Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[longly]

Most people don’t realize this, but during the period known as Reconstruction in the South, it was effectively an occupation—an Army occupation. The first two years were a strict military occupation, and the remainder was a modified occupation.

There were many resistors throughout the South, but only in the Trans‑Mississippi region—mostly Texas and Louisiana—was the resistance especially extreme. Two of the most famous of these resistors were John Wesley Hardin and William “Wild Bill” Longley.

Both men killed members of the Texas State Police, which at that time was largely composed of Black Union soldiers, along with “scalawags,” carpetbaggers, and Republican politicians. They were essentially fighting a clandestine war against the Reconstruction‑era Texas State Police.

However, the two men were treated very differently by the courts. Longley was captured during Reconstruction and tried by Reconstruction courts, while Hardin was captured later, in the 1890s, and tried by a “free” Texas court after Reconstruction had ended.

Longley was sentenced to hang, while Hardin received 20 years, was eventually pardoned by the governor, became a lawyer, and returned to live with his wife in the Florida Panhandle.

The two men were very different characters. If you remember, there was a 1950s TV Western called The Texan that was loosely based on Wild Bill Longley, but in reality he was nothing like that. In modern terms, he might be considered a psychopath—he killed for political reasons, personal reasons, revenge, and sometimes simply for crime.

Hardin’s killings, by contrast, were more personal and more political, and there is no proof he ever robbed anyone or killed anyone unconnected to the occupation.

Both men were eventually captured, but Longley was, in my opinion, executed more for revenge than for justice, whereas Hardin was sentenced to 20 years. The difference is that Longley was tried under Reconstruction, while Hardin was tried in post‑Reconstruction Texas.

Both men remain controversial figures in Texas history because of their resistance to Reconstruction. But in my opinion, the same people who condemn these men as “outlaws” are often the same people who argued that we should understand why Iraqis resisted our occupation. Texans were resisting an occupation as well.

As the old saying goes: it depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[candycorn]

Yep.

The single largest mistake the nation ever made was allowing the confederacy to reacquire statehood so easily.

Hopefully we won't be so short-sighted next time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most people don’t realize this, but during the period known as Reconstruction in the South, it was effectively an occupation—an Army occupation. The first two years were a strict military occupation, and the remainder was a modified occupation.

There were many resistors throughout the South, but only in the Trans‑Mississippi region—mostly Texas and Louisiana—was the resistance especially extreme. Two of the most famous of these resistors were John Wesley Hardin and William “Wild Bill” Longley.

Both men killed members of the Texas State Police, which at that time was largely composed of Black Union soldiers, along with “scalawags,” carpetbaggers, and Republican politicians. They were essentially fighting a clandestine war against the Reconstruction‑era Texas State Police.

However, the two men were treated very differently by the courts. Longley was captured during Reconstruction and tried by Reconstruction courts, while Hardin was captured later, in the 1890s, and tried by a “free” Texas court after Reconstruction had ended.

Longley was sentenced to hang, while Hardin received 20 years, was eventually pardoned by the governor, became a lawyer, and returned to live with his wife in the Florida Panhandle.

The two men were very different characters. If you remember, there was a 1950s TV Western called The Texan that was loosely based on Wild Bill Longley, but in reality he was nothing like that. In modern terms, he might be considered a psychopath—he killed for political reasons, personal reasons, revenge, and sometimes simply for crime.

Hardin’s killings, by contrast, were more personal and more political, and there is no proof he ever robbed anyone or killed anyone unconnected to the occupation.

Both men were eventually captured, but Longley was, in my opinion, executed more for revenge than for justice, whereas Hardin was sentenced to 20 years. The difference is that Longley was tried under Reconstruction, while Hardin was tried in post‑Reconstruction Texas.

Both men remain controversial figures in Texas history because of their resistance to Reconstruction. But in my opinion, the same people who condemn these men as “outlaws” are often the same people who argued that we should understand why Iraqis resisted our occupation. Texans were resisting an occupation as well.

As the old saying goes: it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Anyone who has studied the Civil war and Reconstruction would know this.

 

[longly]

Anyone who has studied the Civil war and Reconstruction would know this.

Then why is it commonly referred to as “Reconstruction” instead of a military occupation, which is what it really was?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then why is it commonly referred to as “Reconstruction” instead of a military occupation, which is what it really was?

Reconstruction was rebuilding the union as it previously had been. The military occupation kept the peace.

 

[Eman623]

When I think of Southern resistors after the civil war, the name that comes first to mind is Nathan Bedford Forrest, who also served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[longly]

When I think of Southern resistors after the civil war, the name that comes first to mind is Nathan Bedford Forrest, who also served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Forrest was a leader associated with the early Ku Klux Klan, which originally started as a social club, a popular form of entertainment in those days. However, he appears not to have killed anyone after 1865, and there is no evidence or serious allegation that he did. This stands in contrast to the thousands of violent resisters active during Reconstruction.

The Klan was not necessarily the most openly violent resistance organization during that period. Groups such as the White League in Louisiana were far more public and militarized in their use of force. White supremacist paramilitary groups in Louisiana, which later evolved into the White League, were responsible for events such as the Colfax Massacre, where roughly 150 Black militia members and civilians were killed after surrendering. This kind of mass execution is common in insurgencies, since insurgent groups typically do not maintain prisons and instead kill captured opponents, similar to what occurred in some modern conflicts such as Iraq.

Robert E. Lee had a very poor opinion of irregular fighters, and to him they were bushwhackers, little more than murderers. I tend to agree in general, not only regarding the American South but worldwide. Many insurgent movements, including some elements of the anti Nazi resistance in World War Two, especially communist groups, engaged in actions that were often little more than political murder.

 

[Quantrill]

Reconstruction was rebuilding the union as it previously had been. The military occupation kept the peace.

No, the North destroyed that union. That union was bound by the Constitution.

After the War, the union was/is bound by the bayonet.

Reconstruction is really a false term used for that time period. It should be called the 'New Construction'. As the North was now building a union like it always wanted but couldn't get under the Constitution.

The military occupation did a terrible job of keeping the peace since Southernors through groups like the KKK eventually ran the carpet baggers back to the North.

Quantrill

 

[1srelluc]

It was more like a giant grift operation after a few months.

In Culpepper, Virginia the Yankees were supposed to pay $5 a head for Union bodies brought in to be reinterred in a cemetery there.....It's a small national cemetery now.

The Yankees drank and whored away the money to the point that they would not pay so (mostly farmers) quit bringing them in and just plowed the bodies under with the rest of the bric a brac of war strewn about their fields and woodlots.

If they were kind they would pile the bones up against fence lines or at the edge of a field.

That's why relic hunters always look along rock walls first.

 

[Quantrill]

When I think of Southern resistors after the civil war, the name that comes first to mind is Nathan Bedford Forrest, who also served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

The resistance, after the 'official war' was over, was simply the continuance of that war. But, now it took on the character of a guerilla war, which is what the North always dreaded. And, which the South won.

Which is why the North today still carries on that war trying to destroy the flags and statues of the South. Using, just as they did in the so-called Reconstruction, the blacks to do their bidding.

Just need some blacks, some NAACP, to ***** about a flag or a statue, or anything Southern so they can shit on it. And the Fed. Govt. comes a running and squats.

As with biographies you always need to find out about the author. Which way are they biased. Everyone is biased, but some more than others. And there are those who try and temper their bias as best they can and just present the facts at hand. But you can't ever hide it all.

Some good ones I list here.

1.) 'Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest' by John Wyeth. Good source material book published in 1899. Wyeth himself was a Confederate cavalryman who knew men who had rode with Forrest. So he naturally will be favorable to Forrest.

2.) 'Bedford Forrest And His Critter Company' by Andrew Nelson Lytle. Published in 1931. Also favorable to Forrest.

3.) 'A Battle From The Start' by Brian Steel Wills. Published 1992. He is one who does his best to be unbiased and just present the facts. But he is at times unfavorable to Forrest, wrongfully so, in my opinion. But he presents a good biography and the facts he has.

I will say that any biography that doesn't have 400 pages is of little value. Forrest's life is too full to have less.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Yep.

The single largest mistake the nation ever made was allowing the confederacy to reacquire statehood so easily.

Hopefully we won't be so short-sighted next time.

A good example of the lying deceptive Yankee view. The Yankees at Sumter were always contending that the South did not secede as they did not recognize secession.

Then after their military victory they want the South to reacquire statehood. Why should they reacquire statehood when they never left...according to the Yanks. Deception and lies and hypocrisy still characterize the Yankee. They just pull out the card they need at the time.

Quantrill

 

[Zincwarrior]

Most people don’t realize this, but during the period known as Reconstruction in the South, it was effectively an occupation—an Army occupation. The first two years were a strict military occupation, and the remainder was a modified occupation.

Er...most people as in everyone but eight Southernors...don't care.

 

[longly]

Er...most people as in everyone but eight Southernors...don't care.

Most people in the general population don’t care much about history. The people in this discussion might be a little more interested than average, but overall, most people simply don’t care — and what’s worse, many refuse to learn from it. We are repeating some of the same mistakes that were made in the years leading up to the Civil War. Wars are often won or lost long before the first shot is fired.

The United States has everything it needs in terms of resources and probably still has the most powerful military in the world. But manpower matters, and that could make all the difference. I believe it’s highly possible that within the next generation we may face Russia in the Arctic, where they currently have the advantage. We do not have the personnel or the infrastructure in place for that environment.

Because of that, I think we should begin instituting a draft — preparing our young people psychologically and physically to fight the Russians. The alternative would be coming to some kind of agreement with Russia and accepting them as our overlords, but that would mean giving up our freedom and letting them determine our destiny.

As a side note, China is more powerful than Russia, but they appear to be less aggressive, which is why I think Russia is the more likely future opponent.

I know this is mostly opinion, but it’s honestly how I see the situation. We do have a stronger economy than the Russians and more allies, but those things don’t matter if you can’t turn them into divisions on the front line. Our Air Force and Navy do dwarf Russia’s, but Russia wouldn’t fight us at sea — they would fight on land. The only body of water they’d be concerned about is the Bering Strait. It’s true they don’t have an air force that can match ours, but they do have air‑defense systems and air‑to‑ground missiles capable of taking down aircraft, just as happened in Vietnam.

If Russia manages to win in Ukraine and break or weaken the NATO alliance — especially by taking NATO territory without determined resistance — that would completely change the strategic balance and set them up for success in the Arctic. But even without that scenario, I’m not certain we alone could defeat the Russians on land in the Arctic. I’m not sure we would be willing to suffer enough to win, and recent history has shown that they are willing to suffer and sacrifice their people. The question is whether we are willing to do the same.

 

[Cassandro]

Anyone who has studied the Civil war and Reconstruction would know this.

Self esteem issues?

 

[Cassandro]

it depends on whose ox is being gored.

There is a difference between occupation during war and occupation after surrender. Who were these people fighting for?

 

[martybegan]

Yep.

The single largest mistake the nation ever made was allowing the confederacy to reacquire statehood so easily.

Hopefully we won't be so short-sighted next time.

Reconstruction under the Radical Republicans was far harsher than Lincoln would have implemented.

The problem is they didn't have the force of will to maintain it long enough, nor the moral compass to make it about fixing the problem as opposed to holding onto sectional power.

It was a needed military occupation, but the will of the north to continue it didn't last long enough for it to stick.

 

[candycorn]

A good example of the lying deceptive Yankee view. The Yankees at Sumter were always contending that the South did not secede as they did not recognize secession.

Then after their military victory they want the South to reacquire statehood. Why should they reacquire statehood when they never left...according to the Yanks. Deception and lies and hypocrisy still characterize the Yankee. They just pull out the card they need at the time.

Quantrill

THey did leave.

The South should have been a special district for about 100 years. We didn’t do it and now look at the toothache they are.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Self esteem issues?

Yes, I believe you have a few. Perhaps you should consult a professional.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most people in the general population don’t care much about history. The people in this discussion might be a little more interested than average, but overall, most people simply don’t care — and what’s worse, many refuse to learn from it. We are repeating some of the same mistakes that were made in the years leading up to the Civil War. Wars are often won or lost long before the first shot is fired.

The United States has everything it needs in terms of resources and probably still has the most powerful military in the world. But manpower matters, and that could make all the difference. I believe it’s highly possible that within the next generation we may face Russia in the Arctic, where they currently have the advantage. We do not have the personnel or the infrastructure in place for that environment.

Because of that, I think we should begin instituting a draft — preparing our young people psychologically and physically to fight the Russians. The alternative would be coming to some kind of agreement with Russia and accepting them as our overlords, but that would mean giving up our freedom and letting them determine our destiny.

As a side note, China is more powerful than Russia, but they appear to be less aggressive, which is why I think Russia is the more likely future opponent.

I know this is mostly opinion, but it’s honestly how I see the situation. We do have a stronger economy than the Russians and more allies, but those things don’t matter if you can’t turn them into divisions on the front line. Our Air Force and Navy do dwarf Russia’s, but Russia wouldn’t fight us at sea — they would fight on land. The only body of water they’d be concerned about is the Bering Strait. It’s true they don’t have an air force that can match ours, but they do have air‑defense systems and air‑to‑ground missiles capable of taking down aircraft, just as happened in Vietnam.

If Russia manages to win in Ukraine and break or weaken the NATO alliance — especially by taking NATO territory without determined resistance — that would completely change the strategic balance and set them up for success in the Arctic. But even without that scenario, I’m not certain we alone could defeat the Russians on land in the Arctic. I’m not sure we would be willing to suffer enough to win, and recent history has shown that they are willing to suffer and sacrifice their people. The question is whether we are willing to do the same.

Please explain how air-to-ground missiles are capable of taking down aircraft?

Russia's ground forces suck ass, as evidenced in Ukraine where their massive army was stonewalled by a country with almost no significant military power.

How would they cross the Bering Strait? They do not have the logistical capability to maintain a force. That is why we have little ground forces in Alaska.

Did you write this as high school paper?

Laughable is the best way to describe your screed.

 

[Quantrill]

THey did leave.

The South should have been a special district for about 100 years. We didn’t do it and now look at the toothache they are.

Please pay attention to what was said.

At Sumter, the North's, the Yankees view, was that the South didn't leave. The North, the Yankee, didn't acknowledge any secession. Thus they would not acknowledge the Southern representatives to negotiate the Federal Forts after the secession.

But now, you say, they did leave. Which after their military victory the North said also. In other words, you can't have it both ways. Which shows the deception in the Yankees. They don't give a shit what it takes to have their way. Lie, cheat, deceive...whatever. They will have their way.

The South will always be a problem with the Yankee North. Why? Because the Yankee North was criminal in it's waging war on the South. And though they think they can change the history...they can't. And the South makes sure it bites them in the ass.

You didn't do it because the South run your ass back to the North during the so-called 'reconstruction'. And we will always be a pain in your ass. You hold the union only by the bayonet. Which means what?....only for so long. You must always now, hold it by the bayonet. Which you do.

Quantrill