Acres and a Mule': A Broken Promise Leads to the System of
Interpretations of Reconstruction
Opposition to Reconstruction and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan
of Secession of the Southern States and their Readmittance to the Union
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (1865)
1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction (1863)
Explains his Veto of the 1867 Reconstruction Act (1867)
Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation (1865)
on the 1866 Civil Rights Bill (1866)
Rights Bill of 1866
Field Order 15: 'Forty Acres and a Mule' (1865)
14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution (1865-70)
Reconstruction Bill, and Lincoln's Reaction to the Bill (1864)
Stevens Speaks in Favor of Radical Reconstruction (1867)
Sitgreaves Speaks in Opposition to Radical Reconstruction (Excerpts)
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Black Code (1865)
v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas Supreme Court Decision (1954)
v. Ferguson Supreme Court Decision (1896)
Rights Act of 1964
War: Secession of the Southern States
v. Board of Education
Rights and Civil Liberties
States of America
History: The Debate over Slavery
History: The Preservation of the Union
History: The Postwar Period
Almanac: Impeachment in U.S. History
and Controversies: States' Rights
and Controversies: School Desegregation
Event: 1964 Civil Rights Bill Expands Voting, Employment Rights for
Article Written: February 21, 2006
Civil War: Reconstruction
Moderate v. 'Radical' Plans for Reintegrating the South
By Phil Allard
The issue: In the aftermath of the Civil War (1861-65), should the U.S. government follow a course of Reconstruction
favored by Radical Republicans, which would punish the South and which
would involve strong federal intervention to overhaul the political and
social structure of the South and ensure that the freed slaves would be
granted full equality with whites? Or should it adhere to more lenient
policies that did not seek to punish the South but rather to heal the
nation, and which would limit the federal government's role in
reshaping the South?
- The case for "radical" Reconstruction:
Without strict federal intervention, the South will foster the same
political and social environment that had led to war in the first
place. In particular, the federal government must ensure that the
rights of the newly freed slaves are not violated. Also, the Southern
states committed treason by seceding from the Union, and should be
- The case against "radical" Reconstruction: The focus of Reconstruction
should not be on punishing the South, but on uniting and healing the
nation. Federal intervention in the South that influences state
governments in any way is essentially a continuation of the Civil War,
trampling democracy with force. Radical Reconstruction is motivated by an irrational hatred of Southerners.
Library of Congress
Charleston, South Carolina, lies in ruins following the war between the states.
The American Civil War
(1861-65) ended with a victory for the Union over the secessionist
Southern states. But the end of the war was just the beginning of a new
chapter in American history. The following period of Reconstruction (1865-77), during which the Confederate
states were reintegrated into the Union, was one of the most
controversial chapters in American history. Well before Confederate
General Robert E. Lee surrendered his forces to Union General Ulysses Grant
at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, effectively ending the
Civil War, controversy raged in Congress and throughout the country
concerning the terms under which the secessionist states would be
allowed back into the Union.
Of paramount concern was what
role the federal government should take in the shaping of the
political, economic and social fabric of the South. Integrating the
roughly four million newly freed slaves into life in the new South was a particularly contentious issue. It was the issue of slavery that in large part had spurred secession
of the Southern states in 1860 and 1861, leading to the Civil War, and
dealing with the newly freed slaves was no less problematic. The Civil
War had left the South dramatically altered; newly freed slaves
struggled to survive in the new economy while co-existing with an often
bitter and resentful white populace. [See Civil War: Secession of the Southern States]
The national debate over Reconstruction centered on three main issues:
were the terms under which the defeated Confederate states should be
allowed to reenter the Union? What demands should be made upon them
before they reentered? Should Congress or the president establish the
- Who should be punished for the rebellion and to what extent?
what degree should the national government assist the newly freed
slaves (often referred to as freedmen) in participating in the
political and social life of the South?
The nation was bitterly divided over the best way to answer those questions. Democrats and moderate Republicans
tended to favor more lenient policies toward the South, with limited
federal intervention in the process. However, a faction of the
Republican Party known as the Radical Republicans pushed for a harsher
program that would both punish the South and ensure that the newly
freed black slaves would have total equality with whites.
Library of Congress
Abraham Lincoln (left) and Andrew Johnson (right)
President Abraham Lincoln
(R, 1861-65) believed that the war-torn South had already been
dramatically punished, and thus favored a fairly lenient approach of Reconstruction.
Lincoln firmly believed that the sooner the nation healed its wounds
and moved forward, the better off everyone would be. His plan called
for a pardon to any Confederate who had not held civil office and would
swear to support the Constitution and the Union; states would be
readmitted to the union once 10% of their population took such an oath.
He did not, however, adequately address how the newly freed slaves were
to be absorbed into Southern society. That was soon to complicate
On April 14, 1865, days after the war ended, Lincoln was shot by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth, and died the following morning. Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson (R1,1865-69),
was an outspoken opponent of the rich slaveholders in the South, and as
a Southern senator had refused to join the Confederacy, preferring to
preserve the Union. Johnson said he intended to carry out Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, although unlike Lincoln, he believed that the South should be punished for its role in the war.
Indeed, Radical Republicans initially welcomed Johnson, believing that
he would pursue harsher policies than Lincoln. "Mr. Johnson, I thank
God that you are here," Radical Republican Senator Benjamin Wade (Ohio)
said when Johnson assumed the presidency. "Lincoln had too much of the
milk of human kindness to deal with these damn rebels. Now they will be
dealt with according to their desserts."
Library of Congress
D.C. mourned its assassinated president, Abraham Lincoln, with a solemn
parade (left). The Ford Theater, where Lincoln was assassinated, also
commemorated the event with funeral bunting (right).
However, once in office, Johnson adopted a more lenient policy than
expected. For instance, he pardoned many Confederate leaders and
allowed prominent former Confederates to keep their land and their
official posts. He also argued that it was the responsibility of the
states, not of the federal government, to set policies dealing with the
newly freed slaves. That Southern autonomy helped foster an environment
in which black rights were denied, and notorious "Black Codes" were
enacted in the South, severely limiting the rights of the freedmen.
Johnson's plan (also referred to as "Presidential Reconstruction") was countered by Radical Republicans in Congress, whose Reconstruction policies became known as radical Reconstruction. Radical Republicans argued that a main goal of Reconstruction should be to secure the same rights as white citizens for the newly freed slaves. To ensure that their Reconstruction
plan were carried out, the Radical Republicans proposed greater federal
intervention in the South to oversee the process. For example,
Congress's Reconstruction Act of 1867 divided the South into districts under military rule, and removed former Confederates from power.
Advocates of radical Reconstruction
initially included mostly Radical Republicans. However, more-moderate
Republicans began to join their ranks as the South showed its
unwillingness to allow blacks to exercise their rights, and an
increasingly adversarial relationship developed between Johnson and
Congress. As debate in the U.S. grew over whether the government should
adhere to radical Reconstruction policies
or follow a more moderate course, the stage was set for a showdown that
would not only span the next decade but would affect life in the South
for more than a century.
Ohio Historical Society
condition of freed slaves and the destruction of Southern industry led
Radical Republicans to call for greater federal intervention in the
Proponents of radical Reconstruction
argued that Johnson's plans, which allowed many former Confederates to
remain in power, did not go far enough. Without strict federal
intervention, they reasoned, the South—where blacks had long been
viewed merely as property—would revert to the same political and social
environment that had led to war in the first place. They also argued
that Reconstruction should punish the South
for its "treason" in seceding. The government had the right to set such
strict terms for the secessionist states to be readmitted to the Union
because it had defeated the Confederacy in the war, they asserted.
Opponents of radical Reconstruction,
on the other hand, argued that it was more important to heal the nation
than punish the South. Furthermore, they maintained, policies dictating
how the states should deal with the newly freed slaves were a violation
of states' rights; the federal government could not dictate how the
freed slaves would be treated by the South. Federal intervention in the
South that influenced state governments in any way was essentially a
continuation of the Civil War, replacing democracy with force, they
On December 8, 1863, approximately 16 months before the North defeated
the South in the Civil War, Lincoln issued a proclamation that laid out
his vision of Reconstruction. Lincoln proposed a more lenient program of Reconstruction,
which stemmed from his desire to heal the wounds of war as quickly as
possible and put an end to animosity between North and South. [See Lincoln's 1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction (primary document)]
Library of Congress
Refugees of the Civil War atop a freight train in Atlanta.
Under his plan, the federal government would appoint governors to head
the secessionist states. He also offered executive pardons to all
Southerners (except for high-ranking Confederate officials, who had to
get a special pardon from the president) who took an oath to support
the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government. For a state to rejoin
the union, at least 10% of its qualified voters as of 1860 had to take
an oath of allegiance. Once 10% of voters swore their allegiance, they
could select delegates to go to a convention to adopt a new state
constitution; the constitution had to repudiate secession and recognize
the abolition of slavery. (On January 1, Lincoln had issued the
Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that all slaves were "forever
free.") Once those things happened, Lincoln said, states would be
eligible for representation in Congress and for full recognition of
Lincoln also established the temporary Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, or the Freedmen's Bureau,
shortly before the war ended in 1865. The bureau was intended to
provide food, medicine, clothing, shelter and education to blacks and
war refugees. Established by the War Department, the Bureau also
assumed custody of confiscated lands or property in the former
Confederate States, Border States, the District of Columbia and
"Indian" Territory. Because the Freedmen's Bureau was an agency of the
U.S. Army, white Southerners generally viewed it as an extension of the
army of occupation imposed on them by the victorious North. Moreover,
one of the bureau's objectives was to prepare blacks for a role in
Southern society that whites had steadfastly maintained they were
incapable of filling.
Many Northern Republicans in Congress
argued that Lincoln was not being tough enough on the South. In 1864,
Senator Wade and Representative Henry Winter Davis (R, Maryland)
proposed a harsher plan. Their Wade-Davis Bill required that a majority
of each Confederate state's white males swear their loyalty to the
Union in an "ironclad" oath. It also prohibited Confederate officials
from voting or holding office, and it required Southern states to allow
blacks to vote. Lincoln refused to sign the bill, however, so the law
never went into effect. When Lincoln was assassinated, he and Congress
were still at odds over the Reconstruction issue. [See Wade-Davis Reconstruction Bill, and Lincoln's Reaction to the Bill (primary document)]
Library of Congress
this illustration, published after Abraham Lincoln's assassination,
reconciliation is offered in Lincoln's memory to the secessionist South.
When Johnson replaced Lincoln, Republicans expected him to follow a
harsher policy toward the South. However, when he issued an amnesty
proclamation on May 29, 1865, it was not as strict towards the South as
expected. In many respects, it was a continuation of Lincoln's plans;
the government would appoint governors for the Southern states to
prepare them for reentry to the Union, and high-ranking Confederates
and those owning more than $20,000 worth of property had to be
personally pardoned by the president. In fact, Johnson eventually
pardoned all but a few high-ranking and wealthy Confederates, and
permitted the federally appointed state governors to appoint prominent
former Confederates to office. [See Andrew Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation (primary document)]
Like Lincoln, Johnson left the issue of how to deal with the newly
freed slaves to the state governments; he did not believe the federal
government had the right to force states to give freedmen equal rights.
Although as a condition for rejoining the Union Johnson's Reconstruction plan required Southern states to ratify the 13th Amendment,
which abolished slavery, he chose not to use federal intervention to
enforce black rights. "Outside of the Constitution we have no legal
authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so
much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our
functions and applies to all subjects," he explained. [See 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution (primary document)]
Johnson's decision virtually guaranteed that blacks would be forced to
struggle to gain equality with Southern whites. Because Johnson did not
enforce government control of the Southern lands, very little changed
in terms of the treatment of African Americans. In fact, many Southern
states established Black Codes, state laws that limited the rights of
freedmen. For instance, the codes declared that blacks could work only
as field hands, essentially assuring that they would be forced to
continue working on Southern plantations, and could not work without
signing a contract. According to Florida's Black Codes, African
Americans who violated labor contracts could be whipped and forced to
do hard labor. [See Louisiana's Black Code (primary document), Southern Opposition to Reconstruction and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan (sidebar)]
By the time Congress reconvened in December 1865, all former
Confederate states except Texas had organized governments, ratified the
13th Amendment and elected members of Congress. Johnson declared Reconstruction complete.
Ohio Historical Society
in Congress recognized that existing political, economic and cultural
mores trapped blacks in the South in worse conditions than before the
However, Radical Republicans were not satisfied with Johnson's Reconstruction.
They called for more far-reaching social change in the South, and
argued that only strict federal intervention could achieve it. The
result of lenient Reconstruction policies,
they said, was the passage of Black Codes and the election of former
Confederates to public office. For instance, many of the newly elected
Southern congressmen had been leaders of the Confederacy or
high-ranking military officers; Georgia elected the former vice
president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens,
to the Senate, even though Stephens was awaiting trial for treason at
the time. Congress barred those Southern legislators from taking their
elected seats in Congress, under a clause of the Constitution declaring
that "each house shall be the judge of the qualifications of its own
Moderates initially said that Johnson's plan would
be acceptable with only a few minor changes. For instance, they sought
an extension for the Freedmen's Bureau to help protect Southern blacks,
and also passed the Civil Rights Bill in March 1866. Designed to
protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes, the Civil Rights Bill
declared that all persons born in the U.S. "of every race and color"
were now citizens.
As citizens, they could make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued,
give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and
convey real and personal property. Persons who denied those rights to
former slaves would be guilty of a misdemeanor. [See Civil Rights Bill of 1866 (primary document), Editorial on the 1866 Civil Rights Bill (primary document)]
But Johnson argued that those measures gave too much power to the
federal government, and vetoed both, angering many moderates. Many
Northerners became convinced that Johnson's policy, and the actions of
the Southern governments he established, threatened to return blacks to
a condition similar to slavery. They also argued that it would allow
the former rebels to regain political power in the South.
The split between Johnson and the moderates became complete in April 1866, when Congress overrode Johnson's veto
of the Civil Rights Bill, garnering the necessary two-thirds vote to
pass the Civil Rights Bill. It was the first time Congress had ever
overridden a presidential veto of major legislation. Three months
later, Congress would again submit the Freedmen's Bureau Bill. When
Johnson once again vetoed it, Congress overrode that veto as well. To
make sure that the Civil Rights Bill was enforced, Congress approved
the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing full citizenship rights to blacks.
Congress made ratification of the 14th Amendment a condition to
rejoining the Union.
As conditions in the South failed to
improve for blacks, moderates were more and more inclined to agree with
Radical Republicans that greater action was needed to protect the
rights of the freedmen. As moderates were becoming more sympathetic to
the Radical Republican cause, congressional elections in 1866 ousted
many Johnson supporters, giving an edge to Radical Republicans. The new
configuration of the House ensured support for radical Reconstruction, and ensured that Republicans had the numbers to override any legislation passed by Johnson.
The new session of Congress, with its Republican majority, was able to pass a stricter version of Reconstruction. Over Johnson's veto, the Radical Republicans pushed through Congress the First Reconstruction
Act of 1867, "An Act to provide for the more efficient government of
the rebel states." Under the act, the South was divided into five
military districts that were subject to U.S. military authority.
Approximately 20,000 U.S. military troops were stationed in the
Southern states to oversee the process of Reconstruction, keep the peace and protect all persons. (Tennessee, which had been readmitted on July 24, 1866, was exempt.) [See First Reconstruction Act of 1867 (primary document), Johnson Explains his Veto of the 1867 Reconstruction Act (primary document)]
Furthermore, governments that had been established under Johnson's
plan, many of which were headed by former Confederates, were removed,
as the Reconstruction
Act stated that "no legal State governments or adequate protection for
life or property now exist in the rebel States." Many were filled by a
mix of Southern whites loyal to the Union (referred to contemptuously
as "scalawags" in the South) and Northern reformers and settlers who
migrated to the South soon after the war ended, called "carpetbaggers" in reference to the carpetbags in which many transported their belongings.
The laws also required Southern states to adopt new constitutions in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, and to ratify the 14th Amendment and grant blacks the right to vote.
Only after those conditions were fulfilled would states be readmitted
to the Union and allowed congressional representation. However,
Southern resistance to the 14th Amendment was strong. Johnson urged
states not to ratify the act, which he saw as a violation of states' rights. Congress subsequently approved several other Reconstruction acts to ensure that Reconstruction was carried out.
Johnson was completely opposed to Congress's radical Reconstruction,
and relations between the president and Congress continued to
deteriorate. They reached a final showdown in 1867, when Johnson sought
to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who advocated Radical Reconstruction and whom Johnson saw as impeding his Reconstruction
efforts. When Stanton refused to resign, Johnson fired him, and also
began to replace radical generals whom the Republicans had placed in
charge of the Southern districts.
Johnson's actions fueled efforts to impeach
him. Those efforts failed in December 1867. But after Congress
reinstated Stanton in January 1868, and Johnson again sought to remove
him, the House in February passed a motion impeaching
Johnson. However, he was spared removal from office when his Senate
trial ended in acquittal on two counts, both times by one vote. While
Johnson continued to strongly criticize radical Reconstruction, he no longer stood in its way.
Supporters of radical Reconstruction
argued for strict policies that would both punish the South for its
role in the Civil War and ensure that it would not revert to its
pre-war condition. Representative Thaddeus Stevens (R, Pennsylvania), one of the leaders of the push for radical Reconstruction,
summed up the view of the majority of Northern legislatures,
particularly after Lincoln was assassinated. "We hold it to be the duty
of the government to inflict condign punishment on the rebel
belligerents, and so weaken their hands that they can never again
endanger the Union; and so reform their municipal institutions as to
make them republican in spirit as well as in name," Stevens declared
shortly after Lincoln's assassination. "The whole fabric of Southern
society must be changed," he continued. [See Representative Stevens Speaks in Favor of Radical Reconstruction (primary document)]
Proponents of Radical Reconstruction
believed that returning political and economic control of the South to
the Democrats and Southern white males who had just rebelled would
render the North's victory in the war fruitless. "Every state that
seceded from the United States was a Democratic State.... Every man
that shot Union soldiers was a Democrat. Every man that loved slavery
better than liberty was a Democrat. The man that assassinated Abraham
Lincoln was a Democrat," Republican political leader Robert Ingersoll
pointed out. "Every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings
was a Democrat. Every man that clutched from shrieking, shuddering,
crouching mothers, babes from their breasts, and sold them into
slavery, was a Democrat."
Supporters argued that a strong
federal presence in the South was the only way to ensure that blacks'
rights were not violated. They pointed to the South's establishment of
Black Codes, resistance to ratifying the 14th Amendment and violence
against newly freed slaves as showing that the South could not be
counted on to ensure their rights. In particular, supporters justified
placing the South under military rule on the grounds that there were no
lawful governments in the South. They expressed that belief in the
first Reconstruction Act of 1867:
no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property
now exists in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and
Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should
be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments
can be legally established...Be it enacted That said rebel States shall
be divided into military districts and made subject to the military
authority of the United States
Some, such as
Representative George Funston Miller (R, Pennsylvania), acknowledged
that the system of establishing military districts in the South
involved "extraordinary power" that "should only be exercised in
extreme cases." However, they said that the situation in the South was
an extreme case, and warned that without strict Federal intervention,
the South would revert to the same political and social environment
that led to war in the first place. "It is...a universal rule among all
civilized nations that, when the civil law is not strong enough to
afford ample protection, the more powerful, to wit, that of martial,
must be resorted to, and it is evident that these ten States present a
case demanding such extreme measures," Miller stated. He further
argued, "These pretended governments do not afford adequate protection
to the persons and property of the loyal people resident therein,
hence, the necessity of a more stringent procedure."
Other supporters justified harsher Reconstruction
on the grounds that the Union had defeated the Confederacy, and
therefore had the right to set the terms of the peace. "We have
conquered them, and as a conquered enemy we can give them laws; can
abolish all their municipal institutions and form new ones," Stevens
said. Furthermore, he declared, it was necessary for the federal
government to treat the South as a conquered enemy to achieve its
objectives. "Reformation must be effected; the foundation of their institutions both political, municipal, and social must
be broken up and relaid, or all of our blood and treasure have been
spent in vain. This can only be done by treating and holding them as a
conquered people," Stevens asserted.
Supporters also emphasized the benefits of Reconstruction.
For the first time in American history, advocates pointed out, there
existed in American law a principle that the rights of citizens could
not be abridged because of race. Those laws led directly to the
creation of new governments in the South elected by blacks as well as
whites, they noted. Proponents also pointed out that Reconstruction
brought the beginning of a public school system to the South, and
attempted to revitalize the devastated Southern economy. Most of the
fighting had taken place in the South, and large parts of major cities
had been left in ruins; crops and livestock had also been destroyed.
To sum up radical Reconstruction's aims, Stevens observed that Reconstruction offered an opportunity to create a "perfect republic" based on the principle of equal rights
for all citizens. "This is the promise of America. No More. No Less,"
he said. In the opinion of the majority of Northern Republicans,
Johnson's plans did not go far enough, so they simply took matters into
their own hands.
Critics of radical Reconstruction
objected to strong federal intervention in the South. In particular,
they opposed placing the South under military control, which they said
amounted to martial law
and essentially continued the Civil War. Johnson and other opponents
disagreed with the Radical Republican premise that lawful governments
did not exist in the South. "Over every State comprised in these five
military districts, life, and property are secured by State laws and
Federal laws, and the National Constitution is every where in force and
every where obeyed. What, then is the ground on which the bill
proceeds?" Johnson asked in a speech to the House explaining his veto
of the 1867 Reconstruction Act.
Critics also argued that the federal government did not have the
authority to force the South to adopt measures favored by the North. In
his speech about the Reconstruction Act, Johnson asserted:
military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any
purpose of order or for the prevention of crime but solely as a means
of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to
which it is known that they are opposed and upon which they have an
undeniable right to exercise their own judgment. [The act is] in its
whole character, scope, and object without precedent and without
authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the
Furthermore, some asserted, the
Southern states had never actually left the Union; the states had
attempted to secede, they noted, but were foiled in that attempt by
losing the Civil War. Rather than conquering a territory,
Representative William Finck (D, Ohio) stated, the federal government
"reestablished firmly the jurisdiction of the United States, not over
any new territory, not over territory conquered from a foreign enemy,
but we reestablished the jurisdiction of the United States over what
had been and what continued to be during the war; a part of the
territory comprised within the boundaries of the United States."
Consequently, opponents argued, the South could not be treated as a
Other critics argued that military rule was unnecessary in the South.
For one thing, they said, the freedmen did not need to be "protected."
Labor was so desperately needed to cultivate Southern lands,
Representative John Leftwich (D, Tennessee) maintained, that the
freedmen were better treated and received better wages than similar
workers anywhere else in the world. Leftwich contended that conditions
in the South were highly exaggerated by the North. "I
desire distinctly to repeat there is no necessity for this or any other
protection for loyal white or black people in the southern States
beyond the laws already in practical operation there," he asserted.
"These raw-head-and-bloody-bone stories that have imposed on the
credulity of northern minds till they have become ridiculous in the
estimation of the unprejudiced are in the main false, made of
whole-cloth, and are concocted and promulgated for base and designing
Opponents of radical Reconstruction also objected to what they said was the punitive nature of Reconstruction.
They maintained that the focus should be not on punishing the South but
rather on healing the nation. They supported a more lenient policy,
agreeing with the sentiments expressed by Lincoln in his second
inaugural address in 1865. "With malice toward none; with charity for
all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let
us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's
wounds," Lincoln had said. [See President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (primary document)]
Overall, the Reconstruction
policy put forth by Radical Republicans was motivated by irrational
hatred of Southerners, opponents argued. They warned against
legislating out of revenge against the South. "Legislation induced by
passion should never be the legislation of a free people in a free
republic," Representative Charles Sitgreaves (D, New Jersey) declared
in House debate over the Reconstruction Act. He continued: [See Representative Sitgreaves Speaks in Opposition to Radical Reconstruction (Excerpts) (primary document)]
we should succeed in giving an ascendancy to party or in crippling the
South in her resources; what is the life of a man or a party when
compared with the life of an empire. Parties are ephemeral. The places
that now know the men of the South, the actors in the late conflict, in
a few years 'will know them no more forever,' but the Republic should
and will (if sustained by wise legislation) endure forever.
Sitgreaves further argued that adopting a Reconstruction
policy intended to punish the South was unconstitutional. He pointed
out that the Constitution prohibited the passage of bills of attainder
(defined as special acts "as inflict capital punishment upon persons
supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason or felony
without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings"), and argued that effectively disenfranchising white
Southerners as punishment fit the "spirit and effect" of a bill of
Rather than "reconstruction,"
many critics of called for "restoration," with a focus on rebuilding
the South economically. That would benefit both Southern blacks and
whites, they asserted. In fact, Leftwich argued that if the freedmen
were polled, the results would find that the vast majority would prefer
the removal of a cotton tax, which directly affected their livelihoods,
to being given the right to vote.
Some critics, Northern as
well as Southern, were also opposed to the increased role of blacks
that Northerners were forcing on the South. "White men alone must
manage the South," Johnson declared. Sitgreaves warned against
effectively disenfranchising Southern whites in favor of Southern
with the knowledge of all this, that we cannot build a republic without
intelligence, the radical would put the ballot in the hands of millions
imbruted by slavery, with intelligence but little beyond the brute
creation, possessing the vices of treachery and dissimulation, and by
so doing give them the political power, in some States the actual
numerical majority, in almost all, the balance of power, and yet
profess that he does so 'to guaranty a republican form of government.'
Many white Southerners were also bitterly opposed to Reconstruction
governments set up by "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags." Not only did
their presence serve as a constant reminder of the South's defeat by
the North, opponents asserted, but the added tax burden caused by
"government and social improvements," such as new roads and schools,
was not only uneconomically harmful but unconstitutional as well, since
Southerners had no say in the matter.
asserted that there was widespread corruption under the carpetbaggers,
scalawags and ignorant freedmen who ruled state governments. Reconstruction
foes pointed out that even Republican South Carolina Governor Daniel
Chamberlain admitted that the carpetbagger state governments were out
of control. Chamberlain noted: "Corruption ran riot; dishonesty
flourished in shameless effrontery; incompetency was the rule in public
offices." That was in part, they said, because black politicians in the
South became vulnerable to corruption and would follow the lead of the
Northern politicians and do what the latter told them to do.
The Republicans saw several of their goals accomplished by 1870. In
February, the 15th Amendment was ratified, granting blacks the right to
vote. Also that year, the first black men were elected to Congress;
Hiram Roades Revels (R, Mississippi) to the Senate and Joseph Rainey
(R, South Carolina) to the House. In July 1870, Georgia became the
final former Confederate state to qualify for readmittance to the
Union; by that time, most federal troops had been removed from the
The period of Reconstruction officially came to an end when newly elected President Rutherford Hayes
(R, 1877-81) pulled the last of the federal troops out of the South in
1877. Hayes had become president in a disputed election; the vote was
so close between him and his Democratic opponent, Samuel Tilden, in
three states—South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana—that a winner could
not be determined. The Democrats and Republicans reached a deal whereby
Hayes would be named president and, in return, the Republicans would
not challenge Democratic victories in those states, which had been the
only three remaining Republican states. It was also widely believed
that Hayes had secretly promised the Democrats that he would end
federal occupation of the South. However, by they time Hayes pulled the
troops out, most members of Congress had little appetite left for
continued conflict between North and South.
With the demise of Reconstruction,
the South reestablished a segregated and white supremacist way of life.
White Southern Democrats returned to Congress and much of the liberal
civil rights legislation was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1896, in the pivotal Plessy v. Ferguson
case, the Supreme Court ruled that state-controlled segregation was
legal as long as "separate but equal" facilities were provided. Blacks
remained second-class citizens until the mid-20th century, when the
call for civil rights once again surfaced, highlighted by the Supreme
Court's 1954 decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which reversed the Plessy ruling. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, championed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D, 1963-69), finally outlawed discrimination in "public accommodations." [See Brown v. Board of Education]
Opinions about Reconstruction
varied, and continue to vary, widely. To those who opposed it, it was a
time during which the North exercised complete control over the
Southern governments and denied white men their rights as citizens. To
proponents of Reconstruction, it was a time
during which the government attempted to right the wrongs of slavery
and oppression. However, one thing all historians agree on is that it
was a pivotal era in the nation's history. [See Differing Interpretations of Reconstruction (sidebar)]
1. Should the South have been "punished" for seceding from the Union,
or do you agree with Lincoln that "binding the nation's wounds" was
more important? Explain.
2. Southerners claimed that the radical Reconstruction
policies were motivated by hatred of the South. What reasons do you
think were behind those claims? Do you think there was any truth to
3. What impact did Reconstruction have on race relations in the following century?
4. Did Reconstruction accomplish its goals? In what ways can it be considered a success or a failure?
5. Imagine that the government had followed a more moderate course of Reconstruction: Describe what you think life would have been like for African Americans in the following decades.
Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Burghardt Du Bois. W.E. Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880. New York: Free Press, 1998.
Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2002.
Foner, Eric. A Short History of Reconstruction. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990.
Haywood, John. Atlas of World History, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1997.
Horton, James Oliver; Horton, Lois E. Slavery and the Making of America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
McPherson, James. Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
McPherson, James. Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: McGraw-Hill Cos., 2000.
Paterson, Thomas. Major Problems in Civil War & Reconstruction. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.
"Reconstruction." World Almanac Encyclopedia, accessed February 11, 2006, www.facts.com
Shenk Joshua. "The True Lincoln" Life Magazine, July 4, 2005. Pages 38-43.
Stampp, Kenneth. The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877: Revisionist View of One of the Most Controversial Periods. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 1965.
Linden, Glenn. Voices from the House Divided: The American Civil War as Personal Experience. New York: McGraw Hill Cos., 1994.
Walsh, David. "James McPherson's What They Fought For: When Great Ideals Gripped the American People." International Workers Bulletin, December 5, 1994, www.wsws.org.
Walsh, David. "The Civil War, Impeachment Then and Now, and Lincoln's Legacy." Word Socialist Web Site, May 19, 1999, www.wsws.org.