Ending slavery in the South and ending the war were not the only tasks faced by the North. How would the North rebuild the war-torn South? What policies were going to be put in place to make sure the South would not only rebuild, but never again attempt secession? What to do with displaced freedmen and women? In some ways, this task seemed just as formidable (if not for the number of the dead in both armies) than the war itself.
Amendment 13 abolishes slavery with the provision that Congress can enforce this law.
Amendment 14 section one through five, gives makes freedmen citizens with full rights to life, liberty and property with full due process of the law. Reps. will be assigned in numbers proportionate to state representation, which means all males will be counted (male suffrage) for this purpose. No one except for folks (CSA) who participated in the rebellion or any other crime should be denied this right. The next section says anyone who participated in this rebellion can hold office in the US, esp. if the person had previously held office and still participated. The next section (4) speaks to public debt, insofar as this debt incurred because of the war should not be questioned, which means ex-slave owners could not seek damages against the government in payment for the losses sustained because they began the rebellion by seceding, which made them enemies of the gov. Section five means Congress has the power to enforce all of the above.
Amendment 15 gives all citizens except women the right to vote and it cannot be denied based on race or color. Again, Congress can enforce the above laws.
I should note that the law was more easily written than complied with in the South. It is esp. notable that it took awhile for the laws to be put in place due to the new president and disagreement about what Reconstruction meant for the Republicans. Some people wanted Radicalism, others a more moderate appraoch, afraid of how the South would react.
In Chapter 19, document one represents the "Grasp of War" speech by Mr. Dana, a lawyer who felt he could "justify" the reconstruction policy based on constitutional law. He wanted the Republicans to adopt this theory, which begins with an anecdote about fighting and what the victor should hold the loser (the SOuth) accountable for. Namely, that "The conquering party may hold the other in the grasp of war until it has secured whatever it has the rights to require" (p. 325). This was so famous that others began to quote from this speech. The requirement was for whatever "the public safety and public faith make necessary," which was open to interpretation in the South and North. I could imagine the applause this received, just as the letter being read aloud from Lincoln in Springfield elicited shouts and applause during the staged letter-reading. I thought it was awe-inspiring when he kept asking about freedmen's rights in terms of the right to hold land, to testify in court, to bear arms, and so forth because it reminded one of a call-and-response sort of speech ("Have we not? Is it not?"). Here, he acknowledges that they should not make the South hostile to the nation and that there are two courses of action: to "permit the body politic to go on" and to "obliterate it." He further acknowledges that he doesn't want to get rid of the states, but considers them to be as planets which orbit the sun, or states which "orbit" a national, central government. Lastly, he wants us to "hold" those states as hostile if they do not hold to making constitutions satisfactory to the Republic. This speech is referenced in the first essay.
Document 2 is Sen. Trumbull explaining his Civil Rights Bill in 1866. This bill is about protecting freedmen and their rights or the right of "suffrage." He says we either live by the "ballot or bayonet" which I took to mean that either this is enforced or there will be violence. The last part, where he says either it is passed or the Constitution id a "cheat and a delusion" is daring for the times, but true.
Doc, 3 is Rep. Stephens stating his "Terms" in 1867. He makes the case for confiscation of property as a form of reconstruction because he is worried about the control of Congress by copperhead parties, among other things, and warns that "negro suffrage" is important in every rebel state. However, true to the times, he says that while every man has these rights, no one should be forced to sit with a black person, that the aforementioned was a matter of "private taste," implying racism.
Doc. 4 is Rep. Julian's definition of Reconstruction. Here, he objects to the Reconstruction bill, saying the Rebel state are "not ready" to be independent states. He wants central government to "make it safe" for all. I thought it was interesting that he references freedmen and whites, but also "Old World" immigrants, which I had not seen in other speeches unless I am mistaken. Particularly, he is interested in a safe North, living in democracy, and again true to the times, a Christianized society is "what the Rebel needs." He almost seems to take on a father-knows-best attitude, saying that "states must grow" by being "fostered and protected."
Document 5 is Sherman's urging of caution and moderation for the South. This was a common trope, it seems, of the moderate Republican. He thinks that the policy of Reconstruction is humiliating for the South because they have gone through enough with the devastation of property and lives lost the war bought about. He cautions that the US should "Beware" and allow states to form their governments, opposite to what some believed about the conquering North.
Doc 6 is Congress's Act/terms for the Rebel State's readmission and reconstruction thereof. Here, the 14th amendment is adopted as discussed above, with five sections. Also, the Recon. Act delineates the terms of Reconstruction and what it entails for the South as well as the nation. Rebel states will be divided into military districts and a ranking no less than brigadier general shall govern each district. This proved to be both good and bad, to put it simply, for the freedmen in the South. It also states that no one can be put to death without the President's approval, and cites article fourteen plus all the rights conferred on said citizens. All of the requirements allow the states to re-enter the central government in a provisional manner, similar to a probationary period.
Document 7 is Tourgee's condemnation of said policy. He doesn't like the fact that freedmen will be given equality and I believe he refers to abolitionists (if I read this correctly) as knave or fools or both. He thinks black citizens need the patriarchal, racist protection of their masters for their own good and says so very explicitly and directly.
Foner's essay discusses both Radical Republicans and their policies on Reconstruction. Even if they were a minority in Congress, however, it seems eventually their policies passed in Congress. Foner discusses their successes and shortcomings re. the policy. He references Stephens, for example, to point out that public policy and personal policy were sep. matters. He also writes about their economic policy as being short-sighted and vague and mostly in the interests of the North. He provides examples of what they wanted and why confiscation of property would ruin the vision of "black yeomanry" as part of this labor ideology. Benedict's essay was more complicated for me and had to do with his theory that this "Radical Reconstruction" was more conservative than not because of their commonly held, traditional constitutional views on the role of a central gov. in relation to the states. Both essays discuss radical and conservative republicanism and its' successes/shortcomings.
Chapter 11 is about "Life and Labor in the South after Emancipation." Here I found that life was not "idle" for the freed men and women as expressed by white Southerners. Documents 1-6 show the different points of view via race. For example, Mattie Curtis related her struggle after Emancipation, where a Georgia planter in doc. 2 speaks about freedwomen as "idle" and requests that they be impressed to forcibly work. I thought about how ironic that was, considering white women were not forced to do the same and that goes back to patriarchal ideology and the destruction thereof folowing emancipation. Agents for the freedmen's bureau also reported on the conditions in the South and we get a glimpse at how difficult life was for both white and black citizens. When a system collapses, a society must redefine itself and smooth out its' problems, but the South could not seem to do it alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment