic way but also socially and politically as well. To keep it "in the middle" I would have helped rebuild the infrastructure of the south to get them on their feet again, sort of a Marshall Plan for the south. Within that plan instead of for example spending 10X the money for railroad construction and up keep to northern states and the TCRR, I would have flipped that and done it for the south. The south was in poverty and behind the rest of the country until after World War II. This economic assistance would have been provided on the conditon of real change in the social order regarding race relations.

I would not have let sharecropping become the new plantation system, that changed the paradigm to include black and white "slaves."

Federal assistance would have been forthcoming not to occupy the south but to educate the freed blacks socially, economically and politically. The biggest outrage of reconstruction was to provide freedom to the slaves without a clue about what they should/could do and then to completely leave them to their own devices-- total neglect by the US government (unless they worked for the government or joined the army). At first, the Radical Republicans instituted policies of "the bottom rail on top," giving the former slaves politcal powers they did not know how to use or worse were used in revenge on white southerners. This total humilation of white southerners infuriated them, so when when they got complete control of their society and political machinary after being mostly disenfranchised for a few years, this distrust and anger at blacks came out in Jim Crow and institutional racism.

Going from disenfranchisement of whites to five years later the disenfranchisement of blacks are the political extremes of reconstruction, neither should have happened. Similarly state government corruption was not policed by the Federals whether blacks or white southerners were in charge and it should have been.

The Freedman's bureau in theory was not what it was in actual operation, southeners felt humiliated by it too and it gave rise to the KKK and a revenge mentality against blacks by white southerners. By former Confederates taking over the government operation in 1870, they just reinstituted the old antebellum social order and you almost have to wonder why all the men had to die in the war for the lack of economic and social progress in the south.

The failures of reconstruction were the US Government always did too much or not enough, it was never a case of just right.

I could see the point with investing in the South. I think Lincoln would have pushed for that, but Congress had zero respect for Johnson, so any idea of his was DOA.

Part of the problem was that Johnson had a level of control initially and used it to push a very lenient policy that resulted in little change in who controlled Southern politics and society. That was a non starter in the North.

On racial issues, however, I disagree. The immediate move by Southern state houses was for "Black Codes," that returned blacks to a state of vassalage with few actual benefits of freedom. Retaliation against freedmen began immediately and some accounts were widely disseminated in the North, leading to further outrage. For example, 1,000 blacks were murdered in Texas between 1866-1868 by white men. There were 500 men charged and 0 convicted. And most admitted to shooting blacks for reasons like, "To see a damn n***** twitch."

I'd also say that the freed slaves picked up on education very, very rapidly. What hampered them wasn't a lack of education so much as a lack of resources. Land was not taken from the plantation owners and freed slaves had few options. Those that could moved to the cities, where a larger, and reasonably educated free black population lived, and you can still find a few Reconstruction shacks in Charleston and Atlanta. As for political power, once freedmen were citizens, why wouldn't they have the right to stand for office? It's not their fault that almost half of South Carolina was black at the time.

Maybe the Freedman's Bureau could have worked more closely with leading Southern whites, but I'm not sure what it would have accomplished. The very existence of black equality was a threat to everything Southern society stood for and many would not countenance it. The evolution to Jim Crow actually took time. Jim Crow laws became popular in the late 1880s with a new push to end all black public participation. I'd recommend reading "The Strange Career of Jim Crow," if you're interested.

Extending this thought further, do you think the South did not get its fair share of the New Deal? Some claim the book Tobacco Road which became a Broadway play as well as a movie further influence New Deal allocation decisions. The idea that the South was going to squander the benefits.

The wide use of the peonage system should never have been allowed either. Enslaving blacks, and a few whites, to lumber mills and mines because of petty crimes was one of the most egregious crimes committed by southern states after the war.

Chain gangs weren't common in the North (though they happened, especially in the Midwest), but the justice system was absolutely prejudiced against black Americans.

It befuddles me how Reconstruction and causes of the Civil War continue to pique interest. But carry on. When you delve into the 17 and 18th centuries, let me know.

JJMT:

I think Rabid Cougar responded pretty well for my position.
Just to add a little bit to what he said slave rebellions in the USA were so infrequent or minor that they were not a real menace. Nat Turner's rebellion was the only one of significance in the US and it was put down fast and hard. However, slave rebellions were an overwhelming boogeyman to the south and the very real and bloody rebellion in Haiti scared the hell out of the white south. This boogeyman gave rise to the laws against free blacks in some southern states.
Slaves were seldom whipped to death by a sane in control master; if a slave were incorrigible you sold them not killed them. They were worth too much to kill.
I love my dogs, I don't hate them but they are just animals. Some people believe they have souls. If those other people are right and I am wrong, than morally I am mistreating my animals. It still doesn't change my love for them.
As to your last question, the answer is a resounding yes.
Hey VanZandt92:
This thread is for you ! We are discussing the 17th and 18th century's attitudes toward slaves!!

BQ78 said:

---

JJMT:

I think Rabid Cougar responded pretty well for my position.
Just to add a little bit to what he said slave rebellions in the USA were so infrequent or minor that they were not a real menace. Nat Turner's rebellion was the only one of significance in the US and it was put down fast and hard. However, slave rebellions were an overwhelming boogeyman to the south and the very real and bloody rebellion in Haiti scared the hell out of the white south. This boogeyman gave rise to the laws against free blacks in some southern states.
Slaves were seldom whipped to death by a sane in control master; if a slave were incorrigible you sold them not killed them. They were worth too much to kill.
I love my dogs, I don't hate them but they are just animals. Some people believe they have souls. If those other people are right and I am wrong, than morally I am mistreating my animals. It still doesn't change my love for them.
As to your last question, the answer is a resounding yes.
Hey VanZandt92:
This thread is for you ! We are discussing the 17th and 18th century's attitudes toward slaves!!

---

Well there were most certainly fears of slaves in South Carolina as the British came through and freed many, but it isn't a dominant theme. Even in the 1700s there were more blacks than whites in South Carolina.

I think the simple way to understand it is that they were never out of the union, but failed to have legitimate governments, therefore, they reverted to a sort of territory status.

BQ78 said:

---

JJMT:

I think Rabid Cougar responded pretty well for my position.
Just to add a little bit to what he said slave rebellions in the USA were so infrequent or minor that they were not a real menace. Nat Turner's rebellion was the only one of significance in the US and it was put down fast and hard. However, slave rebellions were an overwhelming boogeyman to the south and the very real and bloody rebellion in Haiti scared the hell out of the white south. This boogeyman gave rise to the laws against free blacks in some southern states.
Slaves were seldom whipped to death by a sane in control master; if a slave were incorrigible you sold them not killed them. They were worth too much to kill.
I love my dogs, I don't hate them but they are just animals. Some people believe they have souls. If those other people are right and I am wrong, than morally I am mistreating my animals. It still doesn't change my love for them.
As to your last question, the answer is a resounding yes.
Hey VanZandt92:
This thread is for you ! We are discussing the 17th and 18th century's attitudes toward slaves!!

---

The goal of a slave owner was to maximize the useful years of service. In an era before real medicine, you never knew how long that would be, so the goal first and foremost was maximizing productivity for the current crop. That meant a balance between working every useful ounce out of slaves while keeping them alive and maintaining order. Every slave wouldn't be beaten nearly to death, you just needed to make an example out of a few periodically. Runaways and troublemakers were often branded or hobbled in some way. There were always other jobs they could fill. Besides, most field slaves didn't make it out of their 40s, so you didn't have many elderly mouths to feed anyway (and the slaves themselves under the task system would be responsible for the elderly).

Personal manservants were closer to the master-dog relationship mentioned here than field slave-master. Those slaves were numbers on a piece of paper to the owners. And the fear of slave rebellions was very ingrained. Every fire was a suspected slave revolt. Every master who died suddenly was a potential victim of poison. You're forgetting the Stono Rebellion, which left a dramatic scar on South Carolina's psyche.

In fact, the 2nd amendment had a purpose that doesn't get talked about much: it was intended to assuage Southern concerns that the slave patrols would not be interfered with. Those were organized through the militias and were largely self-equipped.

If you whip a person, the person knows why he's being whipped. Dog or a cow, not so much.

Not that any of the above is defensible.

JJMt said:

---

I'll have to defer to you guys since I'm just not that familiar with the actual historical facts regarding treatment of and attitudes toward slaves during that period of history. I keep hoping that Sapper, or whatever handle he's using will chime in, because I suspect that he'd support my argument here. If that were to happen, it would be the first time ever, ha ha.

---

Well, first time for everything! I largely agree with your position.

I was reading last night about a post-war order from John Schofield who was in charge of the Department of South Carolina. The text of the order was previoulsly known but they have now found the original copy.

Germane to this discussion is that it was addressed to both the former slaves and masters. To the slaves he basically said be good, good luck and maybe someday if you work hard you'll be as rich as your white masters were. To the masters he said watch yourself in your dealings with the former slaves but the thing I found interesting is the former masters were required to house and care for any former slaves who were old and infirmed and they could not be kicked out on the streets now that they were free.

I would also add to Sapper's post that the median southern slaveholder's house consisted of probably around 3-4 slaves, so the personal relationship between masters and slaves existed in more households than the large plantation scenario he paints, not that I disagree with anything he said.

Doc Watson that was a gruesome post above. I'm not sure how to reply to that view of how slaves were treated. I'm not denying it, but I really hope that the most severe abuses were less common than you intimate. I'm not an apologist though.

To get back to the 18th century, written by one of my friends, the Beaufort County Slave uprising:

Today in NBBAS history, from Volume One:
Beaufort County Slave Uprising, North Carolina
8 July 1775
North Carolina's Royal Governor Josiah Martin began formulating plans for a massive British invasion of the South, beginning in North Carolina. One of the plans Martin considered was arming the slaves so that they would rise up against their Whig masters. This was a tactic that Virginia's Royal Governor would also use. However, Martin later denied that he had ever advocated a slave revolt. A slave uprising did occur in July 1775 along the eastern part of North Carolina, in Beaufort, Pitt and Craven counties and along the Tar River.
On July 8 the Pitt County Safety Committee ordered out the militia to "shoot one or any number of Negroes who are armed and doth not willingly surrender their arms." The 100 militiamen captured forty of the "suspected heads" of the uprising. The uprising had supposedly been organized by a white sea captain and "Merrick, a negro man slave who formerly Belonged to Major Clark, a Pilot at Okacock but now to Captain Naath Blinn of Bath Town." Five of the slaves were whipped, receiving 80 lashes each, and had their ears cropped. As soon as those slaves were punished there arose a second revolt in Craven and Pitt counties. Though 250 armed slaves were reported to have been on the road between the counties, none were found.
According to the captured slaves the plan was for all the slaves to rise up on July 8th and to "fall on and destroy the family where they lived, then to proceed from House to House, (Burning as they went) until they arrived in the Back Country where they were to be received with open arms by a number of persons there appointed and armed by the Government for their Protection, and as a further reward they were to be settled in a free government of their own." The militia recovered "considerable ammunition" from the slaves lending credence to the story. In the end the Whigs decided to destroy Fort Johnston on the Cape Fear River so that it would not be a gathering point for runaway slaves.

Watson I hope your version if history is not being taught to today's students!

Can you produce references for the 2nd admendment and slave patrols?

tmaggies said:

---

Watson I hope your version if history is not being taught to today's students!

---

Which part and why?

ja86 said:

---

Can you produce references for the 2nd admendment and slave patrols?

---

This article is one of the early arguments on that issue: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

Actually, turns out you can download the paper from that link.

Dr. Watson said:

---

ja86 said:

---

Can you produce references for the 2nd admendment and slave patrols?

---

This article is one of the early arguments on that issue: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

Actually, turns out you can download the paper from that link.

---

I'm trying to read part of that. Do you believe the paper?

I believe you can't separate the Slave Patrols from the militia in the South. And Virginia in general, and Patrick Henry in particular, were terrified of outside interference in slavery. I strongly recommend Woody Holton's book, "Forced Founders," to see the impact of Dunmore's Proclamation on Henry and the Virginian gentry going into the Revolution. They wanted assurances that any national government would leave policing of slavery to the states.

Dr. Watson said:

---

I believe you can't separate the Slave Patrols from the militia in the South. And Virginia in general, and Patrick Henry in particular, were terrified of outside interference in slavery. I strongly recommend Woody Holton's book, "Forced Founders," to see the impact of Dunmore's Proclamation on Henry and the Virginian gentry going into the Revolution. They wanted assurances that any national government would leave policing of slavery to the states.

---

Interesting.

Watson, I'm on faculty at an ACC school, but my interest in history is a hobby. How about you?

I think I'm having a hard time meshing the rather large extent and range of American militia, which were all over every colony, with areas in the 1700s where slaves were commonly held. The latter was much less extensive until after 1800, while the formation of militias went for centuries all over.