Opinion of Reconstruction

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Massive Freedom Policy, although it would have gone much better and smoother if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated.

[Mopsus]

Freedom Policy in conception, Horrible Policy in execution. I mean, did it even accomplish a single thing in the end?

[TNF]

Freedom Policy in conception, Horrible Policy in execution. I mean, did it even accomplish a single thing in the end?

The bringing of capitalist social relations to the South?

[The Mikado]

Botched, half-hearted and swiftly-abandoned.  It had good intentions but was objectively a failed attempt to achieve its goals.

[SWE]

Freedom Policy in conception, Horrible Policy in execution. I mean, did it even accomplish a single thing in the end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Cassius]

Freedom Policy in conception, Horrible Policy in execution. I mean, did it even accomplish a single thing in the end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Although the first is listed as a reconstruction amendment, it was actually passed before the beginning of reconstruction. Whilst it could be argued of course that the latter two had long term positive effects, in the short run, they simply encouraged southern Governments to find more inventive ways of denying things to black people.

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that reconstruction was largely awful. I think that the fairly moderate policies pursued by Lincoln (and those that Johnson attempted to pursue) were largely sound. Radical reconstruction was mostly a disastrous failure; it was on the one hand partially motivated by spite, on the other by high minded idealism that was fairly impracticable. It essentially fell between two stools; if you want to be punitive, you really have to ensure that those who are punished can never rise again; in order for that to have happened, the Union would have had to have killed, imprisoned or enslaved the vast majority of the white population of the south, or, in other words, to hacve engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing coupled with the brainwashing of the young. Of course, radical reconstruction didn't go that far. On the other hand, it was punitive and humiliating enough to really alienate a large proportion of the white southern population, helping to strengthen ideas such as 'the lost cause' as well as political movements in favour of segregation. At the same time, it was unevenly and sometimes incompetently applied, ensuring that many of these harsher efforts were going to be of limited success.

[Mopsus]

Freedom Policy in conception, Horrible Policy in execution. I mean, did it even accomplish a single thing in the end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Hmm, yes, I suppose that that was an oversight on my part. Still, I consider the Thirteenth Amendment a consequence more of the Civil War than of Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments weren't even faithfully carried out until the modern Civil Rights Movement.

[Never]

Massive Freedom Policy, although it would have gone much better and smoother if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated.

Yes, Lincoln could have smoothed over many of the issues of Reconstruction. For one, since he would have been in a stronger position with the Radical Republicans than Johnson, Lincoln probably would have been able to make Reconstruction policy more accommodating to the Upper South, enabling him to put more focus on the Deep South, where the Confederacy was strongest to begin with.

[Deus Naturae]

It really screwed over the South for 150 years and counting. Surely there was a better way.

Seceding from the union screwed over the south much more

And the Republican agenda of protectionism would have screwed the South over if they'd stayed. The landowning elites may have primarily concerned with slavery, but ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners had good reason to want out of a Union that was willing to plunder their economy for the benefit of Northern industrial interests.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

arguably the first in a number of failed experiments in "nation building" by the US military.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it illegal under the constitution to split up states?

Supreme Court allowed for the creation of West Virginia without the consent of Virginia during the war. They even ruled after the war that the panhandle belonged to West Virginia, even though they did not choose to join. Pretty much sets the precedent for this. Also technically the Confederate states are under occupation, so I don't think the constitution 100% applies to the states that seceded.

Technically, it did have the consent of the rump Virginia government that was recognized by the Union during the war as being the legitimate government of the commonwealth.  Despite what most people think, there were three states that had competing Confederate and Federal governments and not two.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It really screwed over the South for 150 years and counting. Surely there was a better way.

Seceding from the union screwed over the south much more

And the Republican agenda of protectionism would have screwed the South over if they'd stayed. The landowning elites may have primarily concerned with slavery, but ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners had good reason to want out of a Union that was willing to plunder their economy for the benefit of Northern industrial interests.

That is ironic because beginning in the 1880's is when the iron and steel of Alabama was developed courtesy of northern investment and over the next decade or more is when the textile mills began to move South as well. Development that was hindered by the dominance of slavery and the effect it had of diverting investment capital and hindering the developments of industry, technology, and transportation in the region, not to mention population growth and job creation. Its hard to paint the south as the victims of Northern protectionists trying to save themselves from tarrifs when they are by extension of their act further preserving a gov't propped up insitution of Slavery that was doing far more to hinder the economy and deprive those non slaveownders of jobs.

[Deus Naturae]

It really screwed over the South for 150 years and counting. Surely there was a better way.

Seceding from the union screwed over the south much more

And the Republican agenda of protectionism would have screwed the South over if they'd stayed. The landowning elites may have primarily concerned with slavery, but ordinary, non-slaveholding Southerners had good reason to want out of a Union that was willing to plunder their economy for the benefit of Northern industrial interests.

That is ironic because beginning in the 1880's is when the iron and steel of Alabama was developed courtesy of northern investment and over the next decade or more is when the textile mills began to move South as well. Development that was hindered by the dominance of slavery and the effect it had of diverting investment capital and hindering the developments of industry, technology, and transportation in the region, not to mention population growth and job creation. Its hard to paint the south as the victims of Northern protectionists trying to save themselves from tarrifs when they are by extension of their act further preserving a gov't propped up insitution of Slavery that was doing far more to hinder the economy and deprive those non slaveownders of jobs.

It's absolutely true that slavery was a massive retardant of economic development, you certainly won't get any argument from me on that point. But, the fate of slavery in the Southern States wasn't particularly relevant to Southern secession (with regard to slavery, the issue was its expansion into new Territories and States, which was primarily a concern of the wealthy slaveholders). So, non-slaveholding Southerners who supported secession likely had little concern for slavery, and a lot more concern for Republican-backed tariff hikes that would've significantly increased the prices of vital goods like clothing and machinery. At the very least, it is hardly fair to suggest that non-slaveholding Southerners "got what they deserved" for supporting secession (as SWE implied).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wouldn't you also say the emense gov't support required to prop up slavery was a form of protectionism? Not to mention also the violation of freedom caused by the fact that poor white farmers were practically conscripted to catch runaways and/or would be called upon as part of the militia in the event of a slave revolt. A slave society is by definition a police state by necessity of the fear of slave revolts. It was a crime to advocate against slavery in many Southern states as well as you get closer to the Civil War on that very basis as well.

[Barnes]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it illegal under the constitution to split up states?

Supreme Court allowed for the creation of West Virginia without the consent of Virginia during the war. They even ruled after the war that the panhandle belonged to West Virginia, even though they did not choose to join. Pretty much sets the precedent for this. Also technically the Confederate states are under occupation, so I don't think the constitution 100% applies to the states that seceded.

Technically, it did have the consent of the rump Virginia government that was recognized by the Union during the war as being the legitimate government of the commonwealth.  Despite what most people think, there were three states that had competing Confederate and Federal governments and not two.

Precisely.

To split a state, or to merge a state with another (or a part of another), requires both the consent of Congress and of all the states in question.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

Wouldn't you also say the emense gov't support required to prop up slavery was a form of protectionism? Not to mention also the violation of freedom caused by the fact that poor white farmers were practically conscripted to catch runaways and/or would be called upon as part of the militia in the event of a slave revolt. A slave society is by definition a police state by necessity of the fear of slave revolts. It was a crime to advocate against slavery in many Southern states as well as you get closer to the Civil War on that very basis as well.

I agree. The slave system had similar effects to protectionism, too, with the Southern economy becoming highly undiversified and reliant on the export of a small number of agricultural commodities (which is why the average Southerner would've been hurt so badly by the Republican tariff hikes). In addition, the wealthy slaveholders were similar to the rent-seeking businessmen in the North who sought higher tariffs to protect their industries. Both groups benefitted from the profits their distortionary systems provided, but the North and South as a whole were both poorer as a result of their respective activities. As you noted before, slavery was really not beneficial to the average Southerner, which is another reason why it isn't fair to imply that ordinary Southerners "got what was coming to them."