Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[Zincwarrior]

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.

Hold up, you're arguing that the Union is only held together now by the "bayonet?" Just trying to clarify what you wrote.

 

[candycorn]

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

LOL....

thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Quantrill]

Hold up, you're arguing that the Union is only held together now by the "bayonet?" Just trying to clarify what you wrote.

That is what I said.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

LOL....

thanks for the chuckle.

Go ahead and chuckle like a chicken. Which means you have nothing to offer.

Quantrill

 

[candycorn]

Go ahead and chuckle like a chicken. Which means you have nothing to offer.

Quantrill

Keep offering the comedic “we ran your ass up north” platitudes and you’ll continue to get laughed at.

 

[Quantrill]

Keep offering the comedic “we ran your ass up north” platitudes and you’ll continue to get laughed at.

Well, laugh away. That is what happened. You ran back North and left those blacks behind that you tried to use against us in the South. And they paid for it. You promised everything...forty acres and a mule, you said. But when the shit hit the fan you headed back North leaving those 'freed slaves' on their own.

And the South didn't forget how they were used against us.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to be silent.

Quantrill

 

[eagle7-31]

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.

Had Lincoln lived the post war administration of the south i believe would have been smoother. Issues and troubles? Certainly but I do believe the transition back in to the fold so to speak would have been easier.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That is what I said.

Quantrill

Then you are full of shit. Its not bayonets keeping Texas and Florida in the Union with the old loser CSA States. What the hell is wrong with you?

You are free to leave. Haiti is waiting!

 

[longly]

Then you are full of shit. Its not bayonets keeping Texas and Florida in the Union with the old loser CSA States. What the hell is wrong with you?

You are free to leave. Haiti is waiting!

Well, it was the force of arms that kept them in the Union, was it not? Otherwise, they would have been an independent nation today.

I have heard the left refer to the United States as an empire. The difference between a union, a federation, and an empire is that an empire is held together by force, whereas a federation is held together by consensus. There is usually a big difference in the body count.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Well, it was the force of arms that kept them in the Union, was it not? Otherwise, they would have been an independent nation today.

I have heard the left refer to the United States as an empire. The difference between a union, a federation, and an empire is that an empire is held together by force, whereas a federation is held together by consensus. There is usually a big difference in the body count.

Not now!

 

[longly]

Well, laugh away. That is what happened. You ran back North and left those blacks behind that you tried to use against us in the South. And they paid for it. You promised everything...forty acres and a mule, you said. But when the shit hit the fan you headed back North leaving those 'freed slaves' on their own.

And the South didn't forget how they were used against us.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to be silent.

Quantrill

Both Quantrill and Eagle are correct. It was Reconstruction—the military occupation of the South—that had a profoundly negative impact on race relations in the United States. Before the Civil War, white Southerners certainly feared Black people, but they did not generally view them with the same level of hatred or as a hostile enemy. The dominant attitude was paternalistic: Black people were seen as dependent, childlike, and in need of guidance.

After the Civil War, however, the situation changed dramatically. Any abuses committed by Black soldiers during Reconstruction, combined with the sudden shift in political power, led many white Southerners to view Black people as a direct threat. Segregation later emerged as a system that white Southerners believed would protect them from what they perceived as an enemy. The occupation deeply damaged American race relations and arguably set progress back by nearly a century.

 

[longly]

Had Lincoln lived the post war administration of the south i believe would have been smoother. Issues and troubles? Certainly but I do believe the transition back in to the fold so to speak would have been easier.

I agree if Lincoln had lived, the situation would likely have been drastically different. After Lincoln’s assassination, many members of the Union Army viewed all Southerners as rebels who were complicit in both the war and Lincoln's murder therefore deserved whatever punishment they received. In that atmosphere, Black soldiers serving in Reconstruction units sometimes acted harshly, and accusations of theft, assault, or even killings were not always investigated seriously. Their superiors often showed little sympathy for white Southerners, whom they deeply resented after four years of brutal war.

White Southerners, meanwhile, had almost no legal recourse. Many were disarmed whenever Union troops had the opportunity. They had limited standing in court, and in some jurisdictions they could not testify against Black soldiers or federal personnel. With few legal protections and with local authority placed in the hands of military commanders who often distrusted or disliked them, Southern civilians felt completely vulnerable. Under those conditions, resistance naturally developed.

Ironically, the actual number of abuses may not have been as widespread as later memory suggested, but the stories that did circulate were amplified by rumor. Because the Union Army tightly controlled Southern newspapers, local reporting was restricted, and the lack of open information allowed fear and anxiety to grow unchecked. Had the press been allowed to publish freely, some of the panic might have been reduced. Many historians believe that if Lincoln had survived, his more moderate approach to Reconstruction could have prevented much of this bitterness and the long-term damage to race relations that followed.

 

[fncceo]

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

Why was The Korean War called “a police action”?

The human capacity for euphemism and rationalization knows no limits.

 

[0311]

The ******* South, ******* LOST The ******* War. Yes, it was occupied. My families home in Brinkley Arkansas was burned to ground and their printing press was destroyed.

Reconstruction lasted a whole lot longer than just 2-years. The Jim Crowe last South lasted longer.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I agree if Lincoln had lived, the situation would likely have been drastically different. After Lincoln’s assassination, many members of the Union Army viewed all Southerners as rebels who were complicit in both the war and Lincoln's murder therefore deserved whatever punishment they received. In that atmosphere, Black soldiers serving in Reconstruction units sometimes acted harshly, and accusations of theft, assault, or even killings were not always investigated seriously. Their superiors often showed little sympathy for white Southerners, whom they deeply resented after four years of brutal war.

White Southerners, meanwhile, had almost no legal recourse. Many were disarmed whenever Union troops had the opportunity. They had limited standing in court, and in some jurisdictions they could not testify against Black soldiers or federal personnel. With few legal protections and with local authority placed in the hands of military commanders who often distrusted or disliked them, Southern civilians felt completely vulnerable. Under those conditions, resistance naturally developed.

Ironically, the actual number of abuses may not have been as widespread as later memory suggested, but the stories that did circulate were amplified by rumor. Because the Union Army tightly controlled Southern newspapers, local reporting was restricted, and the lack of open information allowed fear and anxiety to grow unchecked. Had the press been allowed to publish freely, some of the panic might have been reduced. Many historians believe that if Lincoln had survived, his more moderate approach to Reconstruction could have prevented much of this bitterness and the long-term damage to race relations that followed.

Who cares? Why do you care? This is not a history forum so why do you care?

 

[longly]

Who cares? Why do you care? This is not a history forum so why do you care?

This is not a history forum? Did I put this in the wrong form? No—this is a history forum. What are you talking about?

 

[Zincwarrior]

This is not a history forum? Did I put this in the wrong form? No—this is a history forum. What are you talking about?

No its a political forum and you have an agenda.

 

[longly]

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

They don’t. The Russians have aircraft that use air‑to‑ground missiles to destroy support facilities and air‑defense systems. When attacking a facility, the first priority is to take out the air‑defense radars. Once those are destroyed, the base is left open to further air attacks. Without those support facilities, our ability to maintain our aircraft is gone—they become nothing more than static displays.

 

[longly]

No its a political forum and you have an agenda.

I’m sorry, but evidently I’m seeing something different than you. At the top of my screen I see ‘U.S. Discussion’ and ‘History,’ so naturally I assume I’m in the history forum. Please explain. And I have no agenda other than a love of history. I’m not ashamed of my heritage—that much is obvious.

If I have an agenda, it is simply that we should learn from history.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They don’t. The Russians have aircraft that use air‑to‑ground missiles to destroy support facilities and air‑defense systems. When attacking a facility, the first priority is to take out the air‑defense radars. Once those are destroyed, the base is left open to further air attacks. Without those support facilities, our ability to maintain our aircraft is gone—they become nothing more than static displays.

Did you see I quoted that statement?

You said: " air‑to‑ground missiles capable of taking down aircraft,"

Those are called surface to air missiles (SAMs).