I’m sure it’s all in here....we studied it ....the Hiram Revels era....till Hayes unwritten compromise
Posted on 06/23/2020 5:56:31 AM PDT by C19fan
The Confederate monuments that are coming down across the United States have once again ignited a generations-old American argument. Though the idea that the war was really about the “noble cause” of states’ rights retains its mystique for some, historians agree that the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. The worst American war in the nation’s history—from the standpoint of casualties, direct costs and indirect consequences—was fought in a vain attempt by the Confederate States to preserve that “peculiar institution.” Now, 155 years later, not only are statues of Confederate leaders being removed in cities from Richmond to New Orleans, Confederate battle flags are being banned at public events and U.S. military bases named after Confederate military leaders face possible name changes. But the Civil War did not occur in a vacuum; it was the culmination of centuries of institutional racism against people of African origin. The previous 240 years had seen ongoing suppression of the rights of Black people to live free within America. Long before the Civil War, history records efforts of individual enslaved people to revolt, to escape or both, with varying degrees of success. The Civil War was the culmination of a failed racial policy that was stillborn in 1619 when the first Africans were brought to Virginia and sold to the highest bidders. And, as many Americans hope to take this moment to reassess the way the nation thinks about its past, it’s worth remembering that the Civil War was not the only American war in which slavery played an important role.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I appreciate the explanation you gave, and you are correct, my perception of insult was entirely due to mistaking your post for someone else's and reading it in the context of their previous post. I find no fault in it now that I realize my mistake.
"This philosophy is not all that distant from Fascism."
I think I see that insofar as by "Fascist" you mean the Socialist style of Nazi Germany et al in the WWII era that allowed private ownership but maintained centralized control in the extreme. I have the concept that the term fascist can also have more generic meaning that simply means something like "rule by violence", which is not necessarily a predicted outcome so much as the other definition.
"Before or after the war? Because it makes a big difference."
I was certainly thinking of events after the war when I made the comment.
"I am at a loss to understand your particular reference here. I can't think of a group more demonized than Southern slave owners. "
I was thinking in terms of the Democrats demonizing black men in the 19th century to to foment fear and racial hatred in enough white votors to tip the vote over 50% democrat. I see similar tactics today, but Trump, Republicans, and even White people in general are being demonized to foment fear and racial hatred in an attempt to push the balance of power in the hopes that Democrats, once again, would have more than 50% of the vote.
They don’t want to be burned alive in their homes.
I thought so, because I could not recall having read anything along these lines prior to the war.
What was going on after the war was an effort to stop the Republicans forcing subjugation on them. A lot of people may be unaware, but just after the war, white people were not allowed to vote. Only newly freed slaves were permitted to vote, and they ended up creating entirely\mostly black legislatures\congressional representatives in the occupied states. The problem with these legislatures was not that they were black, but that they lacked knowledge of what a legislature was and how it was supposed to act in creating laws. The Reps and Senators simply did what Washington DC told them to do.
These legislatures became an embarrassment for Washington DC, and they quietly restored voting rights to the white population, and you never hear anything about this in any of the history books. I only know of this because I used to have an old history book that covered it.
But the struggle for power was deadly serious. The Government was doing everything it could to force Republicans on the people of the South, and the people of the South were doing everything they could to stop it, including intimidation, terrorism and murder. After a war that killed 750,000, they considered life relatively cheap.
I was thinking in terms of the Democrats demonizing black men in the 19th century to to foment fear and racial hatred in enough white voters to tip the vote over 50% democrat.
That is exactly what they were doing. It was about control of power, and Republicans would simply hurt them more than they had already been hurt. I've read other accounts that "reconstruction" was horrible, and was also a corrupt enrichment scheme for politically connected cronies.
As the left has come out ever more moon bat crazy year after year, the idea of confronting them with violence gets less and less objectionable to me with each passing year.
I see similar tactics today, but Trump, Republicans, and even White people in general are being demonized to foment fear and racial hatred in an attempt to push the balance of power in the hopes that Democrats, once again, would have more than 50% of the vote.
Yes, but this is being done to expand Washington DC power, not reduce it. It is being done on behalf of the people who derive power from their influence in Washington, most of whom live in the Acela corridor between Washington DC and Boston.
"FACT: They wanted to preserve the status quo - conservative"
"FACT: The South was mostly mostly agrarian which is usually considered Conservative over urban/factory based society."
"FACT: they ( the South ) were little 'r' republicans that believe in states rights. Highly Conservative."
"FACT:Republican Party of the 19th century was the upstart LIBERAL party and aligned to some degree with abolitionists the militant wing of which would be considered terrorists by today's standards."
I hate to do this, really, I do, because I prefer to keep online discussions polite and courteous... but you have backed me into a corner.
There is ONE, and ONLY ONE intellectual counter-move to such a relentless barrage of cogent indisputable truths:
BEARS. BEETS. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.
I have never heard of this. I am not aware of any race based voting laws since the 14th and 15th ammendment until the Democrats took over at the end of the 19th century. Can you please point me to a source that verifies that claim?
"The problem with these legislatures was not that they were black, but that they lacked knowledge of what a legislature was and how it was supposed to act in creating laws. The Reps and Senators simply did what Washington DC told them to do.
Dates? Names? Locations?
"These legislatures became an embarrassment for Washington DC, and they quietly restored voting rights to the white population, and you never hear anything about this in any of the history books. I only know of this because I used to have an old history book that covered it."
What history book do you have?
"The Government was doing everything it could to force Republicans on the people of the South, and the people of the South were doing everything they could to stop it, including intimidation, terrorism and murder."
I don't think the south has ever been politically homogenous. There were plenty of former whigs in the South that would ultimately join the Republican party. My own family history that I have documentation for indicates they were whigs who were unionists before the war, but fought on the side of NC once the war began. When the conflict was over they became Republicans. I have read similar accounts of others from NC, some of whom went on the hold politcal office. I would like to see whatever verificaiton you could offer for what you suggest.
"Republicans would simply hurt them more than they had already been hurt."
I am aware of the Democrats hurting black freemen. Who were the Republicans hurting?
I am under the impression that here in NC, the Democrat North Carolinians would target (with both violence and slander) black North Carolinians specifically, as opposed to Republicans in general who were overwhelmingly white. My own family, who were whigs before the war and republicans after, were still left out of the general amnesty. I am not sure how that fits into the dynamics you are describing, but I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
I have discussed this topic before, and I have in the past endeavored to find supporting sources for this point, but I have learned from past searches that it is extremely difficult to find this information because it is horribly embarrassing to historians and many people would consider it racist to point this out.
I only know of it because I read it in a history book I had many years ago. I will look around and see if I can find something to show that this is true, but as I've said, past searches were difficult.
Perhaps some others might be able to help on this point? I'll ping a few.
Guys, the point being discussed is that period after the war in which whites were disenfranchised and only blacks could vote, and which resulted in mostly black congressmen and legislators being elected.
I read in a history book years ago that entire legislatures were comprised of black legislators, and that they didn't know what they were doing and consequently embarrassed Washington DC with their ineptitude.
Do any of you recall a source for this information?
I’m sure it’s all in here....we studied it ....the Hiram Revels era....till Hayes unwritten compromise
Can you at least narrow down the range of years in which this occured? I would expect historical election results of each state would be available online, but maybe I am wrong.
It occurred right after they were occupied, so I would say between 1865 to 1870;
Guys, the point being discussed is that period after the war in which whites were disenfranchised and only blacks could vote, and which resulted in mostly black congressmen and legislators being elected.I read in a history book years ago that entire legislatures were comprised of black legislators, and that they didn't know what they were doing and consequently embarrassed Washington DC with their ineptitude.
Do any of you recall a source for this information?
I am unaware of repression to the extent that no whites could vote, but have a source that Southern Democrats had a very difficult time registering to vote, leading to a result similar to what you describe.
Frank Conner, The South Under Siege 1830-2000, A istory of the Relations Between the North and the South, Second Ed., Collards Publishing Co., Newman, Ga., (2002) pp. 197-192; 199-200.
The First Reconstruction Act, of 2 March 1867, required the Southern states to enfranchise the blacks and ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. It also divided the South into five military districts, to be ruled by U.S. Army generals. Initially, Generals John M. Schofield, Daniel E. Sickles, George H. Thomas, Edward O.C. Ord, and Philip H. Sheridan commanded those districts. Several of those generals—including Sheridan—had already demonstrated their deep compassion for the South.The Second Reconstruction Act, of 23 March 1867, called for the U.S. Army to oversee the registration of eligible voters in each Southern territory/state/whatever; and for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention therein; and for the writing of a new state constitution; and for the ratification of that constitution by at least half of the registered voters; and for the approval of that constitution by the Radical Republican Congress. When all of that had been accomplished, Congress would then seat that state’s elected senators and congressmen; and theoretically the military occupation would end. The third act, of 19 July 1867, spelled out the facts of life in this new regime: the military commanders would have complete power over all civil government in the South; and the voter-registration boards (named by the military authorities) could arbitrarily deny the vote to anyone: in other words, Southern Democrats would have a very hard time getting registered to vote.
The fourth act, of 11 March 1868, repealed the requirement that at least 50% of the voters must ratify the new state constitutions. Its purpose was to speed up the reentry of the remaining Southern territories/ states into the Union, such that their black and Scalawag constituencies would get to vote for Grant in the 1868 presidential election—thus enabling him to win.
The U.S. military commanders of the South followed the orders of the Radical Republicans in Washington. Arbitrarily they removed the sitting governors of Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia. They replaced all levels of elected and appointed officials in the state governments with soldiers or Scalawags whenever it appeared that the lawfully-elected/appointed civil officials might not be attuned slavishly to the wishes of the Republican Congress.
[...]
Droves of carpetbaggers came South to make their fortunes in public office. They were joined by numbers of Scalawags and ex-slaves.
In 1868, the seven so-far-reinstated Southern states sent 49 senators and congressmen to Washington. Of them, 30 were Northerners who had come South since the end of the war. In the 40th Congress, 20 of 22 Southern senators, and 44 of 58 congressmen, were Republicans. Among them, two senators and 12 congressmen were black.
In many cases, the state legislatures, school boards, and/or militias were filled with illiterate blacks who had no notion of the workings of civil government. The lieutenant governors of Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina were black. A majority of the state legislators of South Carolina were black.
If I recall correctly, I have read elsewhere the 33 were 29 blacks and 4 mulatto, and the mulattos were allowed to keep their seats while the rest were removed.
Regardless, that is not a situation where whites were not allowed to vote, nor consistent with the other details of the narative you suggested. Its presence on wikipedia is certainly not consistent with it being such an embarrassing event that it was thouroughly scrubbed from history except for a remarkable textbook that somehow survived.
How much confidence do you have in the accuracy of the textbook you read... Or your memory of it?
Such a characterization would not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a "woke" source that is constantly monitored and edited by Liberals who will not tell the truth about anything they consider important. If you don't believe me, just look at their entries on issues like Abortion. They are very biased, and unwilling to offend any protected classes.
How much confidence do you have in the accuracy of the textbook you read... Or your memory of it?
I have a lot of confidence that I have repeated the gist of what I read, but this memory is from a long time ago.
If I recall correctly, they called the black legislators "The wonder of the world" in the paragraph heading.
With concerted effort I might be able to figure out what the book was, and with further effort I might be able to get a copy of it, but it won't be easy, not after all these years anyway.
I would be very grateful for a ping if you ever find it. Thank you for the pleasant dialog.
+1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era#Suffrage
“Radical Republican leader Thaddeus Stevens proposed, unsuccessfully, that all former Confederates lose the right to vote for five years. The compromise that was reached disenfranchised many Confederate civil and military leaders. No one knows how many temporarily lost the vote, but one estimate placed the number as high as 10,000 to 15,000. However, Radical politicians took up the task at the state level. In Tennessee alone, over 80,000 former Confederates were disenfranchised”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_Oath#Role_in_Reconstruction
The Ironclad Oath was an oath promoted by Radical Republicans and opposed by President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The Republicans intended to prevent political activity of ex-Confederate soldiers and supporters by requiring all voters and officials to swear they had never supported the Confederacy. Given the temporary disenfranchisement of the numerous Confederate veterans and local civic leaders, a new Republican biracial coalition came to power in the eleven Southern states during Reconstruction. Southern conservative Democrats were angered to have been disenfranchised.
The Oath was a key factor in removing many ex-Confederates from the political arena during the Reconstruction era of the late 1860s. To take the Ironclad Oath, a person had to swear he had never borne arms against the Union or supported the Confederacy — that is, he had “never voluntarily borne arms against the United States,” had “voluntarily” given “no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement” to persons in rebellion and had exercised or attempted to exercise the functions of no office under the Confederacy. A farmer who sold grain to the Confederate Army would be covered. The oath was detested by ex-Confederates; some called it “The Damnesty Oath.”
Congress devised the oath in July 1862 for all federal employees, lawyers, and federal elected officials. It was applied to Southern voters in the Wade–Davis Bill of 1864, which President Abraham Lincoln vetoed. President Andrew Johnson also opposed it. Both Johnson and Lincoln wanted Southerners instead to swear to an oath that in the future they would support the Union. Lincoln’s amnesty oath was integral to his ten percent plan for reconstruction. In 1864 Congress extended the provisions of the ironclad oath to its own members, but overlooked perjury when it came to seating Southern Republicans. Historian Harold Hyman says that in 1866, Northern Congressmen “described the oath as the last bulwark against the return of ex-rebels to power, the barrier behind which Southern Unionists and Negroes protected themselves.”
The first Supplemental Reconstruction Act (March 23, 1867) required an oath of past loyalty in order for any man in the South to vote. The local registrar had to swear that he had never held office under Confederacy, nor given aid or comfort to it. They also had to take the ironclad oath.
In 1867 the United States Supreme Court held that the federal ironclad oath for attorneys and the similar Missouri state oath for ministers, teachers, and other professionals were unconstitutional, because they violated the constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
In March 1867 Radicals in Congress passed a law that prohibited anyone from voting in the election of delegates to state constitutional conventions or in the subsequent ratification who was prohibited from holding office under section 3 of the pending Fourteenth Amendment. Those exclusions were less inclusive than the requirements of the Ironclad Oath. These exclusions allowed the Republican coalitions to carry the elections in every Southern state except Virginia. The Republican-dominated legislatures wrote and enacted new constitutions. These new state constitutions applied to all state officials and could not be repealed by an ordinary vote of the legislature.
The Republicans applied the oath in the South to keep political opponents from holding office or (in some states) from even voting. Hyman says, “most Southerners, even good Republican supporters, were disfranchised by the ironclad oath’s blanket provisions rather than by the Fourteenth Amendment’s highly selective disabilities.”
Perman emphasizes that the Republican ascendancy in the South was “extremely precarious” because the electorate had been defined by Congress, and “many potential opponents had been disfranchised, while others have simply refused to participate in what they regarded as a rigged election.” Perman argues that while the Radicals had controlled the state constitutional conventions, they increasingly lost power inside the Republican Party to conservative forces that repudiated disfranchisement and proscription. Voters in Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi voted down the new constitutions even though many opponents were disfranchised. The result was that by 1870 in every state except Arkansas, the Republicans dropped the restrictions against ex-Confederates and supporters, such as the ironclad oath. In Arkansas the Republican split, leading to an armed conflict called the Brooks–Baxter War.
In 1871, Congress modified the ironclad oath in order to permit all former rebels to use the 1868 formula to swear to “future loyalty.” President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the law, but Congress passed it.
Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied state by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned those newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance, but allowed them to vote if they took an oath favoring Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than required by the Ironclad Oath. In states where there was disenfranchisement the maximum percentage was 10–20% of otherwise eligible white voters; most states had much smaller percentages disenfranchised. In the South the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the hill counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.
In May 1884, President Chester Arthur signed the law repealing the remaining ironclad and jurors’ test-oath statutes
The Book I read talked about how the newly elected freed men would dress in their finest clothes and mimic aristocratic airs, and engage in exaggerated courtliness, but would produce no rational legislation.
At the time I didn't think much about it. It was just one section of the book, but i've never seen it mentioned in any other book i've seen since.
But again, thanks for the information you've provided. It supports the essential point that most whites were disenfranchised, and freedmen males were enfranchised, though i'm not sure what they did about the tax requirement for voting, at least in the early months after the end of the war.
Perhaps in a year or so, they would be paying taxes, but I hardly see how anyone was paying taxes in the later half of 1865. I'm thinking the Army suspended the tax requirement for voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.