Reconstruction – What went wrong?

In 1860 roughly 4.8 % of all whites in the south owned slaves.
Were they dieing for plantation owners?

Robert e. lee in 1856 called slavery "a moral and political evil'.
Was he fighting for slavery?

Most people had nothing to do with slavery.

Lincoln makes the emancipation proclamation in 1862 when the north is losing the war to help keep the British from recognizing the south because of their anti-slavery position. Lincoln of course frees no slave in the north, and there were a lot, only slaves in the south. His attempt is to take the war to higher, moral, level. The north is losing, politically he is in trouble.

The winners write history and this higher cause, starting in 1862, becomes history, people writing about the war after Lincoln’s assignation bring him to god like status.

 

What percentage of the economy was slave production related? 1/3 of the CSA population (assuming you counted them) was slaves. If the north and Abraham Linclon were all happy with slavery there would have been no need to "split paths" with the USA.

States rights was a procedural technical manouver to achieve goals.

Robert E. Lee many times stated that he was violently against the idea of the CSA, secession, and the Civil War. He felt a duty to his home which is why he joined the CSA, but he was against everything about it. This is in line with that.

 

Did they just decide out of the blue one day to leave the Union? Was it a whim?

There were two events which generated this desire. First was the Dred Scott decision which anti-slavery Linclon viewed as a decision which would force slavery on all the non CSA states. (It nullified the Misouri Compromise which struck a balance between slave and non-slave states and affirmed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which said that if slaves in non-slave states were still slaves.)

This lead presidential candidate Linclon to up his overt anti-slavery rhetoric as seen in the Lincoln-Douglass Debates. Both sides then saw that ultimately the United States would be all slave, or all non-slave.

Linclon responded with his house divided speech. Here's a key excerpt.

[rquoter]
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

...


Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?


[/rquoter]


Nothing happened for 3 years until Linclon was elected president. Cession by the Confederate States of America was a procedural move that the south viewed as a compromise so they could maintain slavery and the north could do without. It was not an end unto itself.

The CSA formally declared that they had left the USA exactly month before Linclon was sworn in as President. Exactly one month later when Linclon was sworn in he gave his inaugural adress. Here is how it starts:

[rquoter]
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?


[/rquoter]

If slavery wasn't the issue, why did Lincoln devote such a large block at the beginning of his speech to making clear that he wouldn't abolish slavery in the south?

He goes on with more of the same for quite a while, and then turns to the nature of the constitution:

[rquoter]
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.


[/rquoter]

The short version -

I'm not going to steal your slaves so you don't have to wory about your main reason for leaving the union, but I'm going to allow you to leave the union.

 

I never said the North cared about blacks. I'm just saying the prevailing issue was slavery, and had been since this country's inception

 

I do believe that slavery was the latest and most passionate issue that led to the final break. My point is that the war was not "over slavery". It was just the latest in a long line of simmering feuds between northerners and southerners. To be sure it was the last straw, and a line they would not cross, but if there had not been growing resentment slavery could not have motivated those young men to die for a bunch of plantation owners. Here is a great sight that gives some good info.

http://www.nps.gov/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm


What Caused the Civil War?
Gettysburg National Military Park Kidzpage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Fort Scott National Historic Site)
There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782. Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.


(Library of Congress)
Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.


(Library of Congress)
Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.


John Brown
(Library of Congress)
As the nation grew in size, so did the opportunities for expansion westward. Many felt that slavery should be allowed in the new territories such as Kansas and Missouri, while others were set against it. This led to "bleeding Kansas", a bitter war that pitted neighbor against neighbor. In 1859, a radical abolitionist from Kansas named John Brown raided the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in the hopes of supplying weapons to an army of slaves that would revolt against their southern masters. A number of people were taken hostage and several killed, among them the mayor of Harpers Ferry. Brown was cornered with several of his followers in a fire engine house, first by Virginia militia and then by Federal troops sent to arrest him and his raiders. These troops, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee, stormed the building and captured Brown and several of his men. Brown was tried for his crimes, found guilty, and hung in Charlestown. Though John Brown's raid had failed, it fueled the passions of northern abolitionists who made him a martyr. It was reported that bells tolled in sympathy to John Brown in northern cities on the day he was executed. This inflamed passions in the South where southern leaders used the incident as another reminder how little the South's interests were represented in Federal law, labeled as sympathetic to runaways and anti-slavery organizations.


Abraham Lincoln
The debate became very bitter. Southern politicians outwardly charged that their voices were not being heard in congress. Some Southern states wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves. Emotions reached a fever pitch when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860. He was a member of the Republican Party and vowed to keep the country united and the new western territories free from slavery. Many Southerners, who were Democrats, were afraid that Lincoln was not sympathetic to their way of life and would not treat them fairly. The growing strength of the Republican Party, viewed by many as the party friendly to abolitionists and northern businessmen, and the election of the party's candidate was the last straw. Southern governors and political leaders called for state referendums to consider articles of secession. South Carolina was the first state to officially secede from the United States soon after the election and they were followed by six other Southern states. These states joined together and formed a new nation which they named the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis, a Democratic senator and champion of states rights from Mississippi, as the first president.



On April 12, 1861 the Confederate States of America attacked Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The fort sits at the entrance to Charleston Harbor and was manned by Union troops who flew the United States flag. The bombardment lasted many hours and the fort was heavily damaged, though no one was killed or injured. Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort and its garrison to the Confederate commanders. Now that open conflict had started, President Lincoln responded with a call for volunteers from states still loyal to the Union, to enlist and put down this treacherous act of rebellion. Alarmed that Lincoln would do this, four more Southern states seceded and joined the Confederacy. The war that President Lincoln had tried to avoid began anyway. War talk was on everyone's lips and sharp divisions took place, even among families and neighbors.


At first, no one believed the war would last very long. Some people said it would take only a few months and the fellows who volunteered to fight would come home heroes within a few weeks. No one realized how determined the South was to be independent, nor did the South realize how determined the North was to end the rebellion. Armies had to be raised in the North and the South, and every state was asked to raise regiments of volunteers to be sent for service in the field. Many young men chose to enlist and volunteered for military service. In the South, men readily went to war to protect their homes and save the Southern way of life. Most did not believe that the government in Washington was looking out for the South's interests and they were better off as a new nation where the states would make up their own laws. Many were happy to be called rebels because they thought they were fighting against a tyrant like their forefathers did against the British during the American Revolution. Northern men volunteered to put down the rebellion of southern states and bind the nation back together. Most felt that the Southerners had rebelled without good cause and had to be taught a lesson. Some also felt that slavery was an evil and the war was a way abolish it. No one knew how terrible war really was and how hard life as a soldier could be. They did not have television or radio to communicate the terrible things that could happen. Politicians did not communicate either, which was one of the main reasons for the war and misunderstandings between North and South. The armies were raised and marched off to war. It was only after many battles and many lives were lost that the American people realized how horrible war really was. The soldiers communicated with their families and loved ones and told them of the hardships they endured and terrible scenes they had witnessed.

The fighting of the American Civil War would last four long years at a cost of 620,000 lives. In the end the Northern states prevailed- our country remained united, the Federal government was changed forever, and slavery came to an end.

 

the "latest". have you ever heard of the 3/5 clause in the Constitution. do you know that slave ships were outlawed after 1800. the issues you cite are the straws that broke the camel's back.

 

The war was about slavery. Plain and simple.
State's Rights? Sure, a state's right to own slaves. Much like the State's Rights movement in the 1960s was about civil rights and not state's rights. It was about a state's right to deny civil rights to it's citizens. About a state's right to ignore the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Read the link to the CSA Constitution and look at how much of it is devoted to protecting the right of slave holders. Nothing in there about banning factories for the benefit of farms. EVERY difference between the North and the South was related to slavery. EVERY complaint the South had about the North was about slavery.
When Lincoln said that he would protect the Union regardless of whether a single slave was freed, it just meant he would protect the Union now and future generations could deal with slavery. But he knew (and the founders knew) that it would have to be dealt with eventually. Notice how the USA is referred to as These United States before the war and The United States after it. Because of slavery, and slavery alone, we were not a nation but a conglomeration of nations.
Querry: If it was not about slavery, then why were the border (non rebel) states required to free their slaves at the war's end?

Whoever mentioned the Hayes compromise was right. That was what ended and ruined Reconstruction. Yes, Reconstruction was tough on whites in the South. Cue the little violins. Those poor, poor slavery supporting white people. (Those poor, poor idiot pawns most of whom neither owned nor ever would be rich enough to own slaves). Hayes took out the federal troops and is therefore more guilty than US Grant or Andrew Johnson ever could be in stalling black emancipation for a hundred years. It wasn't until Eisenhower put the federal troops back in that things got back on track.
Reconstruction did not work because it was not given enough time. Federal troops should have remained for a generation at least.

To quote my old friend Kenneth at Half Price Books, "Sherman didn't go far enough."

 

You are seeing this from 2005 as if it all took place in a vacuum. No problems, other than slavery, no animosity other that slavery, it was just one big happy family other than slavery.

You and many who think it was only about slavery for some reason can't see a difference in slavery being the main issue and the war being about slavery.

We are getting into semantics here. But most historians agree that in wasn't about slavery but that slavery was the key issue which touched off long fire that had been brewing for a long time.


As far as reconstruction, the assignation of Lincoln was the worst thing that could have happened to the south. Lincoln wanted to bring the south in with no punishment but after his assassination the republicans decided to abandon this approach and sought retribution, which caused more animosity.

 

what you can't seem to grasp is that slavery is the underlying issue in the fire that had been brewing. And it is beyond me how anyone could not grasp. Only 5% of white southerners may have owned slaves, but slavery was a way of life for all southerners. It was not just an economic system, it was a class system.

It mattered to other white southerners that blacks remained slaves because it meant they were of a better class than another group even if they were dirt poor. that's why they died for a system that really didn't benefit them. do you think the average poor white southerner cared about constitutional rights of states. people back then couldn't spell "constitution" let alone comprehend what it stood for and how it related to their lives.

 

No one fights for something that doesn't benefit them. They to fight for ideals. Being told how they have to live, feeling oppressed, being bullied.
The taxes that the English were putting on the colonist were so miniscule that they would have hardly had an affect of the price of anything, but yet we get cries of "taxation without representation". It's the idea of being subjugated that drives people to revolution.


See the difference.

 

so how did the Civil War benefit the poor white farmer? and you're right just like its the idea of being subjugated that drove America to war with the English, it was the idea of having your system, your beliefs imposed on that caused the Civil War. see the similarity. You really don't comprehend how slavery was ingrain in the Southern Society and that's really dumbfounding that a person who has studied american history can't understand. by the time the civil war started, as I stated earlier, it was more than an economic system, it was their culture, their way of life.

the irony of your argument is that slavery didn't even benefit poor whites economically, but yet they still went and died for it, that's how strongly they felt about it. do you think they died over higher bank interest rates?

 

Then as now the issues are always economic. The antagonist are always the privileged have the most to lose and who can influence public opinion.
Slavery was the means by which the elite Southern class maintained their way of life. 'States Rights' was the propaganda with which they incited the masses to defend them. With all but a few popular revolutions it the same story with every war in the history of mankind.