La era de la Reconstrucción fue un período en la historia de los Estados Unidos y de la historia del sur de los Estados Unidos que siguió a la Guerra Civil estadounidense y estuvo dominada por los desafíos legales, sociales y políticos de la abolición de la esclavitud y la reintegración de los once antiguos Estados Confederados de América a los Estados Unidos. Durante este período, se añadieron tres enmiendas a la Constitución de los Estados Unidos para otorgar ciudadanía e igualdad de derechos civiles a los esclavos recién liberados . Para eludir estos logros legales, los antiguos estados confederados impusieron impuestos electorales y pruebas de alfabetización y recurrieron al terrorismo para intimidar y controlar a las personas de color y disuadirlas o impedirles votar. [2]
Durante toda la guerra, la Unión se enfrentó al problema de cómo administrar las áreas que capturaba y cómo manejar el flujo constante de esclavos que escapaban hacia las líneas de la Unión. En muchos casos, el Ejército de los Estados Unidos desempeñó un papel vital en el establecimiento de una economía de trabajo libre en el Sur, protegiendo los derechos legales de los libertos y creando instituciones educativas y religiosas. A pesar de su renuencia a interferir con la institución de la esclavitud, el Congreso aprobó las Leyes de Confiscación para apoderarse de los esclavos de los confederados, proporcionando un precedente para que el presidente Abraham Lincoln emitiera la Proclamación de Emancipación . Posteriormente, el Congreso estableció una Oficina de Libertos para proporcionar alimentos y refugio muy necesarios a los esclavos recién liberados.
Cuando se hizo evidente que la guerra terminaría con una victoria de la Unión, el Congreso debatió el proceso de readmisión de los estados secesionistas. Los republicanos radicales y moderados discreparon sobre la naturaleza de la secesión, las condiciones para la readmisión y la conveniencia de reformas sociales como consecuencia de la derrota confederada. Lincoln favoreció el " plan del diez por ciento " y vetó el proyecto de ley radical Wade-Davis , que proponía condiciones estrictas para la readmisión.
Lincoln fue asesinado el 14 de abril de 1865, justo cuando la lucha estaba llegando a su fin . Fue reemplazado por el presidente Andrew Johnson . Johnson vetó numerosos proyectos de ley republicanos radicales , indultó a miles de líderes confederados y permitió que los estados del Sur aprobaran códigos negros draconianos que restringían los derechos de los libertos. Sus acciones indignaron a muchos norteños y avivaron los temores de que la élite sureña recuperara su poder político. Los candidatos republicanos radicales llegaron al poder en las elecciones de mitad de período de 1866, obteniendo grandes mayorías en ambas cámaras del Congreso .
En 1867 y 1868, los republicanos radicales aprobaron las Leyes de Reconstrucción a pesar de los vetos de Johnson, estableciendo los términos por los cuales los antiguos estados confederados podían ser readmitidos en la Unión. Las convenciones constitucionales celebradas en todo el Sur dieron a los hombres negros el derecho a votar. Se establecieron nuevos gobiernos estatales por una coalición de libertos, sureños blancos solidarios y trasplantados del Norte . Se les opusieron los " redentores ", que buscaban restaurar la supremacía blanca y restablecer el control del Partido Demócrata de los gobiernos y la sociedad del Sur. Grupos violentos, incluido el Ku Klux Klan , la Liga Blanca y los Camisas Rojas , participaron en la insurgencia paramilitar y el terrorismo para interrumpir los esfuerzos de los gobiernos de la Reconstrucción y aterrorizar a los republicanos. [3] La ira del Congreso por los repetidos intentos del presidente Johnson de vetar la legislación radical condujo a su impeachment , pero no fue destituido de su cargo.
Bajo el sucesor de Johnson, el presidente Ulysses S. Grant , los republicanos radicales aprobaron leyes adicionales para hacer cumplir los derechos civiles, como la Ley del Ku Klux Klan y la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1875. Sin embargo, la continua resistencia a la Reconstrucción por parte de los blancos sureños y su alto costo contribuyeron a que perdiera apoyo en el Norte durante la administración de Grant. La elección presidencial de 1876 estuvo marcada por una supresión generalizada del voto negro en el Sur, y el resultado fue ajustado y disputado. Una Comisión Electoral dio como resultado el Compromiso de 1877 , que otorgó la elección al republicano Rutherford B. Hayes con el entendimiento de que las tropas federales se retirarían del Sur, poniendo fin de manera efectiva a la Reconstrucción. Los esfuerzos posteriores a la Guerra Civil para hacer cumplir las protecciones federales de los derechos civiles en el Sur terminaron en 1890 con el fracaso de la Ley Lodge .
Los historiadores siguen discrepando sobre el legado de la Reconstrucción. Las críticas a la misma se centran en el fracaso inicial en la prevención de la violencia, la corrupción, el hambre, las enfermedades y otros problemas. Algunos consideran que la política de la Unión hacia los esclavos liberados es inadecuada y su política hacia los antiguos propietarios de esclavos es demasiado indulgente. [4] Sin embargo, se atribuye a la Reconstrucción la restauración de la Unión federal, la limitación de las represalias contra el Sur y el establecimiento de un marco legal para la igualdad racial a través de los derechos constitucionales a la ciudadanía por nacimiento , el debido proceso , la igualdad de protección de las leyes y el sufragio masculino independientemente de la raza. [5]
La era de la Reconstrucción se fecha típicamente desde la Proclamación de Emancipación en 1863 hasta la retirada de las últimas tropas federales estacionadas en el Sur en 1877. [6] [7] Sin embargo, los historiadores han propuesto diferentes fechas de inicio y fin para la era de la Reconstrucción, y el período exacto de la Reconstrucción puede variar dependiendo del estado o del tema. [ cita requerida ]
En el siglo XX, la mayoría de los estudiosos de la era de la Reconstrucción comenzaron su revisión en 1865, con el fin de las hostilidades formales entre el Norte y el Sur. Sin embargo, en su monografía emblemática Reconstruction , el historiador Eric Foner propuso 1863, comenzando con la Proclamación de la Emancipación , el Experimento de Port Royal y el serio debate sobre las políticas de Reconstrucción durante la Guerra Civil. [8] [9] Muchos historiadores [¿ quiénes? ] ahora siguen esta periodización de 1863. [7]
El Parque Histórico Nacional de la Era de la Reconstrucción propuso 1861 como fecha de inicio, interpretando la Reconstrucción como el comienzo "tan pronto como la Unión capturó territorio en la Confederación" en Fort Monroe en Virginia y en las Islas del Mar de Carolina del Sur . Según los historiadores Downs y Masur, "la Reconstrucción comenzó cuando los primeros soldados estadounidenses llegaron al territorio esclavista y las personas esclavizadas escaparon de las plantaciones y granjas, algunas de ellas huyendo a estados libres y otras tratando de encontrar seguridad con las fuerzas estadounidenses". Poco después, comenzaron los primeros discursos y experimentos en serio con respecto a las políticas de Reconstrucción. Las políticas de Reconstrucción brindaron oportunidades a las poblaciones esclavizadas Gullah en las Islas del Mar que se liberaron de la noche a la mañana el 7 de noviembre de 1861, después de la Batalla de Port Royal , cuando todos los residentes blancos y los propietarios de esclavos huyeron del área después de la llegada de la Unión. Después de la Batalla de Port Royal, se implementaron políticas de reconstrucción bajo el Experimento de Port Royal que fueron la educación , la propiedad de la tierra y la reforma laboral. Esta transición a una sociedad libre se llamó "Ensayo para la Reconstrucción". [10] [11] [12] [13]
El final convencional de la Reconstrucción es 1877, cuando el gobierno federal retiró las últimas tropas estacionadas en el Sur como parte del Compromiso de 1877. [7] Sin embargo, algunos académicos [¿ quiénes? ] ofrecen fechas posteriores, como 1890, cuando los republicanos no lograron aprobar el Proyecto de Ley Lodge para asegurar los derechos de voto en el Sur. [13]
En la Guerra Civil estadounidense , once estados del Sur, todos los cuales permitían la esclavitud , se separaron de los Estados Unidos después de la elección del presidente Abraham Lincoln y formaron los Estados Confederados de América . Aunque Lincoln inicialmente declaró que la secesión era "legalmente nula" [14] y se negó a negociar con los delegados confederados en Washington, después del asalto confederado a la guarnición de la Unión en Fort Sumter , Lincoln declaró que existía "una ocasión extraordinaria" en el Sur y levantó un ejército para sofocar "combinaciones demasiado poderosas para ser suprimidas por el curso ordinario de los procedimientos judiciales". [15] Durante los siguientes cuatro años, se libraron 237 batallas con nombre entre los ejércitos de la Unión y la Confederación, lo que resultó en la disolución de los Estados Confederados en 1865. Durante la guerra, Lincoln emitió la Proclamación de Emancipación, que declaraba que "todas las personas mantenidas como esclavas" dentro del territorio confederado "son, y de ahora en adelante serán libres". [16]
La Guerra Civil tuvo inmensas implicaciones sociales para los Estados Unidos. La emancipación había alterado el estatus legal de 3,5 millones de personas, amenazaba con el fin de la economía de plantación del Sur y suscitaba preguntas sobre la desigualdad legal y social de las razas en los Estados Unidos. El fin de la guerra estuvo acompañado de una gran migración de personas recién liberadas a las ciudades, [17] donde fueron relegadas a los trabajos peor pagados, como el trabajo no calificado y el de servicios. Los hombres trabajaban como trabajadores ferroviarios, trabajadores de laminadores y aserraderos y trabajadores de hoteles. Las mujeres negras se limitaban en gran medida al trabajo doméstico, empleadas como cocineras, mucamas y niñeras, o en hoteles y lavanderías. La gran población de artesanos esclavos durante el período anterior a la guerra no se tradujo en un gran número de artesanos libres durante la Reconstrucción. [18] Los desplazamientos tuvieron un impacto negativo severo en la población negra, con una gran cantidad de enfermedades y muertes. [19]
Durante la guerra, Lincoln experimentó con la reforma agraria al otorgar tierras a los afroamericanos en Carolina del Sur . Habiendo perdido su enorme inversión en esclavos, los dueños de las plantaciones tenían un capital mínimo para pagar a los trabajadores libertos para que trajeran las cosechas. Como resultado, se desarrolló un sistema de aparcería , en el que los terratenientes dividían grandes plantaciones y alquilaban pequeñas parcelas a los libertos y sus familias. De este modo, la estructura principal de la economía sureña cambió de una minoría de élite de aristócratas terratenientes a un sistema de agricultura de arrendatarios . [20]
El historiador David W. Blight identificó tres visiones de las implicaciones sociales de la Reconstrucción: [21] [ página necesaria ]
La Guerra Civil tuvo un impacto económico y material devastador en el Sur, donde ocurrió la mayoría de los combates.
El enorme costo de la guerra confederada tuvo un alto costo para la infraestructura económica de la región. Los costos directos en capital humano , gastos gubernamentales y destrucción física totalizaron 3.300 millones de dólares. A principios de 1865, el dólar confederado tenía un valor casi nulo y el sistema bancario del Sur estaba en colapso al final de la guerra. En los lugares donde no se podían obtener los escasos dólares de la Unión, los residentes recurrían a un sistema de trueque . [20]
En 1861, los Estados Confederados contaban con 297 pueblos y ciudades, con una población total de 835.000 habitantes; de ellos, 162, con 681.000 habitantes, estuvieron ocupados en algún momento por las fuerzas de la Unión. Once ciudades fueron destruidas o gravemente dañadas por la acción militar, entre ellas Atlanta, Charleston, Columbia y Richmond, aunque la tasa de daños en los pueblos más pequeños fue mucho menor. [22] Las granjas estaban en mal estado y el ganado, las mulas y los caballos que había antes de la guerra se habían agotado. El cuarenta por ciento del ganado del Sur había muerto. [23] Las granjas del Sur no estaban muy mecanizadas, pero el valor de los aperos y la maquinaria agrícola, según el censo de 1860, era de 81 millones de dólares y se había reducido en un 40% en 1870. [24] La infraestructura de transporte estaba en ruinas y había pocos servicios de ferrocarril o barco fluvial disponibles para trasladar los cultivos y los animales al mercado. [25] La mayor parte de las líneas ferroviarias se encontraban en zonas rurales; más de dos tercios de los rieles, puentes, patios ferroviarios, talleres de reparación y material rodante del Sur se encontraban en áreas alcanzadas por los ejércitos de la Unión, que destruyeron sistemáticamente todo lo que pudieron. Incluso en áreas vírgenes, la falta de mantenimiento y reparación, la ausencia de nuevos equipos, el uso excesivo y la reubicación deliberada de equipos por parte de los confederados desde áreas remotas a la zona de guerra aseguraron que el sistema se arruinaría al final de la guerra. [22] Restaurar la infraestructura, especialmente el sistema ferroviario, se convirtió en una alta prioridad para los gobiernos estatales de la Reconstrucción. [26]
Más de una cuarta parte de los hombres blancos sureños en edad militar (la columna vertebral de la fuerza laboral blanca) murieron durante la guerra, dejando a sus familias en la indigencia [23] y el ingreso per cápita de los sureños blancos disminuyó de $125 en 1857 a un mínimo de $80 en 1879. A fines del siglo XIX y hasta bien entrado el siglo XX, el Sur estaba atrapado en un sistema de pobreza. En qué medida este fracaso fue causado por la guerra y por la dependencia previa de la esclavitud sigue siendo tema de debate entre economistas e historiadores [27] . Tanto en el Norte como en el Sur, la modernización y la industrialización fueron el foco de la recuperación de posguerra, basada en el crecimiento de las ciudades, los ferrocarriles, las fábricas y los bancos y liderada por republicanos radicales y ex whigs [28] [29]
.jpg/1280px-Wealth,_per_capita,_in_the_United_States,_from_9th_US_Census_(1872).jpg)
Desde sus orígenes, existieron dudas sobre la importancia legal de la Guerra Civil, si la secesión había ocurrido realmente y qué medidas, si las hubiera, eran necesarias para restaurar los gobiernos de los Estados Confederados. Por ejemplo, durante todo el conflicto, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos reconoció la legitimidad de un gobierno unionista en Virginia dirigido por Francis Harrison Pierpont desde Wheeling . (Este reconocimiento se volvió discutible cuando el gobierno de Pierpont separó los condados del noroeste del estado y solicitó la admisión como Virginia Occidental .) A medida que más territorios quedaron bajo el control de la Unión, se establecieron gobiernos reconstruidos en Tennessee, Arkansas y Luisiana. Los debates sobre la reconstrucción legal se centraron en si la secesión era legalmente válida, las implicaciones de la secesión para la naturaleza de los estados secesionistas y el método legítimo de su readmisión a la Unión. [ cita requerida ]
El primer plan de reconstrucción legal fue presentado por Lincoln en su Proclamación de Amnistía y Reconstrucción, el llamado " plan del diez por ciento ", según el cual se establecería un gobierno estatal unionista leal cuando el diez por ciento de sus votantes de 1860 juraran lealtad a la Unión, con un perdón completo para aquellos que prometieran tal juramento. En 1864, Luisiana, Tennessee y Arkansas habían establecido gobiernos unionistas en pleno funcionamiento bajo este plan. Sin embargo, el Congreso aprobó la Ley Wade-Davis en oposición, que en su lugar proponía que una mayoría de votantes debía jurar que nunca había apoyado al gobierno confederado y privaba del derecho al voto a todos los que lo habían hecho. Lincoln vetó la Ley Wade-Davis, pero estableció un conflicto duradero entre las visiones presidencial y del Congreso de la reconstrucción. [30] [31] [32]
Además del estatus legal de los estados secesionistas, el Congreso debatió las consecuencias legales para los veteranos confederados y otros que habían participado en "insurrecciones y rebeliones" contra el gobierno y los derechos legales de aquellos liberados de la esclavitud. Estos debates dieron como resultado las Enmiendas de Reconstrucción a la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. [ cita requerida ]
Durante la Guerra Civil, los líderes republicanos radicales argumentaron que la esclavitud y el poder esclavista debían ser destruidos de manera permanente. Los moderados dijeron que esto podría lograrse fácilmente tan pronto como el Ejército de los Estados Confederados se rindiera y los estados del Sur derogaran la secesión y aceptaran la Decimotercera Enmienda , lo cual ocurrió en su mayor parte en diciembre de 1865. [34]
Lincoln rompió con los radicales en 1864. La ley Wade-Davis de 1864 aprobada en el Congreso por los radicales fue diseñada para privar permanentemente de sus derechos al elemento confederado en el Sur. La ley pedía al gobierno que otorgara a los hombres afroamericanos el derecho a votar y que se le negara el derecho a votar a cualquiera que voluntariamente entregara armas para la lucha contra los Estados Unidos. La ley requería que los votantes, el cincuenta y uno por ciento de los varones blancos, hicieran el juramento de hierro en el que juraran que nunca habían apoyado a la Confederación ni habían sido uno de sus soldados. Este juramento también implicaba que juraran lealtad a la Constitución y a la Unión antes de poder tener reuniones constitucionales estatales. Lincoln lo bloqueó. Siguiendo una política de "malicia hacia nadie" anunciada en su segundo discurso inaugural, [35] Lincoln pidió a los votantes que solo apoyaran a la Unión en el futuro, independientemente del pasado. [31] Lincoln vetó de bolsillo la ley Wade-Davis, que era mucho más estricta que el plan del diez por ciento.
Tras el veto de Lincoln, los radicales perdieron apoyo pero recuperaron fuerza después del asesinato de Lincoln en abril de 1865. [ cita requerida ]
Tras el asesinato del presidente Lincoln en abril de 1865, el vicepresidente Andrew Johnson se convirtió en presidente. Los radicales consideraban a Johnson un aliado, pero al convertirse en presidente rechazó el programa radical de reconstrucción. Mantenía buenas relaciones con los ex confederados del sur y los ex Copperheads del norte. Designó a sus propios gobernadores e intentó cerrar el proceso de reconstrucción a fines de 1865. Thaddeus Stevens se opuso vehementemente a los planes de Johnson de poner fin abruptamente a la reconstrucción, insistiendo en que ésta debía "revolucionar las instituciones, los hábitos y las costumbres del sur... Los cimientos de sus instituciones... deben ser destruidos y reconstruidos, o toda nuestra sangre y nuestro tesoro se habrán gastado en vano". [36] Johnson rompió decisivamente con los republicanos en el Congreso cuando vetó la Ley de Derechos Civiles el 27 de marzo de 1866. Mientras los demócratas celebraban, los republicanos se unieron, aprobaron nuevamente el proyecto de ley y anularon el veto repetido de Johnson. [37] Ahora existía una guerra política a gran escala entre Johnson (ahora aliado con los demócratas) y los republicanos radicales. [38] [39]
Como la guerra había terminado, el Congreso rechazó el argumento de Johnson de que tenía el poder de guerra para decidir qué hacer. El Congreso decidió que tenía la autoridad primaria para decidir cómo debía proceder la Reconstrucción, porque la Constitución establecía que Estados Unidos tenía que garantizar a cada estado una forma republicana de gobierno . Los radicales insistieron en que eso significaba que el Congreso decidía cómo debía lograrse la Reconstrucción. Las cuestiones eran múltiples: ¿Quién debía decidir, el Congreso o el presidente? ¿Cómo debía operar el republicanismo en el Sur? ¿Cuál era el estatus de los antiguos estados confederados? ¿Cuál era el estatus de ciudadanía de los líderes de la Confederación? ¿Cuál era el estatus de ciudadanía y sufragio de los libertos? [40]
Después de terminar la guerra, el presidente Andrew Johnson devolvió la mayor parte de las tierras a los antiguos propietarios de esclavos blancos. [ cita requerida ]
En 1866, la facción de republicanos radicales liderada por el representante Thaddeus Stevens y el senador Charles Sumner estaba convencida de que los designados sureños de Johnson eran desleales a la Unión, hostiles a los unionistas leales y enemigos de los libertos. Los radicales utilizaron como prueba los brotes de violencia de las turbas contra los negros, como los disturbios de Memphis de 1866 y la masacre de Nueva Orleans de 1866. Los republicanos radicales exigieron una respuesta federal rápida y contundente para proteger a los libertos y frenar el racismo sureño. [41]
Stevens y sus seguidores consideraron que la secesión había dejado a los estados en un estatus similar al de los nuevos territorios. Sumner argumentó que la secesión había destruido la condición de estado, pero que la Constitución aún extendía su autoridad y su protección sobre los individuos, como en los territorios estadounidenses existentes . Los republicanos intentaron evitar que los políticos sureños de Johnson "restauraran la subordinación histórica de los negros". Dado que se abolió la esclavitud, el Compromiso de los Tres Quintos ya no se aplicaba al recuento de la población de negros. Después del censo de 1870, el Sur obtendría numerosos representantes adicionales en el Congreso, en base a la población total de libertos. [i] Un republicano de Illinois expresó un temor común de que si se permitía al Sur simplemente restaurar sus poderes establecidos previamente, la "recompensa de la traición sería una mayor representación". [42] [43] [ página necesaria ]
Las elecciones de 1866 cambiaron decisivamente el equilibrio de poder, dando a los republicanos mayorías de dos tercios en ambas cámaras del Congreso y votos suficientes para superar los vetos de Johnson. Decidieron enjuiciar a Johnson debido a sus constantes intentos de frustrar las medidas de Reconstrucción Radical, utilizando la Ley de Duración del Cargo . Johnson fue absuelto por un voto, pero perdió la influencia para dar forma a la política de Reconstrucción. [44]
En 1867, el Congreso aprobó las Leyes de Reconstrucción de 1867 que delineaban los términos en los que los estados rebeldes serían readmitidos en la Unión. Bajo estas leyes, el Congreso republicano estableció distritos militares en el Sur y utilizó personal del Ejército para administrar la región hasta que pudieran establecerse nuevos gobiernos leales a la Unión, que aceptaran la Decimocuarta Enmienda y el derecho de los libertos a votar. El Congreso suspendió temporalmente la capacidad de votar de aproximadamente 10.000 a 15.000 ex funcionarios confederados y altos oficiales, mientras que las enmiendas constitucionales dieron ciudadanía plena a todos los afroamericanos y sufragio a los hombres adultos. [45] Con el poder de votar, los libertos comenzaron a participar en la política. Si bien muchas personas esclavizadas eran analfabetas, los negros educados (incluidos los esclavos fugitivos ) se mudaron desde el Norte para ayudarlos, y los líderes naturales también dieron un paso al frente. Eligieron a hombres blancos y negros para que los representaran en las convenciones constitucionales. Una coalición republicana de libertos, sureños partidarios de la Unión (a los que los demócratas blancos llamaban despectivamente " scalawags ") y norteños que habían emigrado al Sur (a los que los demócratas blancos llamaban despectivamente " carpetbaggers ") —algunos de los cuales eran nativos que regresaban, pero en su mayoría veteranos de la Unión— se organizaron para crear convenciones constitucionales. Crearon nuevas constituciones estatales para fijar nuevos rumbos para los estados del Sur. [46]
El Congreso tuvo que estudiar cómo restaurar el estatus y la representación plenos dentro de la Unión a aquellos estados del Sur que habían declarado su independencia de los Estados Unidos y habían retirado su representación. El sufragio de los antiguos confederados era una de las dos preocupaciones principales. Había que decidir si se permitía votar (y ocupar cargos) sólo a algunos o a todos los antiguos confederados. Los moderados del Congreso querían que votaran prácticamente todos, pero los radicales se resistieron. Impusieron repetidamente el Juramento de Hierro, que en la práctica no habría permitido votar a ningún antiguo confederado. El historiador Harold Hyman dice que en 1866 los congresistas "describieron el juramento como el último baluarte contra el regreso de los antiguos rebeldes al poder, la barrera tras la cual se protegían los unionistas y los negros del Sur". [47]
El líder republicano radical Thaddeus Stevens propuso, sin éxito, que todos los ex confederados perdieran el derecho a votar durante cinco años. El compromiso al que se llegó privó del derecho al voto a muchos líderes civiles y militares confederados. Nadie sabe cuántos perdieron temporalmente el derecho al voto, pero una estimación situó la cifra en entre 10.000 y 15.000. [48] Sin embargo, los políticos radicales asumieron la tarea a nivel estatal. Sólo en Tennessee, más de 80.000 ex confederados fueron privados del derecho al voto. [49]
En segundo lugar, y estrechamente relacionado con esto, estaba la cuestión de si los 4 millones de libertos iban a ser recibidos como ciudadanos: ¿podrían votar? Si se los iba a contar plenamente como ciudadanos, se tenía que determinar algún tipo de representación para la distribución de los escaños en el Congreso. Antes de la guerra, la población de esclavos se había contabilizado como tres quintos de un número correspondiente de blancos libres. Al tener 4 millones de libertos contabilizados como ciudadanos de pleno derecho, el Sur ganaría escaños adicionales en el Congreso. Si a los negros se les negaba el voto y el derecho a ocupar cargos públicos, entonces sólo los blancos los representarían. Muchos, incluida la mayoría de los sureños blancos, los demócratas del Norte y algunos republicanos del Norte, se oponían al derecho al voto de los afroamericanos. La pequeña fracción de votantes republicanos opuestos al sufragio negro contribuyó a las derrotas de varias medidas de sufragio votadas en la mayoría de los estados del Norte. [50] Algunos estados del Norte que tuvieron referendos sobre el tema limitaron la capacidad de sus propias pequeñas poblaciones de negros para votar.
Lincoln había apoyado una posición intermedia: permitir que algunos hombres negros votaran, especialmente los veteranos del ejército estadounidense . Johnson también creía que ese servicio debía ser recompensado con la ciudadanía. Lincoln propuso dar el voto a "los muy inteligentes, y especialmente a aquellos que han luchado valientemente en nuestras filas". [51] En 1864, el gobernador Johnson dijo: "La clase más pudiente de ellos irá a trabajar y se mantendrá a sí misma, y a esa clase se le debe permitir votar, sobre la base de que un negro leal es más digno que un hombre blanco desleal". [52]
Como presidente en 1865, Johnson escribió al hombre que nombró gobernador de Mississippi, recomendándole: "Si pudiera extender el derecho al voto a todas las personas de color que pueden leer la Constitución en inglés y escribir sus nombres, y a todas las personas de color que poseen bienes raíces valuados al menos en doscientos cincuenta dólares y pagan impuestos sobre ellos, desarmaría completamente al adversario [los radicales en el Congreso] y daría un ejemplo que los demás estados seguirán". [53]
Charles Sumner y Thaddeus Stevens, líderes de los republicanos radicales, se mostraron inicialmente reticentes a conceder el derecho al voto a los libertos, en su mayoría analfabetos. Sumner prefirió en un principio establecer requisitos imparciales que impusieran restricciones a la alfabetización de negros y blancos. Creía que no lograría aprobar una legislación que privara del derecho al voto a los blancos analfabetos que ya tenían derecho a voto. [54]
En el Sur, muchos blancos pobres eran analfabetos, ya que antes de la guerra casi no había educación pública . En 1880, por ejemplo, la tasa de analfabetismo entre los blancos era de alrededor del 25% en Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Carolina del Sur y Georgia, y de hasta el 33% en Carolina del Norte. Esto se compara con la tasa nacional del 9% y una tasa de analfabetismo entre los negros que superaba el 70% en el Sur. [55] Sin embargo, en 1900, con el énfasis puesto en la educación dentro de la comunidad negra, la mayoría de los negros habían alcanzado la alfabetización. [56]
Sumner pronto concluyó que "no había protección sustancial para el liberto excepto en el derecho al voto". Esto era necesario, afirmó, "(1) para su propia protección; (2) para la protección del unionista blanco; y (3) para la paz del país. Pusimos el mosquete en sus manos porque era necesario; por la misma razón debemos darle el derecho al voto". El apoyo al derecho al voto fue un compromiso entre republicanos moderados y radicales. [57]
Los republicanos creían que la mejor manera de que los hombres adquirieran experiencia política era poder votar y participar en el sistema político. Aprobaron leyes que permitían votar a todos los hombres libertos. En 1867, los hombres negros votaron por primera vez. Durante la Reconstrucción, más de 1.500 afroamericanos ocuparon cargos públicos en el Sur; algunos de ellos eran hombres que habían escapado al Norte y obtenido educación, y regresaron al Sur. No ocupaban cargos en cantidades representativas de su proporción en la población, pero a menudo elegían a blancos para que los representaran. [58] [ página requerida ] También se debatió la cuestión del sufragio femenino , pero fue rechazada. [59] [ página requerida ] Las mujeres finalmente obtuvieron el derecho a votar con la Decimonovena Enmienda a la Constitución de los Estados Unidos en 1920. [ cita requerida ]
Entre 1890 y 1908, los estados del Sur aprobaron nuevas constituciones y leyes estatales que privaron del derecho al voto a la mayoría de los negros y a decenas de miles de blancos pobres, con nuevas normas electorales y de registro de votantes. Al establecer nuevos requisitos, como pruebas de alfabetización administradas de forma subjetiva , en algunos estados se utilizaron " cláusulas de exención " para permitir que los blancos analfabetos votaran. [60]
Las cinco tribus civilizadas que habían sido reubicadas en el Territorio Indio (ahora parte de Oklahoma ) tenían esclavos negros y firmaron tratados de apoyo a la Confederación. Durante la guerra, se desató una guerra entre los nativos americanos pro-Unión y los anti-Unión. El Congreso aprobó una ley que le dio al presidente la autoridad para suspender las asignaciones de cualquier tribu si la tribu está "en un estado de hostilidad real hacia el gobierno de los Estados Unidos... y, mediante proclamación, declarar que todos los tratados con dicha tribu son derogados por dicha tribu". [61] [62]
Como parte de la Reconstrucción, el Departamento del Interior ordenó una reunión de representantes de todas las tribus indígenas que se habían afiliado a la Confederación. [63] El consejo, la Comisión del Tratado del Sur , se celebró por primera vez en Fort Smith, Arkansas , en septiembre de 1865, y asistieron cientos de nativos americanos que representaban a docenas de tribus. Durante los siguientes años, la comisión negoció tratados con las tribus que dieron como resultado reubicaciones adicionales en el Territorio Indio y la creación de facto (inicialmente por tratado) de un Territorio de Oklahoma no organizado . [ cita requerida ]
El presidente Lincoln firmó dos leyes de confiscación , la primera el 6 de agosto de 1861 y la segunda el 17 de julio de 1862, que protegían a los esclavos fugitivos que cruzaban las fronteras de la Unión desde la Confederación y les otorgaban una emancipación indirecta si sus amos continuaban la insurrección contra los Estados Unidos. Las leyes permitían la confiscación de tierras para la colonización de quienes ayudaron y apoyaron la rebelión. Sin embargo, estas leyes tuvieron un efecto limitado, ya que estaban mal financiadas por el Congreso y eran mal aplicadas por el fiscal general Edward Bates . [64] [65] [66]
En agosto de 1861, el mayor general John C. Frémont , comandante de la Unión del Departamento Occidental, declaró la ley marcial en Misuri , confiscó las propiedades confederadas y emancipó a sus esclavos. Lincoln ordenó inmediatamente a Frémont que rescindiera su declaración de emancipación, afirmando: "Creo que existe un gran peligro de que ... la liberación de esclavos de propietarios traidores, alarme a nuestros amigos de la Unión del Sur y los vuelva contra nosotros, tal vez arruinando nuestra justa perspectiva para Kentucky". Después de que Frémont se negara a rescindir la orden de emancipación, Lincoln lo despidió del servicio activo el 2 de noviembre de 1861. A Lincoln le preocupaba que los estados fronterizos se separaran de la Unión si se les daba la libertad a los esclavos. El 26 de mayo de 1862, el mayor general de la Unión David Hunter emancipó a los esclavos en Carolina del Sur, Georgia y Florida, declarando a todas las "personas ... hasta ahora mantenidas como esclavas ... libres para siempre". Lincoln, avergonzado por la orden, anuló la declaración de Hunter y canceló la emancipación. [67]
El 16 de abril de 1862, Lincoln firmó una ley que prohibía la esclavitud en Washington, DC, y liberaba a los aproximadamente 3.500 esclavos que había en la ciudad. El 19 de junio de 1862, firmó una ley que prohibía la esclavitud en todos los territorios de los Estados Unidos. El 17 de julio de 1862, en virtud de la autoridad de las Leyes de Confiscación y una Ley de Fuerza enmendada de 1795, autorizó el reclutamiento de esclavos liberados en el Ejército de los Estados Unidos y la confiscación de cualquier propiedad confederada para fines militares. [66] [68] [69]
En un esfuerzo por mantener a los estados fronterizos en la Unión, Lincoln, ya en 1861, diseñó programas de emancipación gradual compensada pagados por bonos del gobierno. Lincoln deseaba que Delaware , Maryland , Kentucky y Missouri "adoptaran un sistema de emancipación gradual que debería lograr la extinción de la esclavitud en veinte años". El 26 de marzo de 1862, Lincoln se reunió con el senador Charles Sumner y recomendó que se convocara una sesión conjunta especial del Congreso para discutir la concesión de ayuda financiera a cualquier estado fronterizo que iniciara un plan de emancipación gradual . En abril de 1862, se reunió la sesión conjunta del Congreso; sin embargo, los estados fronterizos no estaban interesados y no respondieron a Lincoln ni a ninguna propuesta de emancipación del Congreso. [70] Lincoln abogó por la emancipación compensada durante la Conferencia de Hampton Roads . [ cita requerida ]
En agosto de 1862, Lincoln se reunió con líderes afroamericanos y los instó a colonizar algún lugar de América Central . Lincoln planeaba liberar a los esclavos del Sur en la Proclamación de Emancipación y le preocupaba que los libertos no fueran bien tratados en los Estados Unidos por los blancos tanto del Norte como del Sur. Aunque Lincoln dio garantías de que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos apoyaría y protegería cualquier colonia que se estableciera para los antiguos esclavos, los líderes rechazaron la oferta de colonización. Muchos negros libres se habían opuesto a los planes de colonización en el pasado porque querían permanecer en los Estados Unidos. Lincoln persistió en su plan de colonización en la creencia de que la emancipación y la colonización eran parte del mismo programa. En abril de 1863, Lincoln logró enviar colonos negros a Haití , así como 453 a Chiriquí en América Central; sin embargo, ninguna de las colonias pudo seguir siendo autosuficiente. Frederick Douglass , un destacado activista de los derechos civiles estadounidense del siglo XIX , criticó a Lincoln al afirmar que estaba "mostrando todas sus inconsistencias, su orgullo de raza y sangre, su desprecio por los negros y su hipócrita hipocresía". Los afroamericanos, según Douglass, querían ciudadanía y derechos civiles en lugar de colonias. Los historiadores no están seguros de si Lincoln abandonó la idea de la colonización afroamericana a fines de 1863 o si realmente planeó continuar con esta política hasta 1865. [66] [70] [71]
A partir de marzo de 1862, en un esfuerzo por impedir la Reconstrucción por parte de los radicales en el Congreso, Lincoln instaló gobernadores militares en ciertos estados rebeldes bajo control militar de la Unión. [72] Aunque los estados no serían reconocidos por los radicales hasta un tiempo indeterminado, la instalación de gobernadores militares mantuvo la administración de la Reconstrucción bajo el control presidencial, en lugar de la del cada vez más antipático Congreso Radical. El 3 de marzo de 1862, Lincoln instaló a un demócrata leal, el senador Andrew Johnson, como gobernador militar con el rango de general de brigada en su estado natal de Tennessee. [73] En mayo de 1862, Lincoln nombró a Edward Stanly gobernador militar de la región costera de Carolina del Norte con el rango de general de brigada. Stanly renunció casi un año después cuando enfureció a Lincoln al cerrar dos escuelas para niños negros en New Bern . Después de que Lincoln instalara al general de brigada George Foster Shepley como gobernador militar de Luisiana en mayo de 1862, Shepley envió a dos representantes antiesclavistas, Benjamin Flanders y Michael Hahn , elegidos en diciembre de 1862, a la Cámara, que capituló y votó para que se sentaran. En julio de 1862, Lincoln instaló al coronel John S. Phelps como gobernador militar de Arkansas, aunque renunció poco después debido a problemas de salud. [74] [ página requerida ]
En julio de 1862, Lincoln se convenció de que era "una necesidad militar" luchar contra la esclavitud para ganar la Guerra Civil para la Unión. Las Leyes de Confiscación sólo estaban teniendo un efecto mínimo para poner fin a la esclavitud. El 22 de julio, escribió un primer borrador de la Proclamación de Emancipación que liberaba a los esclavos en los estados en rebelión. Después de mostrarle el documento a su Gabinete, se hicieron ligeras modificaciones en la redacción. Lincoln decidió que la derrota de la invasión confederada del Norte en Sharpsburg era una victoria en el campo de batalla suficiente para permitirle publicar la Proclamación de Emancipación preliminar que daba a los rebeldes 100 días para regresar a la Unión o se emitiría la proclamación real. [ cita requerida ]
El 1 de enero de 1863 se promulgó la Proclamación de Emancipación, que nombraba específicamente 10 estados en los que los esclavos serían "libres para siempre". La proclama no mencionaba los estados de Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland y Delaware, y excluía específicamente numerosos condados de otros estados. Finalmente, a medida que el ejército estadounidense avanzaba hacia la Confederación, millones de esclavos fueron liberados. Muchos de estos libertos se unieron al ejército estadounidense y lucharon en batallas contra las fuerzas confederadas. [66] [71] [75] Sin embargo, cientos de miles de esclavos liberados murieron durante la emancipación a causa de enfermedades que devastaron los regimientos del ejército. Los esclavos liberados sufrieron viruela, fiebre amarilla y desnutrición. [76]
Lincoln estaba decidido a lograr una rápida restauración de los estados confederados a la Unión después de la Guerra Civil. En 1863, propuso un plan moderado para la reconstrucción del estado confederado capturado de Luisiana. El plan otorgaba amnistía a los rebeldes que hicieran un juramento de lealtad a la Unión. Los trabajadores negros libertos estaban atados a trabajar en las plantaciones durante un año a un salario de 10 dólares al mes. [77] Solo el 10% del electorado del estado tenía que hacer el juramento de lealtad para que el estado fuera readmitido en el Congreso de los EE. UU. El estado estaba obligado a abolir la esclavitud en su nueva constitución estatal. Se adoptarían planes de reconstrucción idénticos en Arkansas y Tennessee. En diciembre de 1864, el plan de reconstrucción de Lincoln se había promulgado en Luisiana y la legislatura envió a dos senadores y cinco representantes a ocupar sus escaños en Washington. Sin embargo, el Congreso se negó a contar ninguno de los votos de Luisiana, Arkansas y Tennessee, rechazando en esencia el plan de reconstrucción moderado de Lincoln. El Congreso, en ese momento controlado por los radicales, propuso el proyecto de ley Wade-Davis que exigía que la mayoría de los electorados estatales prestaran juramento de lealtad para ser admitidos en el Congreso. Lincoln vetó el proyecto de ley y la brecha se amplió entre los moderados, preocupados principalmente por preservar la Unión y ganar la guerra, y los radicales, que querían lograr un cambio más completo dentro de la sociedad sureña. [78] [79] Frederick Douglass denunció el plan de Lincoln de un electorado del 10% como antidemocrático, ya que la admisión y la lealtad a los estados solo dependían del voto de una minoría. [80]
Antes de 1864, los matrimonios de esclavos no habían sido reconocidos legalmente; la emancipación no los afectó. [17] Cuando fueron liberados, muchos buscaron matrimonios oficiales. Antes de la emancipación, los esclavos no podían celebrar contratos, incluido el contrato matrimonial. No todas las personas libres formalizaron sus uniones. Algunos continuaron teniendo matrimonios de hecho o relaciones reconocidas por la comunidad. [81] El reconocimiento del matrimonio por parte del estado aumentó el reconocimiento del estado de las personas liberadas como actores legales y eventualmente ayudó a defender los derechos parentales de las personas liberadas contra la práctica del aprendizaje de los niños negros. [82] Estos niños fueron separados legalmente de sus familias con el pretexto de "proporcionarles tutela y hogares 'buenos' hasta que alcanzaran la edad de consentimiento a los veintiún años" en virtud de leyes como la Ley de Aprendices de Georgia de 1866. [83] Estos niños generalmente eran utilizados como fuentes de trabajo no remunerado.
El 3 de marzo de 1865, se promulgó la Ley de la Oficina de los Libertos , patrocinada por los republicanos para ayudar a los libertos y a los refugiados blancos. Se creó una oficina federal para proporcionar alimentos, ropa, combustible y asesoramiento sobre la negociación de contratos laborales. Intentó supervisar las nuevas relaciones entre los libertos y sus antiguos amos en un mercado laboral libre. La ley, sin deferencia hacia el color de la piel de una persona, autorizó a la oficina a arrendar tierras confiscadas por un período de tres años y a venderlas en porciones de hasta 40 acres (16 ha) por comprador. La oficina expiraría un año después de la finalización de la guerra. Lincoln fue asesinado antes de que pudiera nombrar a un comisionado de la oficina. [ cita requerida ]
Con la ayuda de la oficina, los esclavos recientemente liberados comenzaron a votar, a formar partidos políticos y a asumir el control de la mano de obra en muchas áreas. La oficina ayudó a iniciar un cambio de poder en el Sur que atrajo la atención nacional de los republicanos del Norte a los demócratas del Sur. Esto es especialmente evidente en la elección entre Grant y Seymour (Johnson no obtuvo la nominación demócrata), donde casi 700.000 votantes negros votaron e inclinaron la elección 300.000 votos a favor de Grant. [ cita requerida ]
A pesar de los beneficios que les otorgaba a los libertos, la Oficina de los Libertos no podía operar de manera efectiva en ciertas áreas. El Ku Klux Klan era el enemigo de la Oficina de los Libertos, pues aterrorizaba a los libertos por intentar votar, ocupar un cargo político o poseer tierras. [84] [85] [86]
Se firmó otra legislación que amplió la igualdad y los derechos de los afroamericanos. Lincoln prohibió la discriminación por motivos de color, en el transporte de correo de Estados Unidos, en los tranvías públicos de Washington, DC y en el pago de los salarios de los soldados. [87]
El 3 de febrero de 1865, Lincoln y el secretario de Estado William H. Seward se reunieron con tres representantes del Sur para discutir la reconstrucción pacífica de la Unión y la Confederación en Hampton Roads , Virginia. La delegación del Sur incluía al vicepresidente confederado Alexander H. Stephens , John Archibald Campbell y Robert MT Hunter . Los sureños propusieron el reconocimiento de la Confederación por parte de la Unión, un ataque conjunto de la Unión y la Confederación a México para derrocar al emperador Maximiliano I y un estatus alternativo de subordinación de servidumbre para los negros en lugar de esclavitud. Lincoln rechazó de plano el reconocimiento de la Confederación y dijo que los esclavos amparados por su Proclamación de Emancipación no serían esclavizados de nuevo. Dijo que los estados de la Unión estaban a punto de aprobar la Decimotercera Enmienda, que proscribía la esclavitud. Lincoln instó al gobernador de Georgia a retirar las tropas confederadas y "ratificar esta enmienda constitucional de forma prospectiva , para que entre en vigor, digamos en cinco años... La esclavitud está condenada". Lincoln también instó a una emancipación compensatoria para los esclavos, pues pensaba que el Norte debería estar dispuesto a compartir los costos de la libertad. Aunque la reunión fue cordial, las partes no llegaron a acuerdos. [88]
Lincoln siguió defendiendo su Plan de Luisiana como modelo para todos los estados hasta su asesinato el 15 de abril de 1865. El plan inició con éxito el proceso de Reconstrucción al ratificar la Decimotercera Enmienda en todos los estados. Lincoln es retratado típicamente como alguien que toma una posición moderada y lucha contra las posiciones radicales. Existe un considerable debate sobre cuán bien Lincoln, si hubiera vivido, habría manejado al Congreso durante el proceso de Reconstrucción que tuvo lugar después de que terminó la Guerra Civil. Un grupo histórico sostiene que la flexibilidad, el pragmatismo y las habilidades políticas superiores de Lincoln con el Congreso habrían resuelto la Reconstrucción con mucha menos dificultad. El otro grupo cree que los radicales habrían intentado destituir a Lincoln, tal como lo hicieron con su sucesor, Andrew Johnson, en 1868. [31] [78]
La ira del Norte por el asesinato de Lincoln y el inmenso costo humano de la guerra condujo a demandas de políticas punitivas. El vicepresidente Andrew Johnson había adoptado una línea dura y habló de ahorcar a los confederados, pero cuando sucedió a Lincoln como presidente, Johnson adoptó una posición mucho más suave, perdonando a muchos líderes confederados y otros ex confederados. [39] El ex presidente confederado Jefferson Davis fue encarcelado durante dos años, pero otros líderes confederados no. No hubo juicios por cargos de traición. Solo tres personas —el capitán Henry Wirz , comandante del campo de prisioneros en Andersonville, Georgia , y los líderes guerrilleros Champ Ferguson y Henry C. Magruder— fueron ejecutadas por crímenes de guerra. La visión racista de Andrew Johnson de la Reconstrucción no incluía la participación de los negros en el gobierno, y se negó a prestar atención a las preocupaciones del Norte cuando las legislaturas estatales del Sur implementaron los Códigos Negros que establecían el estatus de los libertos mucho más bajo que el de los blancos. [30]
Smith sostiene que "Johnson intentó llevar adelante lo que él consideraba los planes de Lincoln para la Reconstrucción". [89] McKitrick dice que en 1865 Johnson tenía un fuerte apoyo en el Partido Republicano, diciendo: "Fue naturalmente del gran sector moderado de la opinión unionista en el Norte de donde Johnson pudo sacar su mayor consuelo". [90] Ray Allen Billington dice: "Una facción, los republicanos moderados bajo el liderazgo de los presidentes Abraham Lincoln y Andrew Johnson, favorecieron una política suave hacia el Sur". [91] David A. Lincove, citando a los biógrafos de Lincoln James G. Randall y Richard N. Current , argumentó que: [92]
Es probable que, si hubiera vivido, Lincoln hubiera seguido una política similar a la de Johnson, que se hubiera enfrentado a los radicales del Congreso, que hubiera producido un resultado mejor para los libertos que el que obtuvo y que sus habilidades políticas lo hubieran ayudado a evitar los errores de Johnson.
Los historiadores generalmente coinciden en que el presidente Johnson era un político inepto que perdió todas sus ventajas por maniobras inexpertas. Rompió con el Congreso a principios de 1866 y luego se volvió desafiante e intentó bloquear la aplicación de las leyes de Reconstrucción aprobadas por el Congreso de los EE. UU. Estuvo en constante conflicto constitucional con los radicales en el Congreso sobre el estatus de los libertos y los blancos en el Sur derrotado. [93] Aunque se resignaron a la abolición de la esclavitud, muchos ex confederados no estaban dispuestos a aceptar tanto los cambios sociales como la dominación política por parte de los ex esclavos. En palabras de Benjamin Franklin Perry , la elección del presidente Johnson como gobernador provisional de Carolina del Sur: "Primero, el negro debe ser investido con todo el poder político, y luego el antagonismo de intereses entre el capital y el trabajo debe resolver el resultado". [94]
Sin embargo, los temores de la élite de los plantadores y otros ciudadanos blancos importantes se vieron parcialmente apaciguados por las acciones del presidente Johnson, que se aseguró de que no se produjera una redistribución masiva de tierras de los plantadores a los libertos. El presidente Johnson ordenó que las tierras confiscadas o abandonadas administradas por la Oficina de los Libertos no se redistribuirían a los libertos, sino que se devolverían a los propietarios indultados. Se devolvieron tierras que habrían sido confiscadas en virtud de las Leyes de Confiscación aprobadas por el Congreso en 1861 y 1862. [ cita requerida ]
Los gobiernos de los estados del sur promulgaron rápidamente los restrictivos " Códigos Negros ". Sin embargo, fueron abolidos en 1866 y rara vez tuvieron efecto, porque la Oficina de los Libertos (no los tribunales locales) se ocupaba de los asuntos legales de los libertos.
Los Códigos Negros indicaban los planes de los blancos sureños para los antiguos esclavos. [95] Los libertos tendrían más derechos que los negros libres antes de la guerra, pero seguirían teniendo sólo derechos civiles de segunda clase, sin derecho a voto ni ciudadanía. No podrían poseer armas de fuego, formar parte de un jurado en un juicio que involucrara a blancos ni desplazarse sin empleo. [96] Los Códigos Negros indignaron a la opinión norteña. Fueron derrocados por la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1866 que dio a los libertos más igualdad legal (aunque todavía sin derecho a voto). [97]
Los libertos, con el fuerte respaldo de la Oficina de Libertos, rechazaron los patrones de trabajo en cuadrillas que se habían utilizado en la esclavitud. En lugar del trabajo en cuadrillas, las personas liberadas preferían los grupos de trabajo basados en la familia. [98] Obligaron a los plantadores a negociar su trabajo. Dicha negociación pronto condujo al establecimiento del sistema de aparcería , que dio a los libertos mayor independencia económica y autonomía social que el trabajo en cuadrillas. Sin embargo, debido a que carecían de capital y los plantadores seguían siendo dueños de los medios de producción (herramientas, animales de tiro y tierra), los libertos se vieron obligados a producir cultivos comerciales (principalmente algodón) para los terratenientes y comerciantes, y entraron en un sistema de gravámenes sobre los cultivos . La pobreza generalizada, la perturbación de una economía agrícola demasiado dependiente del algodón y la caída del precio del algodón llevaron en cuestión de décadas al endeudamiento rutinario de la mayoría de los libertos y a la pobreza de muchos plantadores. [99]
Los funcionarios del Norte dieron informes variados sobre las condiciones de los libertos en el Sur. Una evaluación dura provino de Carl Schurz , quien informó sobre la situación en los estados a lo largo de la Costa del Golfo. Su informe documentó docenas de ejecuciones extrajudiciales y afirmó que cientos o miles de afroamericanos más fueron asesinados: [100]
El número de asesinatos y agresiones perpetrados contra los negros es muy grande; sólo podemos hacernos una idea aproximada de lo que ocurre en aquellas partes del Sur que no están fuertemente guarnecidas y de las que no se reciben informes regulares, basándonos en lo que ocurre ante los propios ojos de nuestras autoridades militares. En cuanto a mi experiencia personal, sólo mencionaré que durante mi estancia de dos días en Atlanta, un negro fue apuñalado con efecto fatal en la calle y tres fueron envenenados, uno de los cuales murió. Mientras estuve en Montgomery, un negro fue cortado en la garganta evidentemente con la intención de matar, y otro recibió un disparo, pero ambos escaparon con vida. Varios documentos adjuntos a este informe dan cuenta del número de casos de pena capital que ocurrieron en ciertos lugares durante un período de tiempo determinado. Es un hecho triste que la perpetración de esos actos no se limita a esa clase de gente que podría llamarse la chusma.
El informe incluía testimonios jurados de soldados y funcionarios de la Oficina de Libertos. En Selma, Alabama , el mayor JP Houston señaló que los blancos que mataron a 12 afroamericanos en su distrito nunca fueron juzgados. Muchos otros asesinatos nunca se convirtieron en casos oficiales. El capitán Poillon describió las patrullas blancas en el suroeste de Alabama: [100]
Los libertos, desconcertados y aterrorizados, no saben qué hacer: irse es la muerte; quedarse es sufrir la carga aumentada que les impone el cruel capataz, cuyo único interés es su trabajo, arrancado de ellos por todos los medios que un ingenio inhumano puede idear; por eso se recurre al látigo y al asesinato para intimidar a aquellos a quienes el solo temor a una muerte terrible hace que se queden, mientras patrullas, perros negros y espías, disfrazados de yanquis, mantienen una vigilancia constante sobre esta gente desafortunada.
Gran parte de la violencia que se perpetró contra los afroamericanos estuvo determinada por los prejuicios de género con respecto a ellos. Las mujeres negras estaban en una situación particularmente vulnerable. Condenar a un hombre blanco por agredir sexualmente a mujeres negras en este período era extremadamente difícil. [101] [ página requerida ] El sistema judicial del Sur había sido completamente reconfigurado para hacer que uno de sus propósitos principales fuera la coerción de los afroamericanos para que cumplieran con las costumbres sociales y las demandas laborales de los blancos. [ más explicación necesaria ] [ cita requerida ] Se desalentaron los juicios y era difícil encontrar abogados para los acusados de delitos menores negros. El objetivo de los tribunales del condado era un juicio rápido y sin complicaciones con una condena resultante. La mayoría de los negros no podían pagar sus multas o fianzas, y "la pena más común era de nueve meses a un año en una mina de esclavos o un campamento maderero". [102] El sistema judicial del Sur estaba amañado para generar tarifas y reclamar recompensas, no para garantizar la protección pública. Las mujeres negras eran percibidas socialmente como sexualmente avaras y, dado que se las retrataba como personas con pocas virtudes, la sociedad sostenía que no podían ser violadas. [103] Un informe indica que dos mujeres liberadas, Frances Thompson y Lucy Smith, describieron su violenta agresión sexual durante los disturbios de Memphis de 1866. [ 104] Sin embargo, las mujeres negras eran vulnerables incluso en tiempos de relativa normalidad. Las agresiones sexuales a mujeres afroamericanas eran tan generalizadas, particularmente por parte de sus empleadores blancos, que los hombres negros buscaban reducir el contacto entre hombres blancos y mujeres negras haciendo que las mujeres de su familia evitaran hacer trabajos que fueran supervisados de cerca por blancos. [105] Los hombres negros eran considerados extremadamente agresivos sexualmente y sus supuestas o rumoreadas amenazas a las mujeres blancas a menudo se usaban como pretexto para linchamientos y castraciones. [18]
Durante el otoño de 1865, en respuesta a los Códigos Negros y a las preocupantes señales de recalcitrancia sureña, los republicanos radicales bloquearon la readmisión de los antiguos estados rebeldes en el Congreso. Sin embargo, Johnson se conformó con permitir la entrada de los antiguos estados confederados en la Unión siempre que sus gobiernos estatales adoptaran la Decimotercera Enmienda que abolía la esclavitud. El 6 de diciembre de 1865, la enmienda fue ratificada y Johnson consideró que la Reconstrucción había terminado. Según James Schouler, que escribió en 1913, Johnson estaba siguiendo la política moderada de reconstrucción presidencial de Lincoln para conseguir que los estados fueran readmitidos lo antes posible. [106]
Sin embargo, el Congreso, controlado por los radicales, tenía otros planes. Los radicales estaban liderados por Charles Sumner en el Senado y Thaddeus Stevens en la Cámara de Representantes. El 4 de diciembre de 1865, el Congreso rechazó la moderada Reconstrucción presidencial de Johnson y organizó el Comité Conjunto de Reconstrucción , un panel de 15 miembros para diseñar los requisitos de Reconstrucción para que los estados del Sur fueran reinstaurados en la Unión. [106]
En enero de 1866, el Congreso renovó la Oficina de los Libertos; sin embargo, Johnson vetó el proyecto de ley de la Oficina de los Libertos en febrero de 1866. Aunque Johnson simpatizaba con la difícil situación de los libertos, [ cita requerida ] estaba en contra de la asistencia federal. Un intento de anular el veto fracasó el 20 de febrero de 1866. Este veto sorprendió a los radicales del Congreso. En respuesta, tanto el Senado como la Cámara aprobaron una resolución conjunta para no permitir la admisión de ningún senador o representante hasta que el Congreso decidiera cuándo terminaría la Reconstrucción. [106]
El senador Lyman Trumbull de Illinois , líder de los republicanos moderados, se opuso a los Códigos Negros. Propuso la primera Ley de Derechos Civiles , porque la abolición de la esclavitud era vana si: [107]
Se deben promulgar y aplicar leyes que priven a las personas de ascendencia africana de privilegios que son esenciales para los hombres libres... Una ley que no permite a una persona de color ir de un condado a otro, y una que no le permite tener propiedades, enseñar, predicar, son ciertamente leyes que violan los derechos de un hombre libre... El propósito de este proyecto de ley es destruir todas estas discriminaciones.
La clave del proyecto de ley estaba en su primera parte: [ Esta cita necesita una cita ]
Todas las personas nacidas en los Estados Unidos... son por la presente declaradas ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos; y dichos ciudadanos de cualquier raza y color, sin tener en cuenta ninguna condición previa de esclavitud... tendrán el mismo derecho en cada estado... a hacer y hacer cumplir contratos, a demandar, ser partes y dar testimonio, a heredar, comprar, arrendar, vender, poseer y transferir bienes inmuebles y personales, y al beneficio pleno e igual de todas las leyes y procedimientos para la seguridad de la persona y la propiedad, como lo disfrutan los ciudadanos blancos, y estarán sujetos a castigos, penas y sanciones similares y a ningún otro, no obstante cualquier ley, estatuto, ordenanza, reglamento o costumbre en contrario.
El proyecto de ley no concedió a los libertos el derecho a votar. El Congreso aprobó rápidamente el proyecto de ley de derechos civiles; el 2 de febrero, el Senado votó por 33 a 12; el 13 de marzo, la Cámara de Representantes votó por 111 a 38.
Aunque los moderados del Congreso lo instaron enérgicamente a firmar la ley de derechos civiles, Johnson rompió decisivamente con ellos al vetarla el 27 de marzo de 1866. Su mensaje de veto objetaba la medida porque confería la ciudadanía a los libertos en un momento en que 11 de los 36 estados no estaban representados y pretendía fijar mediante una ley federal "una igualdad perfecta de las razas blanca y negra en todos los estados de la Unión". Johnson dijo que era una invasión por parte de la autoridad federal de los derechos de los estados; no tenía justificación en la Constitución y era contraria a todos los precedentes. Era un "paso hacia la centralización y la concentración de todo el poder legislativo en el gobierno nacional". [109]
El Partido Demócrata, que se proclamaba el partido de los hombres blancos, del Norte y del Sur, apoyó a Johnson. [39] Sin embargo, los republicanos en el Congreso anularon su veto (el Senado por una ajustada votación de 33 a 15, y la Cámara de Representantes por 122 a 41) y el proyecto de ley de derechos civiles se convirtió en ley. El Congreso también aprobó un proyecto de ley diluido sobre la Oficina de los Libertos; Johnson lo vetó rápidamente como lo había hecho con el proyecto de ley anterior. Una vez más, sin embargo, el Congreso tenía suficiente apoyo y anuló el veto de Johnson. [37]
La última propuesta moderada fue la Decimocuarta Enmienda , cuyo principal redactor fue el representante John Bingham . Fue diseñada para incluir las disposiciones clave de la Ley de Derechos Civiles en la Constitución, pero fue mucho más allá. Extendió la ciudadanía a todos los nacidos en los Estados Unidos (excepto los indios en reservas), penalizó a los estados que no dieron el voto a los libertos y, lo más importante, creó nuevos derechos civiles federales que podrían ser protegidos por los tribunales federales. Garantizaba que se pagaría la deuda federal de guerra (y prometía que nunca se pagaría la deuda confederada). Johnson usó su influencia para bloquear la enmienda en los estados ya que se requerían tres cuartas partes de los estados para la ratificación (la enmienda fue ratificada más tarde). El esfuerzo moderado para llegar a un acuerdo con Johnson había fracasado, y estalló una lucha política entre los republicanos (tanto radicales como moderados) por un lado, y por el otro, Johnson y sus aliados en el Partido Demócrata en el Norte, y las agrupaciones (que usaban nombres diferentes) en cada estado del Sur. [ cita requerida ]
Preocupados por los múltiples informes de abusos a los libertos negros por parte de funcionarios blancos sureños y dueños de plantaciones, los republicanos en el Congreso tomaron el control de las políticas de Reconstrucción después de la elección de 1866. [110] Johnson ignoró el mandato de la política y alentó abiertamente a los estados del Sur a negar la ratificación de la Decimocuarta Enmienda (excepto Tennessee, todos los antiguos estados confederados se negaron a ratificarla, al igual que los estados fronterizos de Delaware, Maryland y Kentucky). Los republicanos radicales en el Congreso, liderados por Stevens y Sumner, abrieron el camino al sufragio para los libertos varones. En general, tenían el control, aunque tuvieron que comprometerse con los republicanos moderados (los demócratas en el Congreso casi no tenían poder). Los historiadores se refieren a este período como "Reconstrucción Radical" o "Reconstrucción del Congreso". [111] Los portavoces empresariales en el Norte generalmente se opusieron a las propuestas radicales. El análisis de 34 periódicos económicos importantes mostró que 12 discutían política y solo uno, Iron Age , apoyaba el radicalismo. Los otros 11 se opusieron a una política de reconstrucción "dura", favorecieron el rápido retorno de los estados del Sur a la representación en el Congreso, se opusieron a la legislación diseñada para proteger a los libertos y deploraron el impeachment del presidente Andrew Johnson. [112]
Los dirigentes blancos del Sur, que ostentaron el poder en la era inmediatamente posterior a la guerra, antes de que se concediera el derecho al voto a los libertos, renunciaron a la secesión y a la esclavitud, pero no a la supremacía blanca. La gente que había ostentado el poder anteriormente se enfadó en 1867 cuando se celebraron nuevas elecciones. Los nuevos legisladores republicanos fueron elegidos por una coalición de unionistas blancos, libertos y norteños que se habían establecido en el Sur. Algunos dirigentes del Sur intentaron adaptarse a las nuevas condiciones.
Se aprobaron tres enmiendas constitucionales, conocidas como enmiendas de la Reconstrucción. La Decimotercera Enmienda, que abolía la esclavitud, fue ratificada en 1865. La Decimocuarta Enmienda fue propuesta en 1866 y ratificada en 1868, garantizando la ciudadanía estadounidense a todas las personas nacidas o naturalizadas en los Estados Unidos y otorgándoles derechos civiles federales. La Decimoquinta Enmienda, propuesta a fines de febrero de 1869 y aprobada a principios de febrero de 1870, decretó que el derecho al voto no podía ser negado por "raza, color o condición previa de servidumbre". No se afectó a que los estados aún determinaran el registro de votantes y las leyes electorales. Las enmiendas estaban dirigidas a terminar con la esclavitud y proporcionar ciudadanía plena a los libertos. Los congresistas del Norte creían que proporcionar a los hombres negros el derecho al voto sería el medio más rápido de educación y capacitación política. [ cita requerida ]
Muchos negros participaron activamente en las elecciones y en la vida política, y rápidamente continuaron construyendo iglesias y organizaciones comunitarias. Después de la Reconstrucción, los demócratas blancos y los grupos insurgentes utilizaron la fuerza para recuperar el poder en las legislaturas estatales y aprobar leyes que privaron de sus derechos a la mayoría de los negros y a muchos blancos pobres del Sur. Entre 1890 y 1910, los estados del Sur aprobaron nuevas constituciones estatales que completaron la privación de derechos a los negros. Los fallos de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sobre estas disposiciones confirmaron muchas de estas nuevas constituciones y leyes de los estados del Sur, y a la mayoría de los negros se les impidió votar en el Sur hasta la década de 1960. La aplicación federal completa de las Enmiendas Decimocuarta y Decimoquinta no se produjo hasta después de la aprobación de la legislación a mediados de la década de 1960 como resultado del movimiento por los derechos civiles . [ cita requerida ]
Para más detalles, consulte:
The Reconstruction Acts, as originally passed, were initially called "An act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States".[115] The legislation was enacted by the 39th Congress, on March 2, 1867. It was vetoed by President Johnson, and the veto then overridden by a two-thirds majority, in both the House and the Senate, the same day. Congress also clarified the scope of the federal writ of habeas corpus, to allow federal courts to vacate unlawful state court convictions or sentences, in 1867.[116]
With the Radicals in control, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts on July 19, 1867. The first Reconstruction Act, authored by Oregon Sen. George Henry Williams, a Radical Republican, placed 10 of the former Confederate states—all but Tennessee—under military control, grouping them into five military districts:[117]
20,000 U.S. troops were deployed to enforce the act.
The five border states that had not joined the Confederacy were not subject to military Reconstruction. West Virginia, which had seceded from Virginia in 1863, and Tennessee, which had already been re-admitted in 1866, were not included in the military districts. Federal troops, however, were kept in West Virginia through 1868 in order to control civil unrest in several areas throughout the state.[118] Federal troops were removed from Kentucky and Missouri in 1866.[119]
The 10 Southern state governments were re-constituted under the direct control of the United States Army. One major purpose was to recognize and protect the right of African Americans to vote.[120] There was little to no combat, but rather a state of martial law in which the military closely supervised local government, supervised elections, and tried to protect office holders and freedmen from violence.[121] Blacks were enrolled as voters; former Confederate leaders were excluded for a limited period.[122] No one state was entirely representative. Randolph Campbell describes what happened in Texas:[123][124]
The first critical step ... was the registration of voters according to guidelines established by Congress and interpreted by Generals Sheridan and Charles Griffin. The Reconstruction Acts called for registering all adult males, white and black, except those who had ever sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in rebellion.... Sheridan interpreted these restrictions stringently, barring from registration not only all pre-1861 officials of state and local governments who had supported the Confederacy but also all city officeholders and even minor functionaries such as sextons of cemeteries. In May Griffin ... appointed a three-man board of registrars for each county, making his choices on the advice of known scalawags and local Freedmen's Bureau agents. In every county where practicable a freedman served as one of the three registrars.... Final registration amounted to approximately 59,633 whites and 49,479 blacks. It is impossible to say how many whites were rejected or refused to register (estimates vary from 7,500 to 12,000), but blacks, who constituted only about 30 percent of the state's population, were significantly over-represented at 45 percent of all voters.
The 11 Southern states held constitutional conventions giving Black men the right to vote,[125] where the factions divided into the Radical, "conservative", and in-between delegates.[126] The Radicals were a coalition: 40% were Southern White Republicans; 25% were White and 34% were Black.[127] In addition to expanding the franchise, they pressed for provisions designed to promote economic growth, especially financial aid to rebuild the ruined railroad system.[128][129] The conventions set up systems of free public schools funded by tax dollars, but did not require them to be racially integrated.[130]
Until 1872, most former Confederate or prewar Southern office holders were disqualified from voting or holding office; all but 500 top Confederate leaders were pardoned by the Amnesty Act of 1872.[131] "Proscription" was the policy of disqualifying as many ex-Confederates as possible. For example, in 1865 Tennessee had disenfranchised 80,000 ex-Confederates.[132] However, proscription was soundly rejected by the Black element, which insisted on universal suffrage.[133][134] The issue would come up repeatedly in several states, especially in Texas and Virginia. In Virginia, an effort was made to disqualify for public office every man who had served in the Confederate Army even as a private, and any civilian farmer who sold food to the Confederate States Army.[135][136] Disenfranchising Southern Whites was also opposed by moderate Republicans in the North, who felt that ending proscription would bring the South closer to a republican form of government based on the consent of the governed, as called for by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Strong measures that were called for in order to forestall a return to the defunct Confederacy increasingly seemed out of place, and the role of the United States Army and controlling politics in the state was troublesome. Historian Mark Summers states that increasingly "the disenfranchisers had to fall back on the contention that denial of the vote was meant as punishment, and a lifelong punishment at that ... Month by month, the un-republican character of the regime looked more glaring."[137]
During the Civil War, many in the North believed that fighting for the Union was a noble cause—for the preservation of the Union and the end of slavery. After the war ended, with the North victorious, the fear among Radicals was that President Johnson too quickly assumed that slavery and Confederate nationalism were dead and that the Southern states could return. The Radicals sought out a candidate for president who represented their viewpoint.[138]
In May 1868, the Republicans unanimously chose Ulysses S. Grant as their presidential candidate, and Schuyler Colfax as their vice-presidential candidate.[139] Grant won favor with the Radicals after he allowed Edwin Stanton, a Radical, to be reinstated as secretary of war. As early as 1862, during the Civil War, Grant had appointed the Ohio military chaplain John Eaton to protect and gradually incorporate refugee slaves in west Tennessee and northern Mississippi into the Union war effort and pay them for their labor. It was the beginning of his vision for the Freedmen's Bureau.[140] Grant opposed President Johnson by supporting the Reconstruction Acts passed by the Radicals.[141]
In northern cities Grant contended with a strong immigrant, and particularly in New York City an Irish, anti-Reconstructionist Democratic bloc.[142][143] Republicans sought to make inroads campaigning for the Irish taken prisoner in the Fenian raids into Canada, and calling on the Johnson administration to recognize a lawful state of war between Ireland and England. In 1867 Grant personally intervened with David Bell and Michael Scanlon to move their paper, the Irish Republic, articulate in its support for black equality, to New York from Chicago.[144][145]
The Democrats, having abandoned Johnson, nominated former governor Horatio Seymour of New York for president and Francis P. Blair of Missouri for vice president.[146] The Democrats advocated the immediate restoration of former Confederate states to the Union and amnesty from "all past political offenses".[147]
Grant won the popular vote by 300,000 votes out of 5,716,082 votes cast, receiving an Electoral College landslide of 214 votes to Seymour's 80.[148] Seymour received a majority of white votes, but Grant was aided by 500,000 votes cast by blacks,[146] winning him 52.7 percent of the popular vote.[149] He lost Louisiana and Georgia primarily due to Ku Klux Klan violence against African-American voters.[150] At the age of 46, Grant was the youngest president yet elected, and the first president elected after the nation had outlawed slavery.[151][148][152]
President Ulysses S. Grant was considered an effective civil rights executive, concerned about the plight of African Americans.[153][154] Grant met with prominent black leaders for consultation and signed a bill into law, on March 18, 1869, that guaranteed equal rights to both blacks and whites, to serve on juries, and hold office, in Washington D.C.[153][155] In 1870 Grant signed into law a Naturalization Act that opened a path to citizenship for foreign-born Black residents in the US.[153] Additionally, Grant's Postmaster General, John Creswell used his patronage powers to integrate the postal system and appointed a record number of African-American men and women as postal workers across the nation, while also expanding many of the mail routes.[156][157] Grant appointed Republican abolitionist and champion of black education Hugh Lennox Bond as U.S. Circuit Court judge.[158]
Immediately upon inauguration in 1869, Grant bolstered Reconstruction by prodding Congress to readmit Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas into the Union, while ensuring their state constitutions protected every citizen's voting rights.[155]
Grant advocated the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment that said states could not disenfranchise African Americans.[159] Within a year, the three remaining states—Mississippi, Virginia, and Texas—adopted the new amendment—and were admitted to Congress.[160] Grant put military pressure on Georgia to reinstate its black legislators and adopt the new amendment.[161] Georgia complied, and on February 24, 1871, its senators were seated in Congress, with all the former Confederate states represented.[162] Southern Reconstructed states were controlled by Republicans and former slaves. Eight years later, in 1877, the Democratic Party had full control of the region and Reconstruction was dead.[163]
In 1870, to enforce Reconstruction, Congress and Grant created the Justice Department that allowed the Attorney General Amos Akerman and the first Solicitor General Benjamin Bristow to prosecute the Klan.[164][165] In Grant's two terms he strengthened Washington's legal capabilities to directly intervene to protect citizenship rights even if the states ignored the problem.[166]
Congress and Grant passed a series (three) of powerful civil rights Enforcement Acts between 1870 and 1871, designed to protect blacks and Reconstruction governments.[167] These were criminal codes that protected the freedmen's right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. Most important, they authorized the federal government to intervene when states did not act. Urged by Grant and his Attorney General Amos T. Akerman, the strongest of these laws was the Ku Klux Klan Act, passed on April 20, 1871, that authorized the president to impose martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus.[167][168][169]
Grant was so adamant about the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act, he earlier had sent a message to Congress, on March 23, 1871, in which he said:
"A condition of affairs now exists in some of the States of the Union rendering life and property insecure, and the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a, condition of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate. That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities, I do not doubt. That the power of the Executive of the United States, acting within the limits of existing laws, is sufficient for present emergencies, is not clear."[170]
Grant also recommended the enforcement of laws in all parts of the United States to protect life, liberty, and property.[170]
Grant's Justice Department destroyed the Ku Klux Klan, but during both of his terms, Blacks lost their political strength in the Southern United States. By October, Grant suspended habeas corpus in part of South Carolina and he also sent federal troops to help marshals, who initiated prosecutions of Klan members.[169] Grant's Attorney General, Amos T. Akerman, who replaced Hoar, was zealous in his attempt to destroy the Klan.[171] Akerman and South Carolina's U.S. marshal arrested over 470 Klan members, but hundreds of Klansmen, including the Klan's wealthy leaders, fled the state.[172][173] Akerman returned over 3,000 indictments of the Klan throughout the South and obtained 600 convictions for the worst offenders.[172] By 1872, Grant had crushed the Klan, and African Americans peacefully voted in record numbers in elections in the South.[174][175] Attorney General George H. Williams, Akerman's replacement, suspended his prosecutions of the Klan in North Carolina and South Carolina in the Spring of 1873, but prior to the election of 1874, he changed course and prosecuted the Klan.[176] Civil rights prosecutions continued but with fewer yearly cases and convictions.[177]
In addition to fighting for African American civil rights, Grant wanted to reconcile with white southerners, out of a spirit of Appomattox.[178] To placate the South, in May 1872, Grant signed the Amnesty Act, which restored political rights to former Confederates, except for a few hundred former Confederate officers.[179] Grant wanted people to vote and practice free speech despite their "views, color or nativity."[178]
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was one of the last major acts of Congress and Grant to preserve Reconstruction and equality for African Americans.[180][181] The initial bill was created by Senator Charles Sumner. Grant endorsed the measure, despite his previous feud with Sumner, signing it into law on March 1, 1875. The law, ahead of its times, outlawed discrimination for blacks in public accommodations, schools, transportation, and selecting juries. Although weakly enforceable, the law spread fear among whites opposed to interracial justice and was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883. The later enforceable Civil Rights Act of 1964 borrowed many of the earlier 1875's law's provisions.[180]
To counter vote fraud in the Democratic stronghold of New York City, Grant sent in tens of thousands of armed, uniformed federal marshals and other election officials to regulate the 1870 and subsequent elections. Democrats across the North then mobilized to defend their base and attacked Grant's entire set of policies.[182] On October 21, 1876, President Grant deployed troops to protect Black and White Republican voters in Petersburg, Virginia.[183]
Grant's support from Congress and the nation declined due to scandals within his administration and the political resurgence of the Democrats in the North and South. Anti-Reconstruction whites claimed that wealthy white landowners had lost power, and they blamed governmental scandals in the South on it. Meanwhile, white northern Republicans were becoming more conservative. Republicans and Black Americans lost power in the South. By 1870, most Republicans felt the war goals had been achieved, and they turned their attention to other issues such as economic policies.[172] White Americans were in almost full control again by the start of the 1900s and did not enforce Black voting rights. The United States government eventually pulled all its troops from the Southern states.
Republicans took control of all Southern state governorships and state legislatures, except for Virginia.[ii] The Republican coalition elected numerous African Americans to local, state, and national offices; though they did not dominate any electoral offices, Black men as representatives voting in state and federal legislatures marked a drastic social change. At the beginning of 1867, no African American in the South held political office, but within three or four years "about 15 percent of the officeholders in the South were Black—a larger proportion than in 1990". Most of those offices were at the local level.[184] In 1860, Blacks constituted the majority of the population in Mississippi and South Carolina, 47% in Louisiana, 45% in Alabama, and 44% in Georgia and Florida,[185] so their political influence was still far less than their percentage of the population.
About 137 Black officeholders had lived outside the South before the Civil War. Some who had escaped from slavery to the North and had become educated returned to help the South advance in the postwar era. Others were free people of color before the war, who had achieved education and positions of leadership elsewhere. Other African American men elected to office were already leaders in their communities, including a number of preachers. As happened in White communities, not all leadership depended upon wealth and literacy.[186][187][188][page needed]
There were few African Americans elected or appointed to national office. African Americans voted for both White and Black candidates. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed only that voting could not be restricted on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From 1868 on, campaigns and elections were surrounded by violence as White insurgents and paramilitaries tried to suppress the Black vote, and fraud was rampant. Many white southerners who had been pro-slavery were angry with governments that had African Americans in office. Furious white Southerners told the rumor that Reconstruction was secretly promoting Black Americans having full control over whites. Many congressional elections in the South were contested. Even states with majority-African-American populations often elected only one or two African American representatives to Congress. Exceptions included South Carolina; at the end of Reconstruction, four of its five congressmen were African Americans.[190]
Freedmen were very active in forming their own churches, mostly Baptist or Methodist, and giving their ministers both moral and political leadership roles. In a process of self-segregation, practically all Blacks left White churches so that few racially integrated congregations remained (apart from some Catholic churches in Louisiana). They started many new Black Baptist churches and soon, new Black state associations.[citation needed]
Four main groups competed with each other across the South to form new Methodist churches composed of freedmen. They were the African Methodist Episcopal Church; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, both independent Black denominations founded in Philadelphia and New York, respectively; the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church (which was sponsored by the White Methodist Episcopal Church, South) and the well-funded Methodist Episcopal Church (predominantly White Methodists of the North). The Methodist Church had split before the war due to disagreements about slavery.[192][193][page needed] By 1871, the Northern Methodists had 88,000 Black members in the South, and had opened numerous schools for them.[194]
Blacks in the South made up a core element of the Republican Party. Their ministers had powerful political roles that were distinctive since they did not depend on White support, in contrast to teachers, politicians, businessmen, and tenant farmers.[195] Acting on the principle as stated by Charles H. Pearce, an AME minister in Florida: "A man in this state cannot do his whole duty as a minister except he looks out for the political interests of his people." More than 100 Black ministers were elected to state legislatures during Reconstruction, as well as several to Congress and one, Hiram Rhodes Revels, to the U.S. Senate.[196]
In a highly controversial action during the war, the Northern Methodists used the Army to seize control of Methodist churches in large cities, over the vehement protests of the Southern Methodists. Historian Ralph Morrow reports:[197][198][page needed][199]
A War Department order of November 1863, applicable to the Southwestern states of the Confederacy, authorized the Northern Methodists to occupy "all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South in which a loyal minister, appointed by a loyal bishop of said church, does not officiate."
Across the North, several denominations—especially the Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, as well as the Quakers—strongly supported Radical policies. The focus on social problems paved the way for the Social Gospel movement. Matthew Simpson, a Methodist bishop, played a leading role in mobilizing the Northern Methodists for the cause. Biographer Robert D. Clark called him the "High Priest of the Radical Republicans".[200] The Methodist Ministers Association of Boston, meeting two weeks after Lincoln's assassination, called for a hard line against the Confederate leadership:[201][202]
Resolved, that no terms should be made with traitors, no compromise with rebels.... That we hold the national authority bound by the most solemn obligation to God and man to bring all the civil and military leaders of the rebellion to trial by due course of law, and when they are clearly convicted, to execute them.
The denominations all sent missionaries, teachers and activists to the South to help the freedmen. Only the Methodists made many converts, however.[203] Activists sponsored by the Northern Methodist Church played a major role in the Freedmen's Bureau, notably in such key educational roles as the bureau's state superintendent or assistant superintendent of education for Virginia, Florida, Alabama, and South Carolina.[204]
Many Americans interpreted great events in religious terms. Historian Wilson Fallin Jr. contrasts the interpretation of the Civil War and Reconstruction in White versus Black Baptist sermons in Alabama. White Baptists expressed the view that:[205]
God had chastised them and given them a special mission—to maintain orthodoxy, strict biblicism, personal piety, and traditional race relations. Slavery, they insisted, had not been sinful. Rather, emancipation was a historical tragedy and the end of Reconstruction was a clear sign of God's favor.
In sharp contrast, Black Baptists interpreted the Civil War, emancipation, and Reconstruction as:[205]
God's gift of freedom. They appreciated opportunities to exercise their independence, to worship in their own way, to affirm their worth and dignity, and to proclaim the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Most of all, they could form their own churches, associations, and conventions. These institutions offered self-help and racial uplift, and provided places where the gospel of liberation could be proclaimed. As a result, black preachers continued to insist that God would protect and help them; God would be their rock in a stormy land.
Historian James D. Anderson argues that the freed slaves were the first Southerners "to campaign for universal, state-supported public education".[206] Blacks in the Republican coalition played a critical role in establishing the principle in state constitutions for the first time during congressional Reconstruction. Some slaves had learned to read from White playmates or colleagues before formal education was allowed by law; African Americans started "native schools" before the end of the war; Sabbath schools were another widespread means that freedmen developed to teach literacy.[207] When they gained suffrage, Black politicians took this commitment to public education to state constitutional conventions.
The Republicans created a system of public schools, which were segregated by race everywhere except New Orleans. Generally, elementary and a few secondary schools were built in most cities, and occasionally in the countryside, but the South had few cities.[130][208][page needed]
The rural areas faced many difficulties opening and maintaining public schools. In the country, the public school was often a one-room affair that attracted about half the younger children. The teachers were poorly paid, and their pay was often in arrears.[209] Conservatives contended the rural schools were too expensive and unnecessary for a region where the vast majority of people were cotton or tobacco farmers. They had no expectation of better education for their residents. One historian found that the schools were less effective than they might have been because "poverty, the inability of the states to collect taxes, and inefficiency and corruption in many places prevented successful operation of the schools".[210] After Reconstruction ended and White elected officials disenfranchised Blacks and imposed Jim Crow laws, they consistently underfunded Black institutions, including the schools.
After the war, Northern missionaries founded numerous private academies and colleges for freedmen across the South. In addition, every state founded state colleges for freedmen, such as Alcorn State University in Mississippi. The normal schools and state colleges produced generations of teachers who were integral to the education of African American children under the segregated system. By the end of the century, the majority of African Americans were literate.[citation needed]
In the late 19th century, the federal government established land grant legislation to provide funding for higher education across the United States. Learning that Blacks were excluded from land grant colleges in the South, in 1890 the federal government insisted that Southern states establish Black state institutions as land grant colleges to provide for Black higher education, in order to continue to receive funds for their already established White schools. Some states classified their Black state colleges as land grant institutions. Former Congressman John Roy Lynch wrote: "there are very many liberal, fair-minded and influential Democrats in the state [Mississippi] who are strongly in favor of having the state provide for the liberal education of both races".[211][212]
According to a 2020 study by economist Trevon Logan, increases in Black politicians led to greater tax revenue, which was put towards public education spending (and land tenancy reforms). Logan finds that this led to greater literacy among Black men.[213]
Every Southern state subsidized railroads, which modernizers believed could haul the South out of isolation and poverty. Millions of dollars in bonds and subsidies were fraudulently pocketed. One ring in North Carolina spent $200,000 in bribing the legislature and obtained millions of state dollars for its railroads. Instead of building new track, however, it used the funds to speculate in bonds, reward friends with extravagant fees, and enjoy lavish trips to Europe.[214] Taxes were quadrupled across the South to pay off the railroad bonds and the school costs.
There were complaints among taxpayers because taxes had historically been low, as the planter elite was not committed to public infrastructure or public education. Taxes historically had been much lower in the South than in the North, reflecting the lack of government investment by the communities.[215][129] Nevertheless, thousands of miles of lines were built as the Southern system expanded from 11,000 miles (18,000 km) in 1870 to 29,000 miles (47,000 km) in 1890. The lines were owned and directed overwhelmingly by Northerners. Railroads helped create a mechanically skilled group of craftsmen and broke the isolation of much of the region. Passengers were few, however, and apart from hauling the cotton crop when it was harvested, there was little freight traffic.[216] As Franklin explains: "numerous railroads fed at the public trough by bribing legislators ... and through the use and misuse of state funds". According to one businessman, the effect "was to drive capital from the state, paralyze industry, and demoralize labor".[217]
Reconstruction changed the means of taxation in the South. In the U.S. from the earliest days until today, a major source of state revenue was the property tax. In the South, wealthy landowners were allowed to self-assess the value of their own land. These fraudulent assessments were almost valueless, and pre-war property tax collections were lacking due to property value misrepresentation. State revenues came from fees and from sales taxes on slave auctions.[218] Some states assessed property owners by a combination of land value and a capitation tax, a tax on each worker employed. This tax was often assessed in a way to discourage a free labor market, where a slave was assessed at 75 cents, while a free White was assessed at a dollar or more, and a free African American at $3 or more. Some revenue also came from poll taxes. These taxes were more than poor people could pay, with the designed and inevitable consequence that they did not vote.
During Reconstruction, the state legislature mobilized to provide for public need more than had previous governments: establishing public schools and investing in infrastructure, as well as charitable institutions such as hospitals and asylums. They set out to increase taxes, which were unusually low. The planters had provided privately for their own needs. There was some fraudulent spending in the postwar years; a collapse in state credit because of huge deficits, forced the states to increase property tax rates. In places, the rate went up to 10 times higher—despite the poverty of the region. The planters had not invested in infrastructure and much had been destroyed during the war. In part, the new tax system was designed to force owners of large plantations with huge tracts of uncultivated land either to sell or to have it confiscated for failure to pay taxes.[219] The taxes would serve as a market-based system for redistributing the land to the landless freedmen and White poor. Mississippi, for instance, was mostly frontier, with 90% of the bottom lands in the interior undeveloped.[citation needed]
The following table shows property tax rates for South Carolina and Mississippi. Many local town and county assessments effectively doubled the tax rates reported in the table. These taxes were still levied upon the landowners' own sworn testimony as to the value of their land, which remained the dubious and exploitable system used by wealthy landholders in the South well into the 20th century.[citation needed]
Called upon to pay taxes on their property, essentially for the first time, angry plantation owners revolted. The conservatives shifted their focus away from race to taxes.[220] Former Congressman John R. Lynch, a Black Republican leader from Mississippi, later wrote:[211]
The argument made by the taxpayers, however, was plausible and it may be conceded that, upon the whole, they were about right; for no doubt it would have been much easier upon the taxpayers to have increased at that time the interest-bearing debt of the state than to have increased the tax rate. The latter course, however, had been adopted and could not then be changed unless of course they wanted to change them.
The Civil War had been financed primarily by issuing short-term and long-term bonds and loans, plus inflation caused by printing paper money, plus new taxes. Wholesale prices had more than doubled, and reduction of inflation was a priority for Secretary McCulloch.[221] A high priority, and by far the most controversial, was the currency question. The old paper currency issued by state banks had been withdrawn, and Confederate currency was worthless. The national banks had issued $207 million in currency, which was backed by gold and silver. The federal treasury had issued $428 million in greenbacks, which was legal tender but not backed by gold or silver. In addition about $275 million of coin was in circulation. The new administration policy announced in October 1865 would be to make all the paper convertible into specie, if Congress so voted. The House of Representatives passed the Alley Resolution on December 18, 1865, by a vote of 144 to 6. In the Senate it was a different matter, for the key player was Senator John Sherman, who said that inflation contraction was not nearly as important as refunding the short-term and long-term national debt. The war had been largely financed by national debt, in addition to taxation and inflation. The national debt stood at $2.8 billion. By October 1865, most of it in short-term and temporary loans.[222] Wall Street bankers typified by Jay Cooke believed that the economy was about to grow rapidly, thanks to the development of agriculture through the Homestead Act, the expansion of railroads, especially rebuilding the devastated Southern railroads and opening the transcontinental railroad line to the West Coast, and especially the flourishing of manufacturing during the war. The gold premium over greenbacks was $145 in greenbacks to $100 in gold, and the optimists thought that the heavy demand for currency in an era of prosperity would return the ratio to 100.[221] A compromise was reached in April 1866, that limited the treasury to a currency contraction of only $10 million over six months. Meanwhile, the Senate refunded the entire national debt, but the House failed to act. By early 1867, postwar prosperity was a reality, and the optimists wanted an end to contraction, which Congress ordered in January 1868. Meanwhile, the Treasury issued new bonds at a lower interest rate to refinance the redemption of short-term debt. While the old state bank notes were disappearing from circulation, new national bank notes, backed by species, were expanding. By 1868 inflation was minimal.[223][224][225][226]
On April 20, 1871, prior to the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act (Last of three Enforcement Acts), on the same day, the U.S. Congress launched a 21-member investigation committee on the status of the Southern Reconstruction states North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Congressional members on the committee included Rep. Benjamin Butler, Sen. Zachariah Chandler, and Sen. Francis P. Blair. Subcommittee members traveled into the South to interview the people living in their respective states. Those interviewed included top-ranking officials, such as Wade Hampton III, former South Carolina Gov. James L. Orr, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, a former Confederate general and prominent Ku Klux Klan leader (Forrest denied in his congressional testimony being a member). Other Southerners interviewed included farmers, doctors, merchants, teachers, and clergymen. The committee heard numerous reports of White violence against Blacks, while many Whites denied Klan membership or knowledge of violent activities. The majority report by Republicans concluded that the government would not tolerate any Southern "conspiracy" to resist violently the congressional Reconstruction. The committee completed its 13-volume report in February 1872. While President Ulysses S. Grant had been able to suppress the KKK through the Enforcement Acts, other paramilitary insurgents organized, including the White League in 1874, active in Louisiana; and the Red Shirts, with chapters active in Mississippi and the Carolinas. They used intimidation and outright attacks to run Republicans out of office and repress voting by Blacks, leading to White Democrats regaining power by the elections of the mid-to-late 1870s.[227]
While Republican whites supported measures for black civil rights, other whites typically opposed these measures. Some supported armed attacks to suppress blacks. They self-consciously defended their own actions within the framework of a white American discourse of resistance against tyrannical government, and they broadly succeeded in convincing many fellow White citizens, says Steedman.[228]
The opponents of Reconstruction formed state political parties, affiliated with the national Democratic Party and often named the "Conservative Party." They supported or tolerated violent paramilitary groups, such as the White League in Louisiana and the Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Carolinas, that assassinated and intimidated both Black and White Republican leaders at election time. Historian George C. Rable called such groups the "military arm of the Democratic Party". By the mid-1870s, the "conservatives" and Democrats had aligned with the national Democratic Party, which enthusiastically supported their cause even as the national Republican Party was losing interest in Southern affairs.[citation needed]
Historian Walter Lynwood Fleming, associated with the early 20th-century Dunning School, describes the mounting anger of Southern Whites:[229]
The Negro troops, even at their best, were everywhere considered offensive by the native whites.... The Negro soldier, impudent by reason of his new freedom, his new uniform, and his new gun, was more than Southern temper could tranquilly bear, and race conflicts were frequent.
Often, these White Southerners identified as the "Conservative Party" or the "Democratic and Conservative Party" in order to distinguish themselves from the national Democratic Party and to obtain support from former Whigs. These parties sent delegates to the 1868 Democratic National Convention and abandoned their separate names by 1873 or 1874.[230]
Most White members of both the planter and business class and common farmer class of the South opposed Reconstruction, Black civil rights and military rule and sought white supremacy. Democrats nominated some Blacks for political office and tried to entice other Blacks from the Republican side. When these attempts to combine with the Blacks failed, the planters joined the common farmers in simply trying to displace the Republican governments. The planters and their business allies dominated the self-styled "conservative" coalition that finally took control in the South. They were paternalistic toward the Blacks but feared they would use power to raise taxes and slow business development.[231]
Fleming described the first results of the insurgent movement as "good", and the later ones as "both good and bad". According to Fleming (1907), the KKK "quieted the Negroes, made life and property safer, gave protection to women, stopped burnings, forced the Radical leaders to be more moderate, made the Negroes work better, drove the worst of the Radical leaders from the country and started the whites on the way to gain political supremacy".[232] The evil result, Fleming said, was that lawless elements "made use of the organization as a cloak to cover their misdeeds ... The lynching habits of today [1907] are largely due to conditions, social and legal, growing out of Reconstruction."[233] Historians have noted that the peak of lynchings took place near the turn of the century, decades after Reconstruction ended, as Whites were imposing Jim Crow laws and passing new state constitutions that disenfranchised the Blacks. The lynchings were used for intimidation and social control, with a frequency associated more with economic stresses and the settlement of sharecropper accounts at the end of the season, than for any other reason.
Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer (a Northern scholar) in 1917 explained:[234]
Outrages upon the former slaves in the South there were in plenty. Their sufferings were many. But white men, too, were victims of lawless violence, and in all portions of the North and the late "rebel" states. Not a political campaign passed without the exchange of bullets, the breaking of skulls with sticks and stones, the firing of rival club-houses. Republican clubs marched the streets of Philadelphia, amid revolver shots and brickbats, to save the Negroes from the "rebel" savages in Alabama.... The project to make voters out of black men was not so much for their social elevation as for the further punishment of the Southern white people—for the capture of offices for Radical scamps and the entrenchment of the Radical party in power for a long time to come in the South and in the country at large.
As Reconstruction continued, Whites accompanied elections with increased violence in an attempt to run Republicans out of office and suppress Black voting. The victims of this violence were overwhelmingly African American, as in the Colfax Massacre of 1873. After federal suppression of the Klan in the early 1870s, White insurgent groups tried to avoid open conflict with federal forces. In 1874 in the Battle of Liberty Place, the White League entered New Orleans with 5,000 members and defeated the police and militia, to occupy federal offices for three days in an attempt to overturn the disputed government of William Pitt Kellogg, but retreated before federal troops reached the city. None was prosecuted. Their election-time tactics included violent intimidation of African American and Republican voters prior to elections, while avoiding conflict with the U.S. Army or the state militias, and then withdrawing completely on election day. White supremacist violence continued in both the North and South; the White Liners movement to elect candidates dedicated to white supremacy reached as far as Ohio in 1875.[235]
The Redeemers were the Southern wing of the Bourbon Democrats, the classically liberal, pro-business faction of the Democratic Party. They were a coalition which sought to regain political power, reestablish white supremacy, and oust the Radical Republicans from influence. Led by rich former planters, businessmen, and professionals, they dominated Southern politics in most areas from the 1870s to 1910.
As early as 1868, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a leading Radical during the war, concluded that:[236]
Congress was right in not limiting, by its Reconstruction acts, the right of suffrage to Whites; but wrong in the exclusion from suffrage of certain classes of citizens and all unable to take its prescribed retrospective oath, and wrong also in the establishment of despotic military governments for the states and in authorizing military commissions for the trial of civilians in time of peace. There should have been as little military government as possible; no military commissions; no classes excluded from suffrage; and no oath except one of faithful obedience and support to the Constitution and laws, and of sincere attachment to the constitutional government of the United States.
By 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant had alienated large numbers of leading Republicans, including many Radicals, by the corruption of his administration and his use of federal soldiers to prop up Radical state regimes in the South. The opponents, called "Liberal Republicans", included founders of the party who expressed dismay that the party had succumbed to corruption. They were further wearied by the continued insurgent violence of Whites against Blacks in the South, especially around every election cycle, which demonstrated that the war was not over and changes were fragile. Leaders included editors of some of the nation's most powerful newspapers. Charles Sumner, embittered by the corruption of the Grant administration, joined the new party, which nominated editor Horace Greeley. The loosely-organized Democratic Party also supported Greeley.[citation needed]
Grant made up for the defections by new gains among Union veterans and by strong support from the "Stalwart" faction of his party (which depended on his patronage), and the Southern Republican Party. Grant won with 55.6% of the vote to Greeley's 43.8%. The Liberal Republican Party vanished and many former supporters—even former abolitionists—abandoned the cause of Reconstruction.[237]
In the South, political and racial tensions built up inside the Republican Party as they were attacked by the Democrats. In 1868, Georgia Democrats, with support from some Republicans, expelled all 28 Black Republican members from the state house, arguing Blacks were eligible to vote but not to hold office. In most states, the more Whiggish Republicans fought for control with the more Radical Republicans and their Black allies. Most of the 430 Republican newspapers in the South were edited by native Southerners—only 20 percent were edited by northerners. White businessmen generally boycotted Republican papers, which survived through government patronage.[238][239] Nevertheless, in the increasingly bitter battles inside the Republican Party, those who supported Reconstruction usually lost; many of the disgruntled losers switched over to the Whig-leaning or Democratic side. In Mississippi, the Whiggish faction led by James Lusk Alcorn was decisively defeated by the Radical faction led by Adelbert Ames. The party lost support steadily as many supporters of Reconstruction left it; few recruits were acquired. The most bitter contest took place inside the Republican Party in Arkansas, where the two sides armed their forces and confronted each other in the streets; no actual combat took place in the Brooks–Baxter War. The faction led by Elisha Baxter finally prevailed when the White House intervened, but both sides were badly weakened, and the Democrats soon came to power.[240]
Meanwhile, in state after state the freedmen were demanding a bigger share of the offices and patronage, squeezing out white allies but never commanding the numbers equivalent to their population proportion. By the mid-1870s: "The hard realities of Southern political life had taught the lesson that black constituents needed to be represented by black officials."[241] The financial depression increased the pressure on Reconstruction governments, dissolving progress.
Finally, some of the more prosperous freedmen were joining the Democrats, as they were angered at the failure of the Republicans to help them acquire land. The South was "sparsely settled"; only 10 percent of Louisiana was cultivated, and 90 percent of Mississippi bottom land was undeveloped in areas away from the river fronts, but freedmen often did not have the stake to get started. They hoped that the government would help them acquire land which they could work. Only South Carolina created any land redistribution, establishing a land commission and resettling about 14,000 freedmen families and some poor Whites on land purchased by the state.[242]
Although historians such as W. E. B. Du Bois celebrated a cross-racial coalition of poor Whites and Blacks, such coalitions rarely formed in these years. Writing in 1913, former Congressman Lynch, recalling his experience as a Black leader in Mississippi, explained that:[243]
While the colored men did not look with favor upon a political alliance with the poor whites, it must be admitted that, with very few exceptions, that class of whites did not seek, and did not seem to desire such an alliance.
Lynch reported that poor Whites resented the job competition from freedmen. Furthermore, the poor Whites:[244]
with a few exceptions, were less efficient, less capable, and knew less about matters of state and governmental administration than many of the former slaves.... As a rule, therefore, the Whites that came into the leadership of the Republican Party between 1872 and 1875 were representatives of the most substantial families of the land.
By 1870, the Democratic leadership across the South decided it had to end its opposition to Reconstruction and Black suffrage to survive and move on to new issues. The Grant administration had proven by its crackdown on the Ku Klux Klan that it would use as much federal power as necessary to suppress open anti-Black violence. Democrats in the North concurred with these Southern Democrats. They wanted to fight the Republican Party on economic grounds rather than race. The New Departure offered the chance for a clean slate without having to re-fight the Civil War every election. Furthermore, many wealthy Southern landowners thought they could control part of the newly enfranchised Black electorate to their own advantage.[citation needed]
Not all Democrats agreed; an insurgent element continued to resist Reconstruction no matter what. Eventually, a group called "Redeemers" took control of the party in the Southern states.[245] They formed coalitions with conservative Republicans, including supporters of Reconstruction, emphasizing the need for economic modernization. Railroad building was seen as a panacea since Northern capital was needed. The new tactics were a success in Virginia where William Mahone built a winning coalition. In Tennessee, the Redeemers formed a coalition with Republican Governor Dewitt Clinton Senter. Across the South, some Democrats switched from the race issue to taxes and corruption, charging that Republican governments were corrupt and inefficient. With a continuing decrease in cotton prices, taxes squeezed cash-poor farmers who rarely saw $20 in currency a year, but had to pay taxes in currency or lose their farms. But major planters, who had never paid taxes before, often recovered their property even after confiscation.[246]
In North Carolina, Republican Governor William Woods Holden used state troops against the Klan, but the prisoners were released by federal judges. Holden became the first governor in American history to be impeached and removed from office. Republican political disputes in Georgia split the party and enabled the Redeemers to take over.[247]
In the North, a live-and-let-live attitude made elections more like a sporting contest. But in the Deep South, many White citizens had not reconciled with the defeat of the war or the granting of citizenship to freedmen. As an Alabamian supporter of Reconstruction explained: "Our contest here is for life, for the right to earn our bread, ... for a decent and respectful consideration as human beings and members of society."[248]
The Panic of 1873 (a depression) hit the Southern economy hard and disillusioned many Republicans who had gambled that railroads would pull the South out of its poverty. The price of cotton fell by half; many small landowners, local merchants, and cotton factors (wholesalers) went bankrupt. Sharecropping for Black and White farmers became more common as a way to spread the risk of owning land. The old abolitionist element in the North was aging away, or had lost interest, and was not replenished. Many northern whites returned to the North or joined the Redeemers. Blacks had an increased voice in the Republican Party, but across the South it was divided by internal bickering and was rapidly losing its cohesion. Many local Black leaders started emphasizing individual economic progress in cooperation with White elites, rather than racial political progress in opposition to them, a conservative attitude that foreshadowed Booker T. Washington.[249]
Nationally, President Grant was blamed for the depression; the Republican Party lost 96 seats in all parts of the country in the 1874 elections. The Bourbon Democrats took control of the House and were confident of electing Samuel J. Tilden president in 1876. President Grant was not running for re-election and seemed to be losing interest in the South. States fell to the Redeemers, with only four in Republican hands in 1873: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Arkansas then fell after the violent Brooks–Baxter War in 1874 ripped apart the Republican Party there.[citation needed]
In the lower South, violence increased as new insurgent groups arose, including the Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Carolinas, and the White League in Louisiana. The disputed election in Louisiana in 1872 found both Republican and Democratic candidates holding inaugural balls while returns were reviewed. Both certified their own slates for local parish offices in many places, causing local tensions to rise. Finally, federal support helped certify the Republican as governor.[citation needed]
Slates for local offices were certified by each candidate. In rural Grant Parish in the Red River Valley, freedmen fearing a Democratic attempt to take over the parish government reinforced defenses at the small Colfax courthouse in late March. White militias gathered from the area a few miles outside the settlement. Rumors and fears abounded on both sides. William Ward, an African American Union veteran and militia captain, mustered his company in Colfax and went to the courthouse. On Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, the Whites attacked the defenders at the courthouse. There was confusion about who shot one of the White leaders after an offer by the defenders to surrender. It was a catalyst to mayhem. In the end, three Whites died and 120–150 Blacks were killed, some 50 that evening while being held as prisoners. The disproportionate numbers of Black to White fatalities and documentation of brutalized bodies are why contemporary historians call it the Colfax Massacre rather than the Colfax Riot, as it was known locally.[250]
This marked the beginning of heightened insurgency and attacks on Republican officeholders and freedmen in Louisiana and other Deep South states. In Louisiana, Judge T. S. Crawford and District Attorney P. H. Harris of the 12th Judicial District were shot off their horses and killed by ambush October 8, 1873, while going to court. One widow wrote to the Department of Justice that her husband was killed because he was a Union man, telling "the efforts made to screen those who committed a crime".[251]
Political violence was endemic in Louisiana. In 1874, the White militias coalesced into paramilitary organizations such as the White League, first in parishes of the Red River Valley. The new organization operated openly and had political goals: the violent overthrow of Republican rule and suppression of Black voting. White League chapters soon rose in many rural parishes, receiving financing for advanced weaponry from wealthy men. In the Coushatta Massacre in 1874, the White League assassinated six White Republican officeholders and five to 20 Black witnesses outside Coushatta, Red River Parish. Four of the White men were related to the Republican representative of the parish, who was married to a local woman; three were native to the region.[252]
Later in 1874 the White League mounted a serious attempt to unseat the Republican governor of Louisiana, in a dispute that had simmered since the 1872 election. It brought 5,000 troops to New Orleans to engage and overwhelm forces of the metropolitan police and state militia to turn Republican Governor William P. Kellogg out of office and seat John McEnery. The White League took over and held the state house and city hall, but they retreated before the arrival of reinforcing federal troops. Kellogg had asked for reinforcements before, and Grant finally responded, sending additional troops to try to quell violence throughout plantation areas of the Red River Valley, although 2,000 troops were already in the state.[253]
Similarly, the Red Shirts, another paramilitary group, arose in 1875 in Mississippi and the Carolinas. Like the White League and White Liner rifle clubs, to which 20,000 men belonged in North Carolina alone, these groups operated as a "military arm of the Democratic Party", to restore White supremacy.[254]
Democrats and many Northern Republicans agreed that Confederate nationalism and slavery were dead—the war goals were achieved—and further federal military interference was an undemocratic violation of historical Republican values. The victory of Rutherford B. Hayes in the hotly contested 1875 Ohio gubernatorial election indicated his "let alone" policy toward the South would become Republican policy, as happened when he won the 1876 Republican nomination for president.[citation needed]
An explosion of violence accompanied the campaign for Mississippi's 1875 election, in which Red Shirts and Democratic rifle clubs, operating in the open, threatened or shot enough Republicans to decide the election for the Democrats. Hundreds of Black men were killed. Republican Governor Adelbert Ames asked Grant for federal troops to fight back; Grant initially refused, saying public opinion was "tired out" of the perpetual troubles in the South. Ames fled the state as the Democrats took over Mississippi.[255]
The campaigns and elections of 1876 were marked by additional murders and attacks on Republicans in Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida. In South Carolina the campaign season of 1876 was marked by murderous outbreaks and fraud against freedmen. Red Shirts paraded with arms behind Democratic candidates; they killed Blacks in the Hamburg and Ellenton, South Carolina massacres. One historian estimated 150 Blacks were killed in the weeks before the 1876 election across South Carolina. Red Shirts prevented almost all Black voting in two majority-Black counties.[256] The Red Shirts were also active in North Carolina.
A 2019 study found that counties that were occupied by the U.S. Army to enforce enfranchisement of emancipated slaves were more likely to elect Black politicians. The study also found that "political murders by White-supremacist groups occurred less frequently" in these counties than in Southern counties that were not occupied.[257]
Reconstruction continued in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida until 1877. The elections of 1876 were accompanied by heightened violence across the Deep South. A combination of ballot stuffing and intimidating Blacks suppressed their vote even in majority Black counties. The White League was active in Louisiana. After Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the disputed 1876 presidential election, the national Compromise of 1877 (a corrupt bargain) was reached.[citation needed]
The White Democrats in the South agreed to accept Hayes' victory if he withdrew the last federal troops. By this point, the North was weary of insurgency. White Democrats controlled most of the Southern legislatures and armed militias controlled small towns and rural areas. Blacks considered Reconstruction a failure because the federal government withdrew from enforcing their ability to exercise their rights as citizens.[258]
On January 29, 1877, President Grant signed the Electoral Commission Act, which set up a 15-member commission of eight Republicans and seven Democrats to settle the disputed 1876 election. Since the Constitution did not explicitly indicate how Electoral College disputes were to be resolved, Congress was forced to consider other methods to settle the crisis. Many Democrats argued that Congress as a whole should determine which certificates to count. However, the chances that this method would result in a harmonious settlement were slim, as the Democrats controlled the House, while the Republicans controlled the Senate. Several Hayes supporters, on the other hand, argued that the President pro tempore of the Senate had the authority to determine which certificates to count, because he was responsible for chairing the congressional session at which the electoral votes were to be tallied. Since the office of president pro tempore was occupied by a Republican, Senator Thomas W. Ferry of Michigan, this method would have favored Hayes. Still others proposed that the matter should be settled by the Supreme Court.[259] In a stormy session that began on March 1, 1877, the House debated the objection for about twelve hours before overruling it. Immediately, another spurious objection was raised, this time to the electoral votes from Wisconsin. Again, the Senate voted to overrule the objection, while a filibuster was conducted in the House. However, the Speaker of the House, Democrat Samuel J. Randall, refused to entertain dilatory motions. Eventually, the filibusterers gave up, allowing the House to reject the objection in the early hours of March 2. The House and Senate then reassembled to complete the count of the electoral votes. At 4:10 am on March 2, Senator Ferry announced that Hayes and Wheeler had been elected to the presidency and vice presidency, by an electoral margin of 185–184.
The Democrats agreed not to block Hayes' inauguration based on a "back room" deal. Key to this deal was the understanding that federal troops would no longer interfere in Southern politics despite substantial election-associated violence against Blacks. The Southern states indicated that they would protect the lives of African Americans; however, such promises were largely not kept. Hayes' friends also let it be known that he would promote federal aid for internal improvements, including help with a railroad in Texas (which never happened) and name a Southerner to his cabinet (this did happen). With the end to the political role of Northern troops, the president had no method to enforce Reconstruction; thus, this "back room" deal signaled the end of American Reconstruction.[260]
After assuming office on March 4, 1877, President Hayes removed troops from the capitals of the remaining Reconstruction states, Louisiana and South Carolina, allowing the Redeemers to have full control of these states. President Grant had already removed troops from Florida, before Hayes was inaugurated, and troops from the other Reconstruction states had long since been withdrawn. Hayes appointed David M. Key from Tennessee, a Southern Democrat, to the position of postmaster general. By 1879, thousands of African American "Exodusters" packed up and headed to new opportunities in Kansas.[261]
The Democrats gained control of the Senate, and had complete control of Congress, having taken over the House in 1875. Hayes vetoed bills from the Democrats that outlawed the Republican Enforcement Acts; however, with the military underfunded, Hayes could not adequately enforce these laws. African-Americans remained involved in Southern politics, particularly in Virginia, which was run by the biracial Readjuster Party.[262]
Numerous African-Americans were elected to local office through the 1880s, and in the 1890s in some states, biracial coalitions of populists and Republicans briefly held control of state legislatures. In the last decade of the 19th century, Southern states elected five Black U.S. congressmen before disenfranchising state constitutions were passed throughout the former Confederacy.[citation needed]
Besides the election of Southern black people to state governments and the United States Congress, other achievements of the Reconstruction era include "the South's first state-funded public school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises)."[263] Despite these achievements the interpretation of Reconstruction has been a topic of controversy because nearly all historians hold that Reconstruction ended in failure, but for very different reasons.
The first generation of Northern historians believed that the former Confederates were traitors and Johnson was their ally who threatened to undo the Union's constitutional achievements. By the 1880s, however, Northern historians argued that Johnson and his allies were not traitors but had blundered badly in rejecting the Fourteenth Amendment and setting the stage for Radical Reconstruction.[264]
The Black leader Booker T. Washington, who grew up in West Virginia during Reconstruction, concluded later that: "the Reconstruction experiment in racial democracy failed because it began at the wrong end, emphasizing political means and civil rights acts rather than economic means and self-determination".[265][266] His solution was to concentrate on building the economic infrastructure of the Black community, in part by his leadership and the Southern Tuskegee Institute.
The Dunning School of scholars, who were trained at the history department of Columbia University under Professor William A. Dunning, analyzed Reconstruction as a failure after 1866 for different reasons. They claimed that Congress took freedoms and rights from qualified Whites and gave them to unqualified Blacks who were being duped by what they called "corrupt carpetbaggers and scalawags". As T. Harry Williams (who was a sharp critic of the Dunning School) noted, the Dunning scholars portrayed the era in stark terms:[267]
Reconstruction was a battle between two extremes: the Democrats, as the group which included the vast majority of the whites, standing for decent government and racial supremacy, versus the Republicans, the Negroes, alien carpetbaggers, and renegade scalawags, standing for dishonest government and alien ideals. These historians wrote literally in terms of white and black.
In the 1930s, historical revisionism became popular among scholars. As disciples of Charles A. Beard, revisionists focused on economics, downplaying politics and constitutional issues. The central figure was a young scholar at the University of Wisconsin, Howard K. Beale, who in his PhD dissertation, finished in 1924, developed a complex new interpretation of Reconstruction. The Dunning School portrayed freedmen as mere pawns in the hands of northern whites. Beale argued that the whites themselves were pawns in the hands of Northern industrialists, who had taken control of the nation during the Civil War and who Beale felt would be threatened by return to power of the Southern Whites. Beale further argued that the rhetoric of civil rights for Blacks, and the dream of equality, was rhetoric designed to fool idealistic voters, calling it "claptrap", arguing: "Constitutional discussions of the rights of the Negro, the status of Southern states, the legal position of ex-rebels, and the powers of Congress and the president determined nothing. They were pure sham."[268][269] The Beard–Beale interpretation of Reconstruction became known as "revisionism", and replaced the Dunning School for most historians until the 1950s, after which it was largely discredited.[270][231][271][272]
The Beardian interpretation of the causes of the Civil War downplayed slavery, abolitionism, and issues of morality. It ignored constitutional issues of states' rights and even ignored American nationalism as the force that finally led to victory in the war. Indeed, the ferocious combat itself was passed over as merely an ephemeral event. Much more important was the calculus of class conflict. As the Beards explained in The Rise of American Civilization (1927), the Civil War was really a:[273]
social cataclysm in which the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South.
The Beards were especially interested in the Reconstruction era, as the industrialists of the Northeast and the farmers of the West cashed in on their great victory over the Southern aristocracy. Historian Richard Hofstadter paraphrases the Beards as arguing that in victory:[274]
the Northern capitalists were able to impose their economic program, quickly passing a series of measures on tariffs, banking, homesteads, and immigration that guaranteed the success of their plans for economic development. Solicitude for the freedmen had little to do with Northern policies. The Fourteenth Amendment, which gave the Negro his citizenship, Beard found significant primarily as a result of a conspiracy of a few legislative draftsmen friendly to corporations to use the supposed elevation of the blacks as a cover for a fundamental law giving strong protection to business corporations against regulation by state government.
William B. Hesseltine, a socialist politician and historian, adhered to the point that there were Northeastern businessmen wanting to control the Southern economy before and after the war, implying that they did by owning railroads.[275] In his book, A History of The South 1607-1936, he wrote "when the war closed, Northern business men looked to the South as a colony into which business might expand". Further in the same book, he wrote: "Moderates, Liberals, and Democrats continued to deplore Southern conditions until the Northern business man was persuaded that only a restoration of native white government would bring the peace necessary for economic penetration into the South."[276]
The Beard–Beale interpretation of the monolithic Northern industrialists fell apart in the 1950s when it was closely examined by numerous historians, including Robert P. Sharkey, Irwin Unger, and Stanley Coben.[277][278][279] The younger scholars conclusively demonstrated that there was no unified economic policy on the part of the dominant Republican Party. Some wanted high tariffs and some low. Some wanted greenbacks and others wanted gold. There was no conspiracy to use Reconstruction to impose any such unified economic policy on the nation. Northern businessmen were widely divergent on monetary or tariff policy, and seldom paid attention to Reconstruction issues. Furthermore, the rhetoric on behalf of the rights of the freedmen was not claptrap but deeply-held and very serious political philosophy.[271][280][272]
The Black scholar W. E. B. Du Bois, in his Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880, published in 1935,[281] compared results across the states to show achievements by the Reconstruction legislatures and to refute claims about wholesale African American control of governments. He showed Black contributions, as in the establishment of universal public education, charitable and social institutions and universal suffrage as important results, and he noted their collaboration with Whites. He also pointed out that Whites benefited most by the financial deals made, and he put excesses in the perspective of the war's aftermath. He noted that despite complaints, several states kept their Reconstruction-era state constitutions into the early 20th century. Despite receiving favorable reviews, his work was largely ignored by White historians of his time.[282]
In the 1960s, neo-abolitionist historians emerged, led by John Hope Franklin, Kenneth Stampp, Leon Litwack, and Eric Foner. Influenced by the civil rights movement, they rejected the Dunning School and found a great deal to praise in Radical Reconstruction. Foner, the primary advocate of this view, argued that it was never truly completed, and that a "Second Reconstruction" was needed in the late 20th century to complete the goal of full equality for African Americans. The neo-abolitionists followed the revisionists in minimizing the corruption and waste created by Republican state governments, saying it was no worse than Boss Tweed's ring in New York City.[283][284]
Instead, they emphasized that suppression of the rights of African Americans was a worse scandal, and a grave corruption of America's republicanist ideals. They argued that the tragedy of Reconstruction was not that it failed because Blacks were incapable of governing, especially as they did not dominate any state government, but that it failed because Whites raised an insurgent movement to restore White supremacy. White-elite-dominated state legislatures passed disenfranchising state constitutions from 1890 to 1908 that effectively barred most Blacks and many poor Whites from voting. This disenfranchisement affected millions of people for decades into the 20th century, and closed African Americans and poor Whites out of the political process in the South.[285][286]
Re-establishment of White supremacy meant that within a decade African Americans were excluded from virtually all local, state, and federal governance in all states of the South. Lack of representation meant that they were treated as second-class citizens, with schools and services consistently underfunded in segregated societies, no representation on juries or in law enforcement, and bias in other legislation. It was not until the civil rights movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that segregation was outlawed and suffrage restored, under what has in retrospect been referred to as the "Second Reconstruction".[287][288]
In 1990, Eric Foner concluded that from the Black point of view "Reconstruction must be judged a failure."[289][290] Foner stated Reconstruction was "a noble if flawed experiment, the first attempt to introduce a genuine inter-racial democracy in the United States".[30] According to him, the many factors contributing to the failure included: lack of a permanent federal agency specifically designed for the enforcement of civil rights; the Morrison R. Waite Supreme Court decisions that dismantled previous congressional civil rights legislation; and the economic reestablishment of Whiggish white planters in the South by 1877. Historian William McFeely explained that although the constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation on their own merit were remarkable achievements, no permanent government agency whose specific purpose was civil rights enforcement had been created.[iii]
More recent work by Nina Silber, David W. Blight, Cecelia O'Leary, Laura Edwards, LeeAnn Whites, and Edward J. Blum has encouraged greater attention to race, religion, and issues of gender while at the same time pushing the effective end of Reconstruction to the end of the 19th century, while monographs by Charles Reagan Wilson, Gaines Foster, W. Scott Poole, and Bruce Baker have offered new views of the Southern "Lost Cause".[292][293]
At the national level, textbooks typically date the era from 1865 to 1877. Eric Foner's textbook of national history Give Me Liberty is an example.[294] His monograph Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988) focusing on the situation in the South, covers 1863 to 1865. While 1877 is the usual date given for the end of Reconstruction, some historians such as Orville Vernon Burton extend the era to the 1890s to include the imposition of segregation.[295]
The year 1877 is also commonly used as a dividing point for two-semester survey courses and two-volume textbooks that aim to cover all of U.S. history.[296][297][298]
Economists and economic historians have different interpretations of the economic impact of race on the postwar Southern economy. In 1995, Robert Whaples took a random survey of 178 members of the Economic History Association, who studied American history in all time periods. He asked whether they wholly or partly accepted, or rejected, 40 propositions in the scholarly literature about American economic history. The greatest difference between economics PhDs and history PhDs came in questions on competition and race. For example, the proposition originally put forward by Robert Higgs, "in the post-bellum South economic competition among Whites played an important part in protecting blacks from racial coercion", was accepted in whole or part by 66% of the economists, but by only 22% of the historians. Whaples says this highlights: "A recurring difference dividing historians and economists. The economists have more faith in the power of the competitive market. For example, they see the competitive market as protecting disenfranchised blacks and are less likely to accept the idea that there was exploitation by merchant monopolists."[299]
Reconstruction is widely considered a failure, though the reason for this is a matter of controversy.
Historian Donald R. Shaffer maintained that the gains during Reconstruction for African Americans were not entirely extinguished. The legalization of African American marriages and families and the independence of Black churches from White denominations were a source of strength during the Jim Crow era. Reconstruction was never forgotten within the Black community and it remained a source of inspiration. The system of sharecropping granted Blacks a considerable amount of freedom as compared to slavery.[303]
Historian Eric Foner argues:[304]
What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for Blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure.
Historian Annette Gordon-Reed described in an October 2015 article for The Atlantic magazine the effects if Reconstruction had not failed.[305] However, in 2014, historian Mark Summers argued that the "failure" question should be looked at from the viewpoint of the war goals; in that case, he argues:[306]
If we see Reconstruction's purpose as making sure that the main goals of the war would be fulfilled, of a Union held together forever, of a North and South able to work together, of slavery extirpated, and sectional rivalries confined, of the permanent banishment of the fear of vaunting appeals to state sovereignty, backed by armed force, then Reconstruction looks like what in that respect it was, a lasting and unappreciated success.
The journalist Joel Chandler Harris, who wrote under the name "Joe Harris" for the Atlanta Constitution (mostly after Reconstruction), tried to advance racial and sectional reconciliation in the late 19th century. He supported Henry W. Grady's vision of a New South during Grady's time as editor from 1880 to 1889. Harris wrote many editorials in which he encouraged Southerners to accept the changed conditions along with some Northern influences, but he asserted his belief that change should proceed under White supremacy.[307]
In popular literature, two early 20th-century novels by Thomas Dixon Jr. – The Leopard's Spots: A Romance of the White Man's Burden – 1865–1900 (1902), and The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (1905) – idealized White resistance to Northern and Black coercion, hailing vigilante action by the Ku Klux Klan.[308] D. W. Griffith adapted Dixon's The Clansman for the screen in his anti-Republican movie The Birth of a Nation (1915); it stimulated the formation of the 20th-century version of the KKK. Many other authors romanticized the supposed benevolence of slavery and the elite world of the antebellum plantations, in memoirs and histories which were published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the United Daughters of the Confederacy promoted influential works which were written in these genres by women.[309]
Of much more lasting impact was the story Gone with the Wind, first in the form of the best-selling 1936 novel, which enabled its author Margaret Mitchell to win the Pulitzer Prize, and an award-winning Hollywood blockbuster with the same title in 1939. In each case, the second half of the story focuses on Reconstruction in Atlanta. The book sold millions of copies nationwide; the film is regularly re-broadcast on television. In 2018, it remained at the top of the list of highest-grossing films, adjusted in order to keep up with inflation. The New Georgia Encyclopedia argues:[310]
Politically, the film offers a conservative view of Georgia and the South. In her novel, despite her Southern prejudices, Mitchell showed clear awareness of the shortcomings of her characters and their region. The film is less analytical. It portrays the story from a clearly Old South point of view: the South is presented as a great civilization, the practice of slavery is never questioned, and the plight of the freedmen after the Civil War is implicitly blamed on their emancipation. A series of scenes whose racism rivals that of D. W. Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation (1915) mainly portrays Reconstruction as a time when Southern whites were victimized by freed slaves, who themselves were exploited by Northern carpetbaggers.
The "Dunning School" dominated white scholarship about Reconstruction during most of the 20th century. Black scholarship on the Reconstruction era was mostly ignored until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, though the racist interpretations of the Dunning School continue to this day.[311]
Historian Eric Foner said, "for no other period of American history does so wide a gap exist between current scholarship and popular historical understanding, which, judging from references to Reconstruction in recent newspaper articles, films, popular books, and in public monuments across the country, still bears the mark of the old Dunning School."[312]
As reported in a January 2022 Time magazine article:[313]
In social studies standards for 45 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, discussion of Reconstruction is "partial" or "non-existent", according to historians who reviewed how the period is discussed in K-12 social studies standards for public schools nationwide. In a report produced by the education nonprofit Zinn Education Project, the study's authors say they are concerned that American children will grow up to be uninformed about a critical period of history that helps explain why full racial equality remains unfulfilled today.
The Zinn Education Project's report, Erasing the Black Freedom Struggle: How State Standards Fail to Teach the Truth About Reconstruction,[314] highlights the historical connections to Reconstruction that surround us today and examines Reconstruction's place in state social studies standards across the United States and the barriers to teaching effective Reconstruction history. According to a Facing South article entitled "The South's schools are failing to teach accurate Reconstruction history":[315]
"It is our hope that states and districts will adopt these guidelines for their own educational standards, curricula, and professional development," the report states. "In so doing, they will be better equipped to teach students the true history of Reconstruction, help students understand its significance and make connections to the present day. And they will empower teachers to educate their students and themselves about ongoing Reconstruction scholarship."
Reconstruction is almost literally a landmark. It defines the territory.
For more sources, see Reconstruction: Bibliography and Bibliography of slavery in the United States
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
