Its really the period immediately after the civil war is the period of reconstruction. Why is it called reconstruction . Because we are talking about the reconstruction of the union, right, of the seceded states that had formed the confederacy. Theyre now defeated. And the question then becomes is how do they reenter the union . How do we reconstruct the union . And that is why this period is known as reconstruction. It is not that wellknown in American History as the civil war. So, so far weve been talking simply about the civil war, right . Before the midterms, we covered the civil war. Everyone knows about the civil war. It has kind of a triumphant end, at least if youre not a newer confederate. The union wins. Slavery is destroyed. Reconstruction, on the other hand, does not have a happy ending. Its a great experiment in racial democracy immediately after the war, but it is overthrown. Maybe we all like happy endings, and thats one of the seasons we dont know that much about reconstruction. But it is really a crucial period in American History, extremely crucial because many of our modern ideas about citizenship, what constitutes democracy, about equality all comes from reconstruction. In a way, it is like the second founding of the American Republic. You have three constitutional amendments. You dont have that since the bill of rights, right . Thats just when the constitution is adopted, at the founding moment of the American Republic. Its a crucial period that, one, i think americans would should be more aware of. Okay. So, what are the issues of reconstruction that really are still pertinent today . Okay. Now, heres an image from harpers weekly, and it sort of personifies, i think, some of the central issues involved in this period of reconstructing the period. And the questions it raises. Have a look at it. I dont know how clear it is for you. You may not be able to read all the writing. Here is freedman. He has something in his hand, a piece of paper. And on that, you may not be able to read, is written equal rights. Thats a union army officer. Thats the officer of the u. S. Marshall that seems to be seeking protection. And there are a bunch of southern whites there with placards saying kkk, call home your troops. They want federal troops to leave the south, et cetera. So, just looking at that image, can you think of what may have been some of the issues of reconstruction . Brian . Probably the need for federal troops to secure rights in the south because they feared that, you know, confederates would retake and try to force slavery, almost, back on the newly freed men. Excellent, excellent. You know, thats exactly what i think the picture illustrates, right, that there may be a danger that once the federal troops leave,that southern whites would want to go back to the way things were. So, then what was the war fought all about . That is a real danger. And the fact that the rights of black people are so connected with the presence of the federal government of these troops in the south tells you something about the issues of reconstruction. Black citizenship. You know, what would freedom mean for black people. Theyre no longer slaves. Are they going to be citizens . Are they going to be given equal rights . What is their status in the American Republic . The presence of the federal government of the union army, the u. S. Marshalls office there. Quite clearly we are getting a new sense of the nation state, of the federal government. Old ideas about federalism, which is the principle of dividing political power between the federal government and the state governments are going to be revisited, right . Could these states they seceded from the union. What will the status of these rebel states now be. The federal government is symbol of the victorious union. How are they going to negotiate these rights again . Will the expansion of the natural government or the federal government as the face of the victorious union be connected to the issue of black rights . Clearly here, that seems to the imagery. And this is an image right from the middle of reconstruction. This is the issue that is being represented in the north, that the federal government is closely connected to this issue of black rights, and that the issue of federalism does involve a renegotiation, virtually, or a reimagining of what is states rights, what are the powers of the federal government, renegotiation of that relationship. Why do you think states rights would be somewhat discredited now . Any ideas . The idea of states rights, the states have certain rights. Remember who are the people who have evoked states rights before and for what purpose before the war . Yeah, abby . Wait for the mic. Make sure the mic is close to you so that everyone can hear your intelligence questions and responses. Maybe before the civil war, it was southern planter politicians evoking states rights, but that was fundamentally to do with slavery. You know, some politicians like in the profession of south carolina, they evoke states rights in terms of sovereignty between the states. Right. But now the federal government has won. That idea cant stand anymore because now theyre having to be reintroduced. So, slavery is abolished and theres no sovereignty with the states. The federal government has impressed them. Absolutely, very good. Thats exactly why states rights is somewhat discredited, that idea. First it had been used to defend slavery by Southern States who didnt want the federal government to interfere with slavery. And second it was the right to secede from the union in order to protect slavery. So, states rights is really connected with the institution of slavery and with secession and civil war. So, its somewhat of a discredited philosophy at this time. So, these issues, of course, as i say, are the issues of reconstruction are something that is still with us. And when i introduce the period to you, i said this is the period when you have farreaching federal laws being passed on. Civil rights in fact, there are cases being fought in the Supreme Court today that evoke the laws of reconstruction era, farreaching amendments to the constitution. You may not have heard of the 14th amendment to the u. S. Constitution, it but it has been so important in our times, right . The right to privacy, Marriage Equality, the right roe v. Wade. All those decisions that have been made that have been constantly expanding rights in the United States for different groups evoke the 14th amendment. So, its really this moment in history that forms our modern notions of equality and citizenship and what democracy in america should look like, right . So, yes its an extremely important period, but it is also a contested period. You can see that in the picture. You can see the contestation there. Does the defeated south look or the defeated confederacy people, does it look as if they have accepted defeat, at least in this northern representation . Is there going to be peace after the war . No, right . This looks like a contestation. Why would the army even be needed in the south, right, to protect black rights if there was not going to be contestation. So, this notion that there was no peace after the war, that somehow the issues that defined the war were still being contested in the south is something that is really important to understand reconstruction. It is, in fact, one of the most contentious periods in American History. Jenson, you can have the mic here. I also find sblg interesting that Andrew Johnson was also very prostate rights when he was doing reconstruction. So, it also made it hard to implement federal rights for reconstruction as well. That also made it hard because the president during reconstruction wasnt really in favor of so much federal outreach and so much federal power. So, its interesting too, i think. Excellent point. You know, Andrew Johnson presents a big problem for us. Hes a states rights democrat before the war. And because of an assassins bullet, he becomes president. And hes clearly not on board with the Republican Program of black rights. And hes clearly not on board with this expansion of the federal government in order to ensure black rights and ensure the rule of law in the south. Hes not going to go with that. And that would create one of the biggest constitutional crises in American History. Its the first time that an american president is brought up on articles of impeachment. And he but we are getting ahead of ourselves here. But im glad you brought up johnson, because we will be talking about that today. Today we are going to talk about the issues raised by reconstruction. Were going to talk about johnson and president ial reconstruction and eventually how congress implements a program of reconstruction based on the idea of black citizenship and comes close to impeaching Andrew Johnson. Now, this is, as i said, a very fraught period because of the contention in the south, contention in the washington, d. C. Between the president and congress. Hes kind of disowned from his own party in a way. How have historians understood this period. Remember when we talked about civil war and deferred interpretations, slavery and deferring interpretations of slavery. And the same is true of reconstruction. Historians have interpreted this period in very different ways. Much of this is not in the reading that youve done for today, but it is in the introduction to the short history of reconstruction. And some of it will be new. Some of it i add to that. Now, the historiography of reconstruction was defined by what was known as the Dunning School, named after a Columbia University historian. And i have to aboll apologize for my alma mater because this was a very pernicious interpretation of reconstruction put forward by dunning and john burgess. If you want the exact spellings of the names, it is in the introduction to the book. And a bunch of their students. And they basically said that this was like a terrible period in American History. Reconstruction was awful because of vindictive northern radical republicans forcing black rights on to the south, that it was a period of corruption, it was a period of misrule, incompetent former slaves were suddenly given political power. And they wreaked havoc on the defeated south. So, the sympathy is all with the south. Its a very racist view of that period because if you just read dunning and burgess, this kind of crude up front racism that they have, you know, there are people relapsing into barberism, this is a period of black supremacy. So, according to the Dunning School, giving equal rights to black people meant hurting southern whites,that we were somehow and it was just a failure. There was no achievement really, nothing redeeming about this period at all. And the pernicious thing, of course, is that dunning and his students pretty much dominated reconstruction historiography just like dominated interpretations of the civil war for a long time. Its about states rights, not about slavery. But states rights to do what . To defend slavery. So, this kind of pernicious interpretation was really dominant for a very, very long time. A few challenges started coming up with the rise of the Progressive School of historians. You remember the Progressive School of historians, the mcfearson article on the civil war that talked about the civil war as the second American Revolution . This idea was first put forward by the Progressive School. They used it to talk about the triumph of the industrial north versus the south. And mcfearson and others show that in fact we can keep the idea of the revolution, but what we cant do is see it as some sort of economic conflict between the north and the south. The real conflict was over slavery. And the revolution was getting the end of slavery, getting rid of slavery. So, the Progressive School of historians said, you know, this whole race talk, you know, that was not really the real issue of reconstruction. Just as they saw the civil war as the result of deferring economic interest, they saw reconstruction and republicans as trying to enforce northern capitalism on to the south, that these were the they were always looking for the economic selfinterests of the people. You know, what was the real economic race is just a window dressing for the real economic interests of the north and south. Now, you read youre going to double dose of fauna. Youve been reading and rightly so. Did you manage to read the article on the radical republicans . What does boner say . Does he say that radical republicans are really arguing about if you have your book handy, you can go quickly and check it out. Are they agents of northern capitalism . Do they have a unified Economic Policy that they want to implement in the south . We can have the mic here. So, bohner said there wasnt really a unified Economic Policy in the Republican Party and that reconstruction or rather black rights and moving reconstruction forward was really the main policy, much more so than Economic Policy. Economic policy was on the back burner, i guess. Absolutely, very good. Bohner says theres no Economic Policy. Some of them are hearing a lot about protection and tariffs again. Some of them are for tariffs. Some are for free trade. They dont have any unified policy. The thing that United States th them is the rights and citizenship they want to make sure is extended to slaves. Maybe moderates want to go with civil rights. That holds the Party Together the way antislavery did before the civil war. They had an Economic Policy. It was what they called free labor ideology or what fauna calls free labor ideology, that people should be paid wages for their work. They should be allowed to leave their employer if they find better wages and better conditions in another place. That they should not be enslaved, basically, right . And that ideology made some kind of economicide kolg they had. In terms of implementing some sort of Economic Policy on the south and reducing the south as many progressive historians argued into kind of a colonial status was simply not what happened. Now, besides these two you can understand also why the Progressive School of historians said this, right . They, of course, were dominant during the progressive era. And if you think of your u. S. History, progressive era is the era of trying to address the problems of the guilded age, of capitalism. Theres a lot of conflict. There are strikes. Theres mass immigration. This is a time when the idea that government should regulate the economy, we should have clean food, clean air, clean water. Child labor is not a great thing. Those sort of things come into being. That was the progressive reforms, that government has a role to play. And you can understand why the Progressive School of historians, influenced by that kind of reform attitude at that time, are talking about Economic Issues far more than the issue of the war, which was slavery and race and questions about rights. Theres one person who dissents against this view. Not the progressive view so much, maybe a little bit the progressive view, but the Dunning School, which remains the dominant view. The Dunning School, even though you have these challenges coming up, in terms of popular culture, they are dominant. Theres a journalist who writes a book called the tragic era from indiana, and he basically recaps the Dunning School for a broader audience. There are the first hollywood classic about reconstruction. Has anyone seen the birth of the nation. Yeah . Yeah, you dont want to see it. Like, talk about the propaganda of history, right . What was insidious about the Dunning School was that its view percolated into the popular culture, into film, the first hollywood classic, which premiered, by the way, in the white house. Because the first southerner elected after the civil war was woodrow wilson. And wilson was a southerner. He was a progressive on Economic Issues. But when it came to race, he was really retrograde. Not only did he premier the birth of a nation, which was all about black men being rapists and the can yku klux klan is redeeming the south. And its kind of horrendous to watch, pretty painful. If you have the time, you can look at it. It caricatures the radicals, especially Thaddeus Stevens. Woodrow wilson, who is progressive mostly in Economic Policy, and maybe to an certain extent in International Relations is retrogresive when it comes to race. He fires all black federal government officers because he doesnt want any black people in the federal government. He establishes a league of nations, of course, or helps establish it, even though thats voted down by the u. S. Congress. But, you know, he has this idea of national selfdetermination for everyone. And the moment people said, well does this apply to asia and africa, hes like of course not. I meant only for europeans. When it comes to race, hes extremely, extremely retrogresive. That is how pernicious the Dunning School was. You know, it was in the white house. It was in hollywood. It was everywhere. That was the picture of reconstruction that was dominant. And as one dissenting voice here, and that is the famous black intellectual historian activists, one of the founders of the naacp, web dubois. Dubois wrote a book and wanted to center the role of africanamericans in the whole drama of reconstruction. Read the subtitle. An essay toward the part in which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in america from 1860 to 1880. So, from the civil war to well after reconstruction is over in 1880. And he published this in 1935. And hes not only centered africanamericans in this story, hes saying this is not just a matter of reconstructing the unien i don union. Its a matter of reconstructing american democracy. Its values, its ideals. And when black people are demanding citizenship and equal rights, theyre demanding the interracial we live in today. It is contested in the 19th century and continues to be contested until today. Who is an american citizen . Should people have equal rights . You would imagine that these questions were settled with the civil war. But, in fact, they are extremely contested in the period after the war and afterward. So, hes saying in demanding equality, black people are helping to reconstruct american democracy. That was his idea. But more importantly, dubois, at the end of this mammoth book that he writes about reconstruction, has a chapter called the propaganda of history, where he really takes the Dunning School to task. He literally quotes them and the extremely racist views about black people. And the fact that they literally they were not just they wrote bad history. They just wrote what southerners had said about reconstruction and pretty much reproduced that. And he actually has a wonderful quote that im going to read out to you. He says in his book in this chapter on the propaganda of history, the magnificent figures of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. These were the radal kas, right . Youve read Thaddeus Stevens, right . Had been besmirched. Theyre portrayed as enemies of the nation. We have been con joeling and flattering the south and slurring the north because the south is determined to rewrite history. And the north is not interested in history but in wealth. Here he is condemning the Republican Partys abandonment of the reconstruction project, its conversion from the party of antislavery to the party of big business during the builded age. A flood of appeal from the white south reinforced this reaction. No longer the arrogant bluster of slave oligarchy, but the simple moving of the plight of a conquered people. These were defeated people, and we were just mean and vindictive and revengeful to them. He would say the resulting emotional rebound of the nation made it inconceivable in 1876, at the end of reconstruction, that ten years earlier most men believed in human equality. So, its a real zieindictment o the historical profession and the way in which historians had written about reconstruction. Dubois book was not even reviewed in the american Historical Review, which is like the leading journal of our profession. But he had the last laugh, because guess what . In the 1960s, during the civil rights era, his view of reconstruction became dominant. People saw the Dunning School for what it was. This is also in the Second World War when racism is intellectually and politically, at least, unfashionable. Naziism had made racism suspect, and ideas about race suspect. The american historical profession as a whole is sort of reckoning with reconstruction in different ways. And many people who write in the 60s like black and white historians cant understand, john hope franklin, they all write to resurrect dubois views of reconstruction. Its also interesting that it is really in a 1940 essay that harvard k. Biel, writing an essay on reconstruction in the american Historical Review praises dubois as going beyond the ways in which the Dunning School had written about reconstruction, where he said an moss city still animated it. This view is erik foner. Youre reading an abridged version of this magnum opus. What is interesting about foner is that he sort of updates dubois for our times to a certain extent. He is kind of an intellectual. You are reading all of his view of reconstruction, really. Thats the standard view now in American History of reconstruction. He sees africanamericans as central players in the drama of reconstruction. But he also looks at the expansion of the nation state, of the constitutional and politica politic political crises that take place. Does anyone want to take a stab at that . Any ideas about how foner talks about how freedom is being contested during this time, that that is the central issue really, black freedom of reconstruction . You remember how he talks about black people reconstructing their families, their marriages, their communities, their churches but also thinking about economic independence, et cetera . Abby, yeah . In terms of africanamericans, because they had lost so much during slavery, one of the things they tried to establish families by looking for their own families and legalizing their marriages. So, their personal freedoms became very political because things they werent able to do became things which were regarded as foundations for freedom and how they could engage in their own freedom even though it didnt seem like they were doing much to the white dominant society. These are what we could consider basic civil rights, the ability to have family, to get married to someone. You think about the whole debate of Marriage Equality is something you all grew up with. Thats a basic civil right that many gay people demanded. They said we should not be sigma advertised. And Marriage Equality was proclaimed. Thats in had a way what former slaves are contending for, their basic civil rights, their basic security as citizens in this country. And most importantly for foner, their political rights, right . Theyre looking for economic independence, et cetera too, and we will talk more about the contestation over land and labor and the reconstruction south. But political rights. This is the origins of what he calls black politics. You know, black people are politicized. Whether its the pollty zags of everything life, they are willing to act as slaves, meaning black people should move from the sidewalk when a white person walks by. And this would lead to violent fights in the south after the civil war. And the idea they should be differential or cowering as if they were slave as if that the racial etiquette no longer applied and black people were quick to assert their rights as citizens, to demand access to schools, to demand access to the ballot box, to demand access to public accommodations, things that completely they had been deprived of. This is why freedom is contested in the south because everyone is trying to define what rights do black people have now . What kind of freedoms do they have . And that is exactly the point of contestation. Even though foner calls it unfinished revolution, unfinished because it is overthrown. It will take over a hundred years to be implemented in america through another great social movement, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. So, you can see that it takes a very long time to even implement these rights. And thats why its so radical. You know, its radical because in the 19th century, people are not really talking about black equality. But yet that is the topic. And it takes so long for these very basic rights of black citizenship to be implemented in this country. Now, besides this synthesis that foner has done of reconstruction, there have been other historians talking about reconstruction. In the 1970s and 80s, there were a number of people in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement said reconstruction is not radical enough. It didnt go far enough. Land wasnt redistributed. People were constrained by the u. S. Constitution. The federal government could not exercise its past to the extent that was needed because of the constraints of states rights ideas and principle of federalism, of divided government, et cetera. So, there are all kind of ways to say that this was not radical. But the people who lived through it, former slaves, confederates, northerners, felt it was terribly radical. They all write about living in revolutionary time, when changes are coming so fast and so quick and the country has to kind of keep up with it. Now in the aftermath of foners reconstruction, there have been current reconstruction, articles have come out on writing the freedom narrative, books have come out saying this was a period that was also disappointing. There was a lot of failures. That we need to look at other things, that this kind of linear narrative of slavery to freedom and progress, you know, doesnt really work and we have to look at all kind of other problems during the reconstruction period. People talk about how indians are displaced immediately after reconstruction, how the indian wars are being fought in the west, how america emerges as an imperial power, the war in the philippines, for example, putting down philippine independence. This is not as radical as we thought. But these evaluations, many times they come with a long reconstruction framework, meaning they dont sometimes look at the period of reconstruction. They look at the period well after reconstruction. They look at issues that did not really have much to do with the kinds of issues weve been talking about, black rights, citizenship, et cetera. Well, maybe the expansion of the nation state. The american nation state grew so big and powerful that it could become imperial. Thats another popular way of looking at it now. But, of course, none of these ideas have really replaced foners book. No alternative service is there for reconstruction. It remains the gold standard. This is the way historians have contended about reconstruction. Lets talk more about the specific issues of the period. Jansen referred to Andrew Johnson, right . And Andrew Johnson created one of the First Political crises of reconstruction, the first constitutional crisis of reconstruction. Lincoln is often seen as the greatest president of the United States. I think he and washington go up there. But lincoln usually always gets whenever they have these rankings. And its an irony of history that lincoln was preceded by a president whos always ranked at the bottom, james buchanan, and then succeeded by a president who also belongs at the bottom too, Andrew Johnson. Andrew johnson, when he was put on the president ial ticket of the Republican Party in 1864 this is the election Lincoln Party was going to lose after the emancipation proclamation. You know, the idea was that there would be a unity ticket, that you would have a southerner in the ticket and it would proclaim the unity of the nation. It was quite clear by 1864 that the south is going to lose, right . At least most people think that this is the dying imbers of confederate resistance. And johnson is put he replaces Hannibal Hamlin of maine as lincolns Vice President because he was a senator from tennessee and he was such a staunch unionist that when his state secedes from the union, he refused to leave the senate. All southern congressmen left. Johnson is the only one that didnt leave. Hes unconditional unionist, hes staunch. He says, no, ill stick with the union. When the union occupies tennessee, he becomes the wartime governor of tennessee. He is from nonslave holding origins, even though he owns slaves, a few slaves. But he is seen as somebody who is even more rags to riches than lincoln because he represents the poor rights, the nonslave holding whites of eastern tennessee, many of whom were staunch unionists in the time. We talked about plantation belt and nonplantation belt. Here we haven john, right . He is a man seen as a staunch unionist. He says, ill make treason odious. People think hes going to be hard on the southern secessionist. He says things like ill be a moses. Lincoln never said that. Ill be moses, ill lead you to freedom. So, republicans are taken with this. But johnson is a huge disappointment. He is a staunch states rights democrat really. He was never really part of the Republican Party. He joins the Republican Party during the civil war, but his states rights democratic roots are very strong. And hes very reluctant to use federal power to enforce black rights certainly or to have power to reconstruct the south. Whats interesting is hes a staunch racist. This comes out during his presidency. He cannot even contemplate black people azs equals. Hes southern. Hes white. He hates the planter class because hes poor but hates black people even more. In reconstruction, when you look at the policies of his president ial reconstruction, you can see this. He, at one point, even meets a delegation led by Frederick Douglass who has met lincoln, who has been received politely by lincoln. Johnson meets him and calls it the docky delegation, right . When they relieve, his secretary recalls nowadays we have hot mics that catch people saying things. You know politicians are caught saying things that are really crude and awful. Sometimes they just say it openly. But his secretary recorded this. And johnson said about the black delegation that had come to plead with him for black rights, the right to vote, et cetera, led my Frederick Douglass. Pardon my french because these are he was a pretty crude guy, one of the crudest american president s actually. He says those damn sons of bitches thought he had me in a trap. I know him. He would sooner cut a white mans throat than not. This is the president of the United States. Rarely have we seen president s talk in that manner, right . And so his racism is acute. And johnson, very quickly, he has the amnesty proclamations where he the moment he comes to power, you know, one republican says this is rich for a man who was made president by an assassins bullet to be so arrogant. Congress is not in session. Southern states reenter the union. As long as they accept that they are against secession, they accept that slavery is dead, and they repudiate this is something that is put in they repudiate the confederate debt. They can just enter the union. There are no conditions put on them. No conditions for black rights, civil rights or anything. They can just come in to the union. Its a very lenient policy, right . And absolutely no conditions put on southerners. Theres this myth that johnson is simply continuing lincolns poll so i have president ial election. In fact, there were plan of wartime reconstruction that lincoln had put forward, his famous 10 plan. That was just a wartime measure for those areas conquered by the union, particularly louisiana where 10 of the white population is loyal, they can reenter the union. There were hardly any conditions for civil or black rights. Radicals in congress were upset about that. They had their own bill called the wade davis bill which they said is going to give black people civil rights. Even they didnt give black men the right to vote in that. And lincoln pocket vetoed that. That doesnt mean lincoln was opposed to black rights. Remember his last speech is in support of black rights. He writes a letter to the governor of louisiana saying consider giving the right to vote to those who are very intelligent, those who have served in the union army, those who are educated. Hes clearly a person who is moving towards black rights. Johnson never does. In fact, he digs into his position that this is simply an impossibility, right . The other way that lincoln is different is that he is a party leader. He emerges from the Republican Party and he leads the party very successfully through the war. And in the last year of the war, he works with republicans in congress to achieve quite a bit. The most important, actually, was the passage of the Freedmens Bureau bill. This is a federal Government Agency. This is what southerners said, this is the federal government being overreaching, right . This is a federal Government Agency. Its official name is bureau of refugees, freedmen and abandoned lands. Its a federal Government Agency that would oversee the transition from slavery to freedom in the south. And it was there not just to protect the rights of free people, but it was actually giving food and shelter and sometimes opening up its hospitals and sometimes schools too even to southern whites, right . But it was portrayed as this awful overreach by most southerners, by most southern whites, as this awful overreach by the federal government that was only helping black people. Actually they were doing a whole lot of things. They ended up being identified mainly with the free people. Its called the Freedmens Bureau. What does this picture show you . This is a contemporary illustration of the Freedmens Bureau. Its a short history of reconstruction too. It has two views of the Freedmens Bureau. But what does this tell you . Heres a man. Hes in a uniform. He could be a Freedmens Bureau agent or the union army person that they relied on. What does this tell you a little bit about the role of the Freedmens Bureau in the postcivil war south . Sorry, tasha, i will let tasha go first because she hasnt spoken yet. Kind of that it was trying to halt the division between the blacks and the whites, keep the peace for the most part. Just because there was no other federal agency and obviously johnson wasnt doing the job. Absolutely. Very good point. Of course this time johnson has not yet been elected. But, yes, this is the idea that the Freedmens Bureau would act like an arbiter even between southern whites and black people demanding their rights, that it would be like this impartial neutral agency. But it was not viewed that way. For black people, it became an alternate source of authority. If your former master or your local state authorities abused you, whipped you, there were hundreds of instances of complaints coming to the Freedmens Bureau, you could appeal to another source. You could appeal to the Freedmens Bureau, right . It was the first social Welfare Agency formed by the United States government, right . It literally was going to go down south. It had hundreds of agents. Sometimes the agents were pretty racist on the side of whites. But as a whole, the Freedmens Bureau auz an alternative source of the authority and southern whites hated it. They hated people intervened in their Domestic Affairs in the way they wanted to run their state, despite, of course, being defeated in the civil war. Blacks welcomed it. Dubois wrote essays on the Freedmens Bureau on showing how important it had been for africanamericans to be able to appeal to the government to protect their rights. So, Freedmens Bureau really became identified with black rights in the south because they helped implement fair wage contracts, et cetera, also while they were still there. Now, what happens, of course, is that lincoln cooperates with the republicans to pass the Freedmens Bureau bill in 1865. This is the first steps towards reconstruction. In terms of lincolns plans for reconstruction, well never know because he was killed. But he actually, you know, helped form the agency, works with republicans in congress to do this. The second thing that he works with congress on does anyone remember that is the first reconstruction amendment. Does anyone remember what that amendment was . Brian . It was the 13th amendment, right, the one abolishing slavery. Absolutely. He worked with congress to abolish slavery, the 13th amendment to the constitution in 1865, that people should be that slavery, no involuntary servitude should exist in this country except if you were actually dually convicted in a court of law. The second section of this amendment is really important, right . It says that Congress Shall have the power to enforce this amendment. So, clearly the 13th amendment saying congress should be deciding on how to implement black freedom. They should pass laws in congress to implement this. What does johnson think . Johnsons not buying this. Hes a states rights guy, as jansen says. He does not think congress should have anything to do with reconstruction. Hes disbanning black Union Army Troops. Hes issuing his plan for reconstruction, for example. He kind of resents slave holding planters. He says anyone holding should not be pardoned. But what happens . These people, representatives of the planter class, come to johnson, and he issues wholesale pardons to them. 14,000 people. He just pardons immediately. So, what happens with the new governments being formed in the south under johnsons plan . Some many of them were secessionists, so theyre kind of discredited. They were unionists. I put that in quotes because these unionists had opposed the secession of their states but they had gone for the state and many had fought for the confederacy and occupied high officers. The most important was the alexander stevens, the Vice President of the confederacy. Some of them still wearing Confederate Army uniforms as generals. Theyre sending the same guys back to congress under johnsons plan. Alexander stevens is elected senator from georgia. So, anyone that had notions of vindictive or harsh republicans, in any other country these people might have been executed, jailed. And in fact, some people were jailed for crimes committed against the United States government. Jefferson davis was jailed for some time, but none of them really suffered. He wrote a memoir that said it was all about states rights, it was nothing to do with slavery, the civil war. Theyre really not punished that harsh. Did you have a question . Jeremy. Jeremy and ill come to you brian. Yeah, the 13th amendment originally stated there should be no slavery except as a punishment for crime. Yeah. So, how significant do you think that played for the souths part as far as enforcing the black codes and that type of thing . Yeah, very good question, jeremy. And we are going to be talking about black codes, right . So, southerners use all kind of legal and constitutional loopholes besides violence to undermine reconstruction and the project for black rights. So, people use criminality. This is when you they start convicting black people were minor crimes and then using them as convict labor. So, you know, there are theories about mass incarceration, that this is where it all starts. Actually the formers, the people who wrote the 13th amendment, did not have that in mind at all, right . This is just a common English Common law exception to any rights and privileges given. Meaning if youre dually convicted of a crime, you can be imprisoned. Your rights can be taken away from you temporarily, right . That is a common sort of exception. The black codes its not coming out so much on the 13th amendment. These are codes and im going to be talking about this. Im glad you raised this. Im going to be talking about this under johnsons plan. The state governments dominated by unionists, but all went with their states, all end up committing these black codes, which causes a real problem. Im going to be talking about that very shortly. Ryan, you had a question, quickly, right . I think the politics of johnson are very interesting, but im kind of confused in his motives. So, during the war hes so harsh on treason and so angry against the secessionists. But then following the war, he seems to ally himself with them. Would you say thats more because he wanted their support in reelection, he was more power hungry . Because he seems to change his politics even, shifting to a lot less harsh . Would you say thats because hes powerful and wants to be reelected or because he had those views but couldnt express them during the war . Thats a good question. Clearly he does try to form a separate party because the republicans are like, my god, he starts implementing his policies, they realize hes going against everything, not just the Republican Party, but that the north was standing for. He tries to form a union party with democrats and conservative republicans and plays the race card. He thinks he can unite northern rights and southerners on the race card. This time it doesnt work. So, maybe part of it is that. But part of it is also that johnson was a unionist, right . He thought the union should be upheld. But his vision of the union never included black rights. He was never an antislavery guy. He was from the south. He was from the union. There were a lot of people like that. There were northern democrats who were like that, who were for the union, didnt want anything to do with black rights. So, johnson, his racism is what really impels him. You will see this in his actions. And this is the failure of johnsonian reconstruction. He is not a continuation of lincoln. People say it was president ial reconstruction. Yes, there was conflict of interest between the president of the United States and congress, who will control reconstruction. But lincoln worked with the congress. He worked with his party, the Republican Party. Johnson was really a man without a party. And he does these things where he even revokes these land grants that had been made by the Freedmens Bureau, you know the abandon lands, shermans 40 acres and a mule, all that land he takes that and gives it back to the planters. Southern whites are complaining, they dont want black solders. They dont want black Union Army Troops around. He disbands them or theyre sent out west. He is clearly working on his own plan for reconstruction. Congress, when it reconvenes, and these are the things hes doing. His proclamations come pretty soon after lincolns death in may 1865. Congress, when it reconvenes in december 1865, forms this joint committee on reconstruction, joint committee of the house and senate to decide what to do with reconstruction. They hear testimony in the house, they hear testimony of violence in the south, of contention in the south from freed people, et cetera. And theyre trying to come up with some plan that johnson could agree with, could be on board with. And the moderates, these are the moderates, not the radicals. They put together two bills. The Freedmens Bureau bill, which is to extend the life of the Freedmens Bureau in 1865. They want to extend its life so it can continue to try to maintain some semblance of order and peace and give relief to southerners also in the aftermath of war. And they enact the civil rights of 1866, which, for the first time defines National Citizenship in American History. What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States . Before the civil war, pretty much each state decided whos a citizen and whos not. So, some states in the north, for instance, new england, gave black men the right to vote. Most northern states did not. You could decide as a state what rights you give a person. Its only during reconstruction that you have a National Idea of citizenship. Yes, there are federal laws that regulated immigration. But the immigration law, only whites can enter this country. It was a racial law. Here you have a very different view of civil rights and National Citizenship. It is to give black people some basic rights, you know, the right to sue, to hold property, to enter into contracts. These were important. You think of them as minor rights, but actually they were important rights if you were to be paid adequate wages for your work, et cetera. So, it was important for black people to get these basic civil rights. The radicals are going further. Theyre saying no, give them the right to vote. Thats what citizenship is all about. Black men, at least no one is talking about the women, except the feminists should have the right to vote. We should be giving them the right to vote. And these are the bills that go out to johnson johnson. Which is the Civil Rights Act passed . Because of the black codes, something that jeremy mentioned, right . These johnson state governments in the south passed what are known as black codes. Theyre literally updated versions of the slave codes of the south. So, southerners, who had been defeated and maybe under lincoln or somebody who was more statesman like might have accepted their defeat if certain demands are put on them. But johnson is being so lenient, they decide hey, youve got our man in the white house. Civil war, forget about that. Were going to win the peace. And they pass these black codes. And the black codes are pretty awful. They recognize the end of slavery, right . They say, okay, you know, slavery has ended. But they try to restrict black rights and black freedom and put black people as close to slavery as possible. And some of these were egregious. The Mississippi Black code was probably the worst. Worst. They enacted vagrancy laws saying if a black person is found not working for someone, he can be arrested and find. In order to pay his fine, he is to be leased to a plantation to work for the local planter. Guess what . If a black person is telling his own land or performing his own self employment, he is defined as a vagrant. They forced black people to enter into yearlong contracts to work in plantations. Sort of commandeer black labor the way they had under slavery. Enticement laws, meaning if i signed a contract with a black person for his labor, if another person comes to him and offers him more money to work for him, he cant do it. That is a criminal offense. That is enticing my labor. Is that the free market . That is not how which liberal works, right . If you are a wage labor, he would work for the guy who pays you the most, right . But that is not allowed, so depressing. Apprenticeship laws. Normally apprenticeship was seen at the time as a nice thing. Children would be apprentice to a local craftsman. They would learn the trade and become the craftsman. What did the apprenticeship laws to . They literally took black children out of their families and apprenticed them. So black parents are seen as unfit, so they would work for their white masters. They would not be going to school the way for people wanted them to, etc. The mississippi law was so bad that it even did not allow black people to own land. They did not own land, then they would be forced to work for the whites, forced to work at the plantations. Every legal or political trick to constrict black freedom and have them working virtually as slaves is what they were doing. Black people could be fined and imprisoned fort, quote, seditious speech. For misbehavior. So even trying to enforce the racial etiquette of slavery. They were not allowed to own arms, or knives or anything. And whites who gave them liquor or arms or traded within could also be imprisoned and find. It was literally like the slave coats. It sort of regulated black freedom so drastically to make a mockery of it. Alex has a question. Do you think that the 13th amendment, with the exception of a punishment to use slavery, head playing through the black votes through the south because they could take that exception and institute slavery as a punishment . Just punish blacks report little crimes. Do you think that played a big part in the black codes . Well, not really. I think in a way it is relating to the question the chairman was asking to. You could say that the black codes overreached, they went beyond. The 13th amendment is punishment for a crime. This is regulation of black rights and labor to an extent that is not even visualized in the 13th amendment. Eventually southerners would do that. They would convict black people for various kinds of petty crimes. This is the start of the awful convict leasing system of the south. Even today, people trace the history of mass incarceration in the United States back to this period it for that reason. Eventually they would do that. They thought that they were following the law. They had recognized the end of slavery, but they have another legal system. They dont call it slavery, but it could be slavery by another name or even worse than slavery, right . So the Civil Rights Act, the republicans are hearing that. The committee is gathering testimony from the south. The Civil Rights Act is really a reaction to that. Johnson vetoes both though. Anyone who says johnson was a continuation of lincoln, he vetoes that act. He is a states right democrat. This is a federal Government Agency. This is big government, overreach, its unconstitutional. Jensen. One thing i thought was interesting as well was the reasoning for that could also be his hes racist as well, but he had a strong notion that only the on wealthy white population should be ruling and have political power. I feel like he probably thought that if the Freemens Bureau also offer too much political power to the maybe black population, could also be his reasoning for that. In a way, it is sort of connected i would say because you could say for johnson, slave owners and the big planter class and the slave class is two sides of the same coin. He saw them is somehow connected. He implemented his reconstruction policy and was extremely lenient with the planter class. Remember the 14,000 who were virtually pardon overnight . He liked the fact that they came crawling to him begging for a pardon and he pardoned them all. So he had no punitive plan for the planter class. He probably decided that his racism outweighed his hatred or envy of the planter class. That is one way that one could understand his actions. Because he does not punish, he does not see the Freemens Bureau is helping. He sees this as a fight that southern whites have to face. You can see this in his veto message to the Civil Rights Act, which is not giving them what radicals are asking for or what black people are demanding at this time, the right to vote. Its just giving them those basic civil rights that would ensure that they were no longer slaves, right . In his message, which is amazing if you ever read it, rejohnsons veto, many of its echoes are still here today. He uses this notion. He began saying is this a white mans government . Are we going to give rights to the chinese immigrants in california . To gypsies, too indians, to native americans, not subject to taxation . What are we coming to . It is a purely race based argument. He even comes up with this notion of reverse discrimination. That if you give black people rights, we are infringing on the rights of southern whites. Its not just the state rights or constitutional objection, which is the way many of his defenders portrayed him, its a purely racist argument. This notion that somehow rights are limited. If you give some people their rights, that you are inflicting it on other people. This is not the notion of universal natural rights in the declaration of independence. This is not the notion of human rights as we understand it today. It is this very parochial and narrow racist constricted version of rights. This notion of right white grievance that he puts forward. He says you are discriminating against whites by giving black people votes. That is his argument. His echoes can be found in the 17th and 18th, this reverse discrimination, the notion that if you somehow tried to rectify previous wrongs, in this case 250 years of slavery, that you are somehow inflicting that on others. This is a direct quote from the civil rights veto. He says, in fact, the distinction of race and color is about the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. Thats the colonel of his reasoning. It is not even states rights. His whole argument is extremely racist and his plan is completely put into disrepute in the north because of what happens in the south in may and july of 1866. The famous memphis and new orleans riots. They are not really race riots, they were really southern whites attacking blacks. Burning their homes schools, killing them. So the memphis riots began with a black carriage men and a white carriage meant we have an accident. Its a traffic accident. It escalates into a complete program on black people in memphis. What is shocking is that the local Police Forces cannot be relied on to restore order. They joined with the white rioters and start attacking black people. Theres also the death of 46 black men, five black women are raped and Union Army Troops have to be called in to restore order. A few months later in new orleans, the Constitutional Convention meets to discuss reconstruction and radical republicans are asking that they consider black rights. Pretty much what lincoln had written to michael shaun, the governor of louisiana. Consider giving blackmon the right to vote. What happens here . There is an attack by a racist mob on the convention, on the Constitutional Convention, the state convention. In the end, 34 blacks and three white radical republicans are killed. The union army again has to be called in to restore order because, again, local Law Enforcement parties join in and start attacking black schools, black communities. And philip sheridan, the union army general, he arrives in new orleans to restore order and says its a mask or. They are just massacring people. This evokes a huge reaction in the north because people are thinking, wait a minute, didnt we just fight a war for four or five years . For four years, with a lot of loss of life and blood and we are back to square one. This is not peace. These issues are still being contested. Johnson does not budge while people in the Republican Congress or hearing what is happening. Hes like, no. Im going to make the 1866 elections about my plan versus the plan of the republicans. He demeaned him self completely. He did not have a good start. He was drunk at his own inauguration. Yes, at the second inaugural address, he was drunk. He was so badly drunk that he had to be held up. He completely the means his office by campaigning against his own party, against the Republican Party. Going to the north and he plays the race card repeatedly. He thinks he can unite white northerners with white southerners on race. He says this is going to be black rights, black supremacy, they mean intermarriage and social equality. Would your daughter mary black man . This is where it begins. He demands himself. He is so crude that people in the crowd start shouting back at him and he engages them. Sometimes hes hooted out, people literally do not want to hear him because northern Public Opinion is not being swayed by him playing this race card. It was just not working at this time. You and then ryan. We will swing around the control by the way in case you are thinking. He did a swing around the circle in the north which was a complete disaster. Yes. Im hearing this and im thinking about what you said about stevens and the other confederates entering congress. Im thinking about sumner who came a few years prior. Was there any strong reaction by the republicans in congress against these confederates rejoining the government . Very good question. In fact, when the johnson representatives show up, congress does not admit them. They realize now that these governments with their black codes etc, the riots, they will not they needed a proper reconstruction of the south that included African Americans. Because African Americans have basically been completely excluded. This is what they realize. This is the start of congressional reconstruction. This is what johnson is basically doing at this point. Hes simply not being able to comprehend that a reconstruction of the south would include black people in any way. I just think its really interesting. Especially when he would engage with the crowds, because i think my favorite part of the chapters we read is when someone yelled hang jeff davis, he replies why not that yes stephens . He openly advocated for the execution of one of his own party members. That is such a political suicide. I dont understand how the president could even think that that was a good idea to say that . , exactly. Whether it was stupidity, tennis, racism, i guess you could impeach him on all of those things. Imagine telling in northern crowd that lets hang northern Republican Congressman instead of the confederates who had committed rebellion against the union. Im glad you brought that up because that is exactly what happens. He engages in shouting matches with northern publics, but somehow his attempt to play the race card does not relate work. This is what the north is seeing. You see this, it is a scouring black family and it has the kkk and the white league. These are the organizations that are being formed in 1866. Already Nathan Bedford store forest and other ex confederates are forming white vigilante groups in order to terrorize black people into submission basically. You see a white leader with an old confederate uniform and the kkk joining hands. A countering black family. Johnsons motto, the union as it was, this is a white mans government. Here its written worse than slavery. Heres a black man hanging from a tree. Heres a black school house being burned. This is what the north is seeing, right . So you can imagine that with all this news coming from the setup, the johnson actually sends a republican, a german american immigrant to the south to report to him what are the conditions in the south. What reports, johnson realizes he doesnt want that report and refuses to publish it. Congress publishes those reports and johnson calls these encourage balls. In a way, johnson had encouraged them to be even more obdurate on these issues. In fact, they were not ready for black freedom. They were certainly not ready for any conceptions of black rights and had not accepted defeat in the war. They were still hanging on to the ideas that they had fought for. So people in the north at this time, this is what they are seeing and they pretty much decide that johnsons plan is not the way to go. In my next class, i will talk more about congressional reconstruction. The man who led that and the measures that you have read, that you are reading this week, right . Read the speeches of alignment tremble, of George Julian and Thaddeus Stevens that are in the book. Read the 14th amendment. That is the cornerstone of reconstruction, congressional reconstruction and the reconstruction acts of 1867. They basically remand the south back. They reject these new johnson state governments with their black codes and racial terror that is spreading in the south at this time. They say you have to go back. You have to give black people the right to vote. You have to form new state governments and then you will be readmitted to the union. You will not be readmitted to the union under these conditions. And that, because of johnson, the Republican Party has moved towards the radical version. Because what began as just as the civil rights bill that johnson vetoed ends up with a program for black suffrage in order to reconstruct the setup. That is pretty radical. Remember the most northern states dont give blackmon the right to vote, including connecticut by the way. Connecticut had not only taken away the right to vote from blackmon. During this time, a referendum came up in connecticut after the civil war to give blackmon the right to vote and it was defeated. The percentage of people in the north favoring black men to get the right to vote kept increasing. But basically, wherever this referendum came up in the north, it was normally defeated. In wisconsin, in minnesota, and connecticut. So when radical reconstruction begins, it is not only redefining sort of democracy and rights in the south, it is doing it for the nation as a whole. The 14th and 15th amendment and franchise black men all over the nation. They put forward a notion of an interracial democracy that simply did not exist before in the United States. Guess what . Those issues, those ideas, we are still talking about that today. We are still contesting those. When you go back after todays class, i really do want you to read those speeches. Read the 14th amendment. Read the reconstruction act of 1867. We will figure out whether this was a period in which the vindictive north tried to impose rule in the south or a period in which black rights and the idea black citizenship flowered for a brief moment in American History. Okay, last question. Go ahead jensen. We have one minute. I have a question about the kkk. I know you are allowed the freedom of assembly and all that if youre an organization, but if they are doing what they are doing, when that the against the constitution . You are infringing on other peoples rights there for you shouldnt really exist as an organization . Absolutely. You see that what has happened is the bill of rights that gives us all those basic protections, that is part of our constitution. The black people were never seen as part of it. Very few people, abolitionists or radical republicans, believed in including African Americans under those protections. In fact, according to many abolitionists and the bill of rights, African Americans cannot be held as slaves because you are violating all kinds of things in the bill of rights. Southerners are like, wait a minute, this does not apply to blacks. This is the question. The bill of rights is all about individual rights. During reconstruction, they start giving positive rights in terms of the right to vote. That becomes a definition of citizenship. Before that, the right to work wasnt. A lot of people cannot vote in the United States. African americans couldnt, women couldnt at that point. Each generation had to reimagine the constitution and broaden its boundaries to include all of this. So you could say that southerners could think we had slavery under the constitution, why cant we have the kkk . Because black people are not citizens. If they are claiming that they go out of their space that we have as sort of menial labor, we will react. We do not want them to have any rights. We do not want them to participate in government, etc. So they did not see it as unconstitutional. Johnson thought he was over the constitution to. This is a white mans government. And indeed, in the 1868 president ial elections that i will talk about later on, the Republican Party is finally able to dump johnson and have ulysses as grant as their president ial candidate. The democratic party, its slogan is, and you will see this in the photo book, this is a white mans country and its a white mans government. That is the slogan of their party. They did not mince words. They actually said what they met. Many times, you will read, and this happens a lot in new york and federal websites. They say its not about this, its about that, but you should actually just go back to those documents. That is why i give you so many documents to read, because those people are very clear for what they stand for. We stand for slavery. We stand for white supremacy. They are very clear about it and they thought that they were doing the constitutional thing as well. That is why, in a way, the radicals and up rewriting the constitution, or at least amending it to a substantial degree. In order to make it quite clear that African Americans are included within the protections of the u. S. Constitution and the u. S. Government. But that is a story for next class where i will give you back your papers. I know youve been very patient. Hopefully the snowstorm will not hit us on thursday. Its all done with and we will be able to do that. Okay . So good, i will see you next class than. All right, byebye. Now on