Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[martybegan]

This is a complicated issue. Radical Reconstruction was disgraceful and caused deep bitterness and hate that lasted for decades. It bore no resemblance to Lincoln's mild, merciful reconstruction terms. On the other hand, Southern leaders, yet again, gave the Radicals the perfect excuse to demonize and attack the South by enacting draconian Black Codes. This gave the Radicals strong justification to do what they wanted to do anyway, which was to ditch Lincoln's reconstruction approach and to impose their own extreme version.

Now, yes, granted, the Southern Black Codes were a significant step up from slavery and were not all that different from some of the pre-war Northern Black Codes, but they were too harsh and were incredibly foolish under the circumstances. Some Southerners realized this and warned that the codes were too severe and would invite a drastic Radical Republican response, but most Southern leaders ignored these sound warnings--and along came Radical Reconstruction.

Radical Reconstruction was not all bad in every aspect. Some good things were done during Radical Reconstruction, but those things could have been done without all the punitive, exploitative measures that the Radicals imposed.

The simple problem is it didn't last long enough and ended too abruptly for it to stick.

Your points about the animosity it created are spot on.

I always wondered what would have happened if they had just relocated the freedmen to the Plains or the American west. Plenty of room for them out there.

make the southern landowners use European immigrants to replace them as farm labor. Harder for them to discriminate against, and removes the animosity factor.

 

[Zincwarrior]

To the topic: yes it was a short term military occupation. Question answered.

 

[mikegriffith1]

For more information on Reconstruction, I recommend James G. Randall and Richard Current's detailed article "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction." Among other things, they note that "Lincoln painstakingly evolved a plan for harmonious reconstruction of the Union, which Radical Republicans moved to sabotage."

Here's the link to the article: Lincoln’s Plan For Reconstruction

Randall and Current were two of the greatest Civil War historians of all time.

One of the revealing facts that most Civil War scholars now ignore or obscure is that the Radical Republicans despised Lincoln, considered his reconstruction plan as borderline treason, cheered his death, and ditched his reconstruction terms as soon as they had enough votes in Congress to do so.

 

[martybegan]

For more information on Reconstruction, I recommend James G. Randall and Richard Current's detailed article "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction." Among other things, they note that "Lincoln painstakingly evolved a plan for harmonious reconstruction of the Union, which Radical Republicans moved to sabotage."

Here's the link to the article: Lincoln’s Plan For Reconstruction

Randall and Current were two of the greatest Civil War historians of all time.

One of the revealing facts that most Civil War scholars now ignore or obscure is that the Radical Republicans despised Lincoln, considered his reconstruction plan as borderline treason, cheered his death, and ditched his reconstruction terms as soon as they had enough votes in Congress to do so.

Radical Republicans had their own plan, and they had a right to it as part of another Branch of the government, a co-equal branch you should remember.

The civil war amendments would not have been structured as they were without their input.

They were fighting for a good cause, they just were zealots, and we know what we get from zealots.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Gee, all those 'inconvenient truths" I listed and you could only speak to one.

Snipped for brevity and wasted electrons.

You mean those lies you posted?

You couldn't justify the most important one which makes all of the other's null and void.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Gee, all those 'inconvenient truths" I listed and you could only speak to one.

The Tenth Amendment is the Constitutional support for secession. I have already told you what it says. And you ignored it till now. Why? Because I just showed in post #(77) that your Texas vs White case did not make a ruling on secession. Which you claimed it did. That claim is total bullshit. So now you want to go back to the Tenth Amendment.

Typical Yankee bullshit. You would like me to shut up while you continue. You like to have your say, but when the Southernor fires back you say, 'why can't yall just leave it alone that was 161 Years ago'.

The Tenth Amendment states that the powers of the State are 'delegated' to the Federal government.

So, that which is delegated can be resumed if and when those powers cause harm. See the ratification statements of the Constitution by Virginia. "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...Do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Even the ratification statements of the Constitution by New York: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments thereof, remains to the people states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same."

You can find the ratification statements under the Yale Law School Avalon Project.

The powers were 'delegated', not surrendered to the U.S. government. That which has been delegated can be resumed. The founders chose their words wisely. When those powers are resumed, that is 'secession'.

I'm not trying to entertain you. Just trying to show you are mistaken.

Quantrill

Where did you get your history degree and why don't you tell us why you chose "Quantrill" as a username.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The simple problem is it didn't last long enough and ended too abruptly for it to stick.

Your points about the animosity it created are spot on.

I always wondered what would have happened if they had just relocated the freedmen to the Plains or the American west. Plenty of room for them out there.

make the southern landowners use European immigrants to replace them as farm labor. Harder for them to discriminate against, and removes the animosity factor.

Sure! European immigrants faced no discrimination! Yeah! Right! [/sarcasm]

That's the dumbest thing I think you have ever said.

 

[martybegan]

Sure! European immigrants faced no discrimination! Yeah! Right! [/sarcasm]

That's the dumbest thing I think you have ever said.

They would have faced less than the blacks did. Plessey was based on race, which would have been hard to apply to fellow Europeans.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They would have faced less than the blacks did. Plessey was based on race, which would have been hard to apply to fellow Europeans.

Under Plessy, I would have been considered black. I am one of the whitest people you know. I have no misconception about discrimination of any form, but the idea to import Europeans as workers is just plain stupid. Exchanging one problem for the other. You do know the KKK targeted Jews and Catholics also.

 

[theHawk]

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.

True. Next time we won’t allow Dems back into our country.

 

[martybegan]

Under Plessy, I would have been considered black. I am one of the whitest people you know. I have no misconception about discrimination of any form, but the idea to import Europeans as workers is just plain stupid. Exchanging one problem for the other. You do know the KKK targeted Jews and Catholics also.

I'm just throwing an idea out there. The southerners needed cheap labor, they didn't want their former slaves being their equals.

Remove the blacks, give them land in the midwest, and force the south to figure out how to run their agricultural sector without them.

The answer, European immigrants same as the north did in their factories.

 

[Zincwarrior]

True. Next time we won’t allow Dems back into our country.

There were Democrats in the North too, ignoramus.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm just throwing an idea out there. The southerners needed cheap labor, they didn't want their former slaves being their equals.

Remove the blacks, give them land in the midwest, and force the south to figure out how to run their agricultural sector without them.

The answer, European immigrants same as the north did in their factories.

I think you need to review the history of the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It will prevent you from making false assumptions.

 

[martybegan]

There were Democrats in the North too, ignoramus.

And a lot of them wanted to let the South go its own separate way.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Radical Republicans had their own plan, and they had a right to it as part of another Branch of the government, a co-equal branch you should remember.

Yes, but their plan trampled on the Constitution and needlessly created strife and violence, not to mention that it shredded Lincoln's reconstruction plan.

The civil war amendments would not have been structured as they were without their input.

That is a separate issue from their extreme reconstruction measures.

They were fighting for a good cause, they just were zealots, and we know what we get from zealots.

Well, I think that oversimplifies their motives and actions. Many of them were inveterate racists who wanted nothing to do with blacks but who exploited the Southern Black Codes to impose an illegal and disastrous form of reconstruction. Their reconstruction created decades of bitterness, hate, and violence. The valid parts of Reconstruction could and should have been done without all the punitive and exploitative measures that the Radicals imposed on the South.

 

[martybegan]

I think you need to review the history of the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It will prevent you from making false assumptions.

How does that have anything to do with the Post Civil War conditions BEFORE the Civil War Amendments were passed?

Both of those were made moot by the surrender of the South and the subsequent amendments.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but their plan trampled on the Constitution and needlessly created strife and violence, not to mention that it shredded Lincoln's reconstruction plan.



That is a separate issue from their extreme reconstruction measures.



Well, I think that oversimplifies their motives and actions. Many of them were inveterate racists who wanted nothing to do with blacks but who exploited the Southern Black Codes to impose an illegal and disastrous form of reconstruction. Their reconstruction created decades of bitterness, hate, and violence. The valid parts of Reconstruction could and should have been done without all the punitive and exploitative measures that the Radicals imposed on the South.

Secession without consent of the rest of the States trampled the constitution. The North had to make up a new rulebook for the situation because the Constitution simply never covered how to handle a secession crisis.

All related.

After an almost 5 year war you can't expect a lack of bitterness from the victors.

And they didn't have the example of the impact of the overly punitive nature of the Versailles treaty on creating the Second World War as a warning.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How does that have anything to do with the Post Civil War conditions BEFORE the Civil War Amendments were passed?

Both of those were made moot by the surrender of the South and the subsequent amendments.

People and their attitudes, dumbass! How do you think the farmers of the Midwest would handle the increased competition of thousands of freedmen suddenly appearing on their territory. I take back what I said before. This is the dumbest thing you have ever said. Start thinking!

 

[martybegan]

People and their attitudes, dumbass! How do you think the farmers of the Midwest would handle the increased competition of thousands of freedmen suddenly appearing on their territory. I take back what I said before. This is the dumbest thing you have ever said. Start thinking!

There were areas of the midwest AND southwest still isolated enough to create separate communities.

The areas that were still territories could have been made to conform without too much issue.

Established States would have been harder to convince and probably would have been skipped as possible locations.

This is theoretical talking here, something you don't seem to be able to handle.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There were areas of the midwest AND southwest still isolated enough to create separate communities.

The areas that were still territories could have been made to conform without too much issue.

Established States would have been harder to convince and probably would have been skipped as possible locations.

This is theoretical talking here, something you don't seem to be able to handle.

You need to research the rise of the second KKK in the early 1900s and learn the reasons behind it.