Reconstruction Realized

[loneranger]

I am working my way through Chernow’s new U.S. Grant biography and I just arrived at the portions where Johnson allowed former southern plantation owners to reclaim their property that the government had confiscated during the war.

The book points out that this pretty much killed a chance for freedmen to establish an economic base, forcing them from forty acre plots they had already been working on and back onto the same plantations they had escaped from.

This is fairly infuriating.

The book presents Lincoln’s 1864 re-election as not a sure thing, especially given the status of the war to date. And indeed, the logic for Andrew Johnson was sound at the time : border state Democrat, fiercely anti-rebellion.

But as became clear after the war, anti-rebellion doesn’t mean anti-slavery.

I was wondering - is there any way to stop Johnson’s move to allow Ex-Confederates to reclaim their land? Either somehow blocking this move through changing Johnson’s opinion, some sort of government check/balance, or even just having a POD of a different VP (and who that could be).

The obvious answer is probably a surviving Lincoln. I’m looking to keep his life & death in tact, though.

 

[mjwebb76]

Your most interesting possibility would be to have Benjamin Butler as VP. Because Butler was a radical republican (and considered a criminal the south) this does raise the possibility that the Lincoln/Butler ticket would lose. Basically, looking at the election results, if the more radical ticket caused Lincoln to lose around 5 percentage points he would lost both the popular vote and the electoral college. IOTL he received 55.1% in Maryland and Michigan and losing all states with lower percentages (except IL) would cause Lincoln/Butler to lose. This possibility is probably why Lincoln did not name Butler.

That said, Butler as President is very interesting. He was extremely strong on civil rights as well as women's suffrage and other progressive goals. In the short term I think Butler as President certainly gets rid of the depredations of Presidential reconstruction. In the slightly longer term I wonder if it creates a different backlash.

Specifically, IOTL, popular disgust with Johnson led to the election of a radical republican congress in 1866 and 1868 which forced the passage of the 14th and 15th amendment (which ultimately form basis for the modern civil rights protections). If Presidential reconstruction is more radical (as seems almost certain with Butler) I think its plausible that you get the opposite backlash. In other words, in 1866/68 the Democrats do well enough that they are able to prevent the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments.

Alternatively, Butler was not someone who was particularly concerned with process and rule of law. He basically forced emancipation by declaring runaway slaves "contraband of war". More troubling, he executed a man in New Orleans for disrespecting the flag. Therefore, you could imagine President Butler using the military much more aggressively to ensure radical success in the 1866/1868 elections, thereby nullifying any potential popular backlash.

 

[Mikestone8]

I was wondering - is there any way to stop Johnson’s move to allow Ex-Confederates to reclaim their land? Either somehow blocking this move through changing Johnson’s opinion, some sort of government check/balance, or even just having a POD of a different VP (and who that could be).

Wouldn't the planters just be pardoned by Grant instead of Johnson?

After all, even most of the disqualifications from office imposed by the 14th amendment were lifted by Congress as early as 1872. There was little appetite for being hard on ex-Rebs.

And land redistribution could only work in those corners of the South which were near-solidly back. In places with a substantial white population, any Freedman rash enough to accept confiscated land (even supposing he could afford it) would just be found in a ditch with bullet-holes in his back.

 

[loneranger]

Wouldn't the planers just be pardoned by Grant instead of Johnson?

After all, even most of the disqualifications from office imposed by the 14th amendment were lifted by Congress as early as 1872. There was little appetite for being hard on ex-Rebs.

And land redistribution could only work in those corners of the South which were near-solidly back. In places with a substantial white population, any Freedman rash enough to accept confiscated land (even supposing he could afford it) would just be found in a ditch with bullet-holes in his back.

Chernow left me with the impression that many already had occupied and farmed confiscated land for a time before Johnson undid the confiscations.

Your point about protection against racists is taken, though - there’s the massacres in Memphis and New Orleans to consider : wherever left to their own devices it seemed like local govt’s were little better than the Confederacy.

 

[GeographyDude]

https://swap.stanford.edu/20150124024818/http://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/andrewjohnson

' . . . By the time Congress met in December 1865, . . . '

President Lincoln is assassinated on April 15, 1865, and Congress does not reconvene till December ! ? ! ? !

Yes, there's a part in the Constitution that the President can call Congress into session, but in no way does it say that such is the only way for Congress to assemble. In fact, such a claim would not even be in keeping with a modern reading of three co-equal branches, much less with what I'd argue is an earlier reading that Congress is the most important part of the federal government (the 1st article of the new Constitution, and the longer article)

To me, it's war weariness on the part of members of Congress, and just sheer hoping that things will work out okay, and yes, these are both human motives. But also, and I'll go ahead and say it . . .

just sheer dereliction of duty.

 

[GeographyDude]

Article I

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Section 4.
' . . . The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. . . '

I read this as saying Congress can assemble more than once a year.

Article II

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Section 3.
' . . . he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, . . . '

I guess, if we're members of Congress and we want Reconstruction to fail, we can act like we're poor, pitiful people helpless to do anything until the president reconvenes us. But if we want Reconstruction to succeed, we can assert an implied right as a co-equal or even preeminent branch to re-assemble ourselves. And so, after Lincoln is assassinated, we simply reconvene ourselves, and dare Johnson to stop it.

And if it comes down to it, I will happily accept a Constitutional crisis over a failed Reconstruction.

 

[Mikestone8]

I read this as saying Congress can assemble more than once a year.

Certainly it can, if it appoints by law a date for such a meeting. But it did not do so prior to its termination in March 1865, and once it was no longer in session it had of course no way to pass such a law. [1]

FTM, if Congress could reassemble whenever it felt like doing so, what need would there have been to specify the December date, or require a different day to be prescribed by law?

[1] Even had it done so, Lincoln might well have vetoed the measure. He probably wouldn't have wanted Congress breathing down his neck any more than Johnson did - though he would probably have used the breathing-space to better effect.

 

[loneranger]

Certainly it can, if it appoints by law a date for such a meeting. But it did not do so prior to its termination in March 1865, and once it was no longer in session it had of course no way to pass such a law. [1]

FTM, if Congress could reassemble whenever it felt like doing so, what need would there have been to specify the December date, or require a different day to be prescribed by law?

[1] Even had it done so, Lincoln might well have vetoed the measure. He probably wouldn't have wanted Congress breathing down his neck any more than Johnson did - though he would probably have used the breathing-space to better effect.

Do you think there’d be any motive or legal basis for a more general reconvention date?

I’m thinking before ending their pre-assassination session, passing something along the lines of “reconvene earlier if there is a cessation to the civil war”.

Ofc there’s no reason to challenge AJ so early on. His rhetoric against the CSA was hawkish enough that he seemed like a good ally at first.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . In places with a substantial white population, any Freedman rash enough to accept confiscated land (even supposing he could afford it) would just be found in a ditch with bullet-holes in his back.

. . . Your point about protection against racists is taken, though - there’s the massacres in Memphis and New Orleans to consider : wherever left to their own devices it seemed like local govt’s were little better than the Confederacy.

General Sherman and others should have prevented southern authorities from disarming newly freed slaves.

Freedmen with Firearms: White Terrorism and Black Disarmament During Reconstruction

David H. Schenk, April 2014

http://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=gcjcwe

And Frederick Douglass talked about the three boxes of freedom: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

====================

I quite agree that there needs to be both the substance and perception of fairness. Confiscation of land from the planter class needs to be distributed (sold at discount, loans available) to both poor farmers and middle-class ones. And in no way, shape, or form should it be viewed that persons newly freed are getting some kind of sweetheart deal.

Furthermore, if Reconstruction government can side with the common citizens against the quasi-monopolies of the railroads and grain elevators, a wide range of regular southern farmers, both black and white, will be thinking, well, shit, we never had it so good with the old aristocracy. That's how you win people over.

 

[GeographyDude]

Certainly it can, if it appoints by law a date for such a meeting. But it did not do so prior to its termination in March 1865, and once it was no longer in session it had of course no way to pass such a law. . .

You know, if we would in church, I'd probably good-naturedly say, Brother, that's legalism (or that's formalism).

Extraordinary circumstances, Congress reconvenes, that's all there is to it.

 

[UCB79]

President Lincoln is assassinated on April 15, 1865, and Congress does not reconvene till December ! ? ! ? !

Yes, there's a part in the Constitution that the President can call Congress into session, but in no way does it say that such is the only way for Congress to assemble. In fact, such a claim would not even be in keeping with a modern reading of three co-equal branches, much less with what I'd argue is an earlier reading that Congress is the most important part of the federal government (the 1st article of the new Constitution, and the longer article)

To me, it's war weariness on the part of members of Congress, and just sheer hoping that things will work out okay, and yes, these are both human motives. But also, and I'll go ahead and say it . . .

just sheer dereliction of duty.

In the 19th Century it was common for
Congress, after adjourning in March, to not
reconvene again until December. It just
didn’t meet as often(& for as long)then as it does now.

Besides in 1865 IOTL when Congress DID
meet again next December it did move -admittedly after a while- against Johnson.

 

[GeographyDude]

Do you think there’d be any motive or legal basis for a more general reconvention date?

The reason was, is that members of Congress had ruined farms, business affairs way in arrears, etc. All very human motives, but harmful for the nation.

Congress is not some developmental league or triple-A baseline. They simply reconvene. If Johnson challenges it, he's going to look petty and so on and so forth, and end up losing some credibility. If someone uses as precedent that some British king did not convene parliament for some long period . . . that's even going to be a bigger public relations hit, with the effect that Congress gains in prestige and the president loses.

 

[GeographyDude]

Besides in 1865 IOTL when Congress DID
meet again next n December it moved, al-
most @ once, against Johnson.

They should have reconvened and moved quicker!

Again, as the major, predominant branch of government, they certainly have the right to call themselves into session when needed. And besides, just do it, no one's really going to be able to effectively question it.

 

[Mikestone8]

You know, if we would in church, I'd probably good-naturedly say, Brother, that's legalism (or that's formalism).

Extraordinary circumstances, Congress reconvenes, that's all there is to it.

Who has the power to reconvene it? The Constitution gives that power only to the POTUS.

Please show me a single precedent for Congress to reconvene itself w/I aa Presidential summons other than on the date specified in Article 1.

Anyway what "extraordinary circumstances" are you talking about? Congress couldn't pass any measures in April that it couldn't equally well pass in December, so what need would there be to reconvene it earlier?

 

[Mikestone8]

They should have reconvened and moved quicker!

Again, as the major, predominant branch of government, they certainly have the right to call themselves into session when needed. And besides, just do it, no one's really going to be able to effectively question it.

But what would be the point? The session would be plainly illegal and any measures it passed would have no validity. Johnson would be perfectly justified in ignoring them, and the SCOTUS would uphold him. They would all have to be re-enacted when Congress met in a legal session. So it would still be December before they could pass anything with legal force.

 

[UCB79]

They should have reconvened and moved quicker!

Again, as the major, predominant branch of government, they certainly have the right to call themselves into session when needed. And besides, just do it, no one's really going to be able to effectively question it.

Another problem was that many in the Re-
publican Party- which remember in 1865 IOTL controlled Congress- wanted to get
along with, & not fight, Johnson. It took many Republicans quite a while to realize
that they & Johnson were simply not on the
same page.

Don’t get me wrong Geography- I’m not de-
fending Congress here. What I’m trying to
do instead is explain why it was hesitant(@
least @ first)to act. Personally Geography I
like Andrew Johnson as much as you do- in
other words, not very much! Thaddeus
Stevens, as he so often did, put it best. When a Johnson defender called him a self-
made man Stevens shot back: “Glad to hear
it, for it relieves God Almighty of a heavy responsibility."*

*- Quoted in Fawn Brodie, THADDEUS STEVENS: SCOURGE OF THE SOUTH, p. 326 of the 1966,
Norton paperbacks edition. First published in 1959. There are a # of Stevens biographies but this
one, despite its age, is the best by a mile. Is quite informative not only re Stevens, but also on
Civil War politics, Reconstruction, & the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

 

[loneranger]

General Sherman and others should have prevented southern authorities from disarming newly freed slaves.

My reading of Sherman seems to be someone about as conservative as AJohnson when it comes to civil rights - it’s just that Sherman was a consummate professional who refused to delve into politics.

 

[Mikestone8]

The reason was, is that members of Congress had ruined farms, business affairs way in arrears, etc. All very human motives, but harmful for the nation.

In what way? What would such an earlier session have done?

Had Congress been sitting in mid-1865, the Civil Rights and Freedmens Bureau Bills might have passed a year earlier, but that's hardly a big deal.

More importantly, a 14th Amendment might have been sent to the States a year or so early, but not necessarily as we know it. Frex, if the South had not (yet) aroused Northern indignation by returning a bunch of high ranking rebs (incl the VP of the Confederacy) as Senators and Representatives, the disqualification clause might have been weaker or omitted altogether. Most of the notorious "Black Codes" would also have still been in the future (iirc most of them were enacted abt Nov-Dec) so the First section might also have been less sweeping.

$64,000 question. Had such a milder 14th Amendment been passed, might the Southern States have swallowed their pride and ratified it? If so, they probably get readmitted w/o having to give Freedmen the vote (a political hot potato which Congress would have been reluctant to pick up had the South's intransigence not forced them down that road), which certainly makes for a different Reconstruction, but not different in quite the way the OP has in mind.

 

[loneranger]

Maybe Lafayette Foster loses re-election, AJ is immediately impeached upon Congress taking office December 1865 and perhaps Benjamin Wade becomes president?

Grant doesn’t seem as likely - his political awareness was forged almost entirely in opposition to Johnson.

 

[Mikestone8]

Maybe Lafayette Foster loses re-election, AJ is immediately impeached upon Congress taking office December 1865 and perhaps Benjamin Wade becomes president?

Impeached for what? He had done nothing that wasn't perfectly within his legal rights.

And if they couldn't get a conviction after thirty months of bitter conflict, they certainly won't at an earlier date.