So it seems to be couched in the erms t terms of Voting Rights and it is about reconstruction. I think you all know that and get it, because what undermines the whole progressive effort for reconstruction is the lack of Voting Rights for those freed men and women. So were going to expand this beyond voting, but we just couldnt get there as a nation with the 13th amendment, final freedom, with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It didnt give Voting Rights to the africanamericans, and neither did the 14th amendment with its equal protection and due process. It took the 15th amendment, and of course that didnt work either because of every effort by some to deny africanamericans this great franchise of voting. Why do you think people come to this country . One of the things is the ability to choose their own representatives. So we have a great panel. I dont say that every time that we have a panel, but we have we have a great one today. Joan wah, who is vice chair of academic personnel and a professor of history at ucla. But what so impresses me is the groundbreaking work she did with her u. S. Grant, american hero, american myth. As i have told her more than once, it has done so much to the restore the reputation of a real hero, ulysses s. Grant. Next is douglas edgarton, professor of history at la, in oyne college in syracuse. He doesnt know it although i tried to allude when i speak to him he has been a mentor to me in understanding reconstruction with the legal, political and cultural implications, and he did that through his wonderful book, the wars of reconstruction, the brief, violent history of americas most progressive era. His newest book is terrific, too. Thunder at the gates, the black civil war regiments that redeemed america. Finally, edna green medford, our executive board member of the lincoln forum, speaker here. Chairman of the department and professor of history at Howard University, coauthor with me and Harold Holtzer on Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation, three views. And her own volume, lincoln and emancipation, part of the presser lincoln series. So before i ask each of them to make a few introductory remarks, i have asked each and they have agreed to pe fspeak for three t five minutes and then i will give them some questions and then we will open the floor to you. We hope there are many questions from you. But for many americans, reconstruction is still remembered, if it is remembered at all, as a period of racial anarchy, political failure and the humiliation of the defeated south. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that americans impressions of the era have been shaped, if only half consciously, by films such as birth of a nation and gone with the wind where their charact caricatures of scalliwags and carpet baggers, more than by what happened in the south in 1865 and 1876 and the years that followed. It is an inspiring and shocking story that rereels the nation at its best and worst when newly freed slaves and idealists both black and white struggled heroically against white terrorism to preserve the rights that union armies had won on the battlefield and that republican members of congress affirmed in the years after the war. But, you know, i think we have to see reconstruction too not as bad policy further doomed by corruption and incompetence, but as a profoundly forwardlooking program that was subverted by organized violence, domestic terrorism. The central question about reconstruction is usually why did it fail as opposed to end it, which hints that the process itself was somehow flawed and contributed to its own passing. So a question, the first question for me to professor joan wau is did reconstruction fail . Good morning, everybody. First of all, im going to pander to the audience for one second or two seconds and tell you how much i have enjoyed attending my first lincoln forum, both as a presenter and as a member of the audience and getting to meet you. Youre terrific. [ applause ] i will say that reconstruction gets an f grade now that were all professors, and it always has in terms of the history books. First, it was awarded an f grade by the lost cause historians. Then it was awarded an f grade by the 1950s and 1960s historians, and it is still being awarded an f grade for different reasons, and i think thats something that we should talk about. I always tell my students, and i know this is a pat answer but i think we can flesh it out, that reconstruction is a qualified success and a qualified failure. What do i mean by that . I mean that it was a qualified failure if that it didnt live up to the promise of equality that many africanamericans expected at the and of the war and many white ab olitionists. It was a qualified success, and i may be outside of the consensus of reconstruction is that the People Living at the time and i say the majority of the northerners who voted on reconstruction issues that the premiere the premiere concern was would the union Stay Together after this terrible war. The union stayed together, the United States persisted. They considered that a great, magnificent achievement. So we have to understand even if we dont agree that it was, we have to understand that that was an overwhelming consensus confirmed in the elections of 1868, 1872 and 1876. Ill leave you with that for now, but also i want to tell you my favorite quote from about that. It was originally not applied to reconstruction, but i have applied it to reconstruction, and that is by the novelist and social critic william dean howell who said what the American Public always wants is a tranl dgedy with a happy endi. And that is what appomattox provides for generations to come, and that is what we are discontented about in reconstruction. Yes. Thank you very much. [ applause ]. It also raises the question, i think it begs the question on really did the civil war end at appomattox. And i think if you read the good work of professor Michael Vorenberg who wrote the great book on the 13th amendment, final freedom, he has an opinion that, of course, as we all do that appomattox really didnt end our civil war. So for professor doug edgerton, we talk about Voting Rights being denied africanamericans and people of color. What about any effect on Voting Rights in the north, for example . Let me start out by echoing yoen to say how nice it is to be here. It doesnt happen to me very often, dinner with president lincoln. It was nice. My friend catherine warned help to speak slowly, which is not one of my skills, especially when given three minutes to answer a long question. Im probably going to talk fast. Let me put it this way. In my book i tried to write about black activists, north, south, east, west, and of course you have conservative democrats like Andrew Johnson who dont want to use the term reconstruction. They prefer to use the term rest tore ig to restoration, who imply the war is over, all is forgiven. They say reconstruction is a policy for the defeated confederacy many when you ask Frederick Douglass, he says it is a national policy. He once said it is a war for national reclamation. He wants an abolition war and peace. Bear in mind as we all know, lincoln in his last peach, had gone to richmond and came back and gave that speech in which he said that Voting Rights were something to be earned and the 179,000 black men in blue uniform earned that right. The more intelligent negroes earned that right. Lincolns modern critics are not impressed. There are four million freed americans at that moment, half of whom are men, so 200,000 is a small drop in the bucket. But lets put it in larger context. When lincoln says those words really on the eve of his assassination, black men can vote on the equal basis with white men only in five new england states, and new york where i lived, a qualification imposed on blacks going back to 1821 is not imposed on whites. Frederick douglass who owned a house and business in rochester can vote. His son Sergeant Major lewis douglas, badly wounded at fort wagner, cant. Worse in lincolns illinois, and in ohio, no blacks can rote in indiana. Of the 179,000 black men who served, 38,000 were born free in the north. Probably all of you have seen the film gloria because everything wrong you could possibly get wrong in a movie, and of course it gives the impression all of these soldiers in the 54th are run away slaves from the south. The largest contingent, tate contingent in the 54th is from here in pennsylvania. New york is number two, ohio is number three. These men are serving, fighting and dying and living in states that do not allow them to vote. So when it comes down to whether it is a successor a failier, if you are a black soldier who comes back to ohio and the 16th amendment is ratified, you never lose that right to rote. It is one of the things that reconstruction gets right, is in franchising black men across the north. Thank you very much. [ applause ] and professor edna green medford from freed blacks point of view, what was their reaction to what was going on after appomattox . Was there anything positive about what was dreamed about or anticipated in the efforts for reconstruction or restoration . I would like to first echo the sentiment i never remember to do that. I usually can carry my voice. I want to echo the sentiments of my fellow panelists regarding the special place that this is and the special audience that you are. In the 21 years of this organization i have been here for 19, and i always return because this is such a special place. [ applause ] at the end of the war, africanamericans expected full citizenship, and what that meant was not just Voting Rights or polite will cal voice but it also meant all of the rights that other americans had shared for all of the years that the nation had existed. And so they expected to be able to control their own destiny. They expected economic independence. They wanted an education. They simply wanted to be allowed to exercise their american birthright. We all agree that reconstruction was tragic. It was tragic not because not necessarily because no one had a plan for the freed people. There was a plan that was developed eventually, but it was because the kinds of accomplishments that occurred during this period were not sustained. And so, you know, it is easy to say that everything went wrong but everything didnt go wrong. Actually, there were many accomplishments during this period. One of the most important, of course, was after people got their freedom they were able to at least attempt to reconstitute their families. There were so many people who had been separated during slavery. So one of the first things they were attempting to do is to find loved ones. They werent always successful at that, in many instances they were not successful at that, but they were at least trying to do that. Men could now at least have the expectation of taking care of their families, of protecting their families, an expectation that was not always realized because of violence and all of the other things that happened of a negative sort during this period. But the expectation was there. There were some people who did get economic independence and they were able to do it by becoming subsist ent farmers. They didnt want to enter the commercial market because it would make them beholden to white men, and so they were able to acquire a small piece of land. Soldiers, for instance, had bounties. They used those funds and they pooled their resources with other africanamericans and were able to purchase land. Thats not the case for most africanamericans but it is true for a few of them, depending upon what part of the country they lived in. Education was extremely important and possible for them at this time. As a consequence of a great deal of effort by the freedmens bureau, by the American Missionary Association and other organizations, and largely by the freed people themselves, schools were established. Not just elementary and secondary schools, but schools of Higher Learning as well. Now, we know that some of those early schools that called themselves colleges were really not. They were normal schools to train teachers, but that was extremely important. And at least one of them, Howard University i have to give that plug, i do want to go back to work on monday. Howard actually was established as a university. So it didnt have just a normal school, but it also had had a divinity school, a law school, a medical School Almost from the very beginning. So the important thing about that is people realized that there were some africanamericans who were ready to get that level of education. Most were not because they had been denied literacy while they were enslaved. But there were a few who had been free born and some enslaved people who had been able to get an education who were ready for this advance in education. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to comment on any comments made by your fellow panelists . If not, well continue. Joan waugh, i think it is true that reconstruction dominated grants presidency. Unlike many, he knew it brought liberation, not occupation, and empowered or should have empowered africanamericans in states where they were a majority or a large minority. So can you comment on what role you see president grant in the whole issue of reconstruction and the progressive philosophy that it was intended to provide or give . Do i have three minutes for this . Yes, you do. Three minutes. Yes, i can comment. Richard currance, a historian maybe some of you are familiar with, said this about grant. He was commander in chief during the reconstruction phase of the continuing civil war. Although i have to say, i remind this audience and i would emphasize that it is important to important to know, to think, to put this in your pipe and smoke it, that after in the chaotic few months after appomattox, the confederate ral armies disbanded, the confederate ral stat Confederate States of america was gone and there was nothing to he replace it. The majority of enslaved pell were still not officially free, and in many states the owners tried to tell them that they werent free. This was a period it is really dramatic and fascinating, and the fate of africanamericans in the south, enslaved in the south and as well as southern whites remained in the hands of the politicians in washington d. C. And at the fate of elections. So this dynamic, this tennis game back and forth is fascinating, and to me it has always been has always been one of the most exciting periods in American History. As far as grant was concerned, last night and yesterday i heard a lot of people say, well, he, of course, including mr. Williams say that he was utterly unprepared for the presidency. What president is you know, the most prepared president im going on a a ranrant, i can it. I need to stop. The most prepared president in American History was james buchanan. Excellent job, james. How could you not be prepared if youre a Senior Commander in the union army, the Union General by the end who was identified as winning the war for the United States and tasked with not only fighting, developing strategy, but also dealing with politicians from washington, d. C. And policy from washington, d. C. That changed from one day to the other in your occupation of various territories . He dealt with with issues of emancipation. He knew it was not going to be easy and he was also commander in chief during reconstruction, overseeing military reconstruction. He brought to his presidency eight or nine months, the ad interim secretary of war in a comic opera situation where stanton was removed for his office. The reputation of grant as president has been deeply influenced by the lost cause historians who found him a dictator, a cesar, as he was called by the democrats of that day, and an utterly incompetent and stupid. And the view now, of course, since the 1960s is that he didnt do enough. But if we can can read the volumes of the u. S. Grant papers now presided over by the brilliant john marzalick and his crew in starksville, mississippi how great is that in you can find out that he was a serious president. He struggled, yes. No president who has been elected to the office doesnt feel that hes walked into to use a 20th century term, the helicopter propeller. You are just bloody. Youre in pieces. But you learn in your job, and i would argue that u. S. Grant did learn in his job, but he did have a hard task. The hard task facing the people who believed in bringing civil rights and Voting Rights to africanamericans in the south had to face the fact that beyond emancipation there was no agreement accepting africanamericans population and their supporters, was agreement on what can be done in terms of civil rights and civil rights and voting rates. At the same because one of the goals of reconstruction was to figure that out, but the premiere goal of reconstruction was to reunite the United States. How could you do that, incorporating i mean reunion, restoration, reconciliation, the three rs, had to deal with kbitkbi em bitter ed white southerners who were still the majority of the population and had the power. This was the difficult task grant had before him when he was elected president in 1868. I tried to enforce the 14th and especially the 15th amendments, and he passed laws before he was reelected to force acts that made the election of 1872, which used the federal government coming down in Southern States where the kkk was suppressing the vote, as we like to say, and putting the force of the federal government behind breaking up the kkk and allowing the freest and fairest election that could be imagined or possible in 1872, but it quickly broke down. But he he himself believed that africanamericans once given the suffrage you count take it away from them and you shouldnt. He kept to that belief and tried to put it into policy the rest of his presidency. It is such a complicated story. I have already gone over my three minutes. Thank you. Yes, you have. [ laughter ] and in my court the buzzer would have rung to say, but this is a court of equity and we try to be totally fair. So moving to another subject, well come back, joan, i think to grant because he is such an important and telling figure i think. But, doug egerton, what about the factor of there being this war in the west with our real native americans, now called americanindians, and versus the troops that were required for reconstruction duty in the south . What effect did this have on either one theater or the other . It had a huge impact. You know, the way, of course, historians tend to put periodization on American History, so you look in a textbook and heres the civil war and reconstruction and western movement and the gilded age, but of course they all overlap. One of the main sources i used in i whering this book were Freedman Bureau of ports and i would like especially in black belt counties on the eve of elections. And the one kind of constant theme theyre writing back to washington saying, please dont send anymore soldiers out west. We need them here. We cant have free elections here in alabama unless we have more soldiers. I mean little big horn happens in 76. Reconstruction is not yet over. And see thats one of the things that really hurt reconstruction, is they needed that military presence in the south and part of it, of course, is the war is over and soldiers want to go home. They want to go back to their farms and their businesses and their families and their wives and they mustered out and of course the army becomes disproportionately black at that point because a lot of these former slaves and, again, 179,000 black men serve 141,000 born into slavery. So they stay in the army, but they keep getting sent out west. And so, again, you know, we are all told in grade school one of the deals made by hayes in the contested of 1876 is that the white south demands the withdrawal of the federal army, which they do but only as a symbolic gesture. In june of 1876 there are 2,800 soldiers in the entire former confederacy. I bet theres more cops today in philadelphia than there were in the entire south in 1876. So, of course, what the white south wants when they make that tee manned of hayes is kind of symbolic gesture that the federal government is walking away from black soldiers and black southerners. But is really is the wars in the dakotas that hurt reconstruction because, again, those soldiers are needed down there to enforce Voting Rights in alabama, mississippi and not out in the west. So that really hurts reconstruction a lot. Thank you very much. And for edna green medford, were there any substantial or significant economic gains achieved by former slaves, freed men and women during this helter skelter period of reconstruction . Well, you know, historians have always argued that the system of sharecropping had to be implemented because there was no money in the south at the end of the war, and it is true. Sharecropping did not have to be the institution, the Economic Institution that was established however. To some extent africanamericans are supportive of a sharecropping system only because it allows them to work the land without someone standing over them with a lash. So the land is actually being rented for a share of the crop. The problem with sharecropping was that landowners who may have also been supplying the tools and the Draft Animals and the housing and Everything Else and ran the local store did not keep records that were fair to the people who were sharecropping on their land. So people could never get an even break. But despite that, despite the fact that the majority of people were sharecroppers, certainly in the deep south, there were parts of the country where there was no tobacco production or cotton production or sugar production, where people worked in a diversified economy before the end of slavery and had to deal with that diversified economy when slavery had ended. It is in those areas that people are as close to being economically independent as possible. Some of them are actually able to acquire land. Because youve got a free black population of people before the war who had been able to acquire some amount of land, and theyre subdividing their acreage and selling to these folks and theyre becoming independent farmers. These are people as well who are in areas where theyre cutting wood or oystering or fishing for a a living or theyre involved in industry. So it depends upon what part of the country one is. So there is some economic advancement, but for the majority of africanamericans it does not exist. To me that is the true tragedy of reconstruction, that the country had an opportunity perhaps to redistribute land. Certainly africanamericans expected 40 acres and a mule, and there were some people who did get that temporarily in South Carolina, in the sea islands area, the coastal areas of South Carolina and georgia, but that land was taken away from them when the original owners returned to the area and were pardoned by johnson. So the only thing i can see that would have really ensured economic independence would have been finding a way to make sure that these freed people got the land that they had been cultivating their entire lives, and that didnt happen. Exactly. Did the homestead act that lincoln supported in 1862, it was it was on the table during the Buchanan Administration but never was passed. It did pass in the lincoln administration. Did that help at all . The homestead act helped to some extent, but the majority of people dont benefit from that. Doug, youve heard me say that reconstructions problems began with what was arguably the worst decision that Abraham Lincoln made as president when he dropped from his h1864 reelection, the conscientious Vice President , and replaced him with Andrew Johnson, the unionist democrat from tennessee. Fearing defeat i think is one of the reasons in the november election lincoln writes the blind memorandum he has his cabinet sign once it is sealed. Lincoln hoped to shore up support among northern democrats and win the trust of voters in the reconquered areas of the seceded states. Thats one of the reasons we think he went along with. Were not sure how machiavellian lincoln was with replacing hamblin with johnson. Thats up for grabs i think and is argued among many historians. What about that decision to have johnson become the Vice President and eventually the president of the United States . Sure. One of the great, of course, unanswerable questions is how things would have been different had lincoln not gone to the theater on good friday. Probably would do the same thing too, but historians play this odd game usually at conference bars. The greatest president s, the ten worst president s. Recently there was a debate on facebook, which president you would want to have your back in a bar fight. Actually, Andrew Jackson won that because he liked to shoot things. Lincoln would have been a good guy to have your back. Back to the main point. I think for most historians it is not lincoln was the only man for the job, it is that Andrew Johnson was the absolute worst man for the job. I mean you could look at all of his really bad policies and his animosity that he had toward black americans, the famous meeting he has with Frederick Douglass is just infamous. After douglass leaves andon son turns to his secretary and said, i know negroes like that. And he didnt use the term negro. He wanted to stick a knife in the white man. Johnson was a bad guy, but i think he actually wins the award over buchanan over the worst president is because it is number two, but i will say johnson is number one the worst president because theres a moment of opportunity and he squanders it. Look at how the second president on son president johnson uses the mourning nation, mourning the death of john kennedy and pushes for civil rights. What really surprised me in writing the book is the large number of northerners and southerners who said in 65, it is over, weve lost. I mean no less than James Longstreet writes a series of editorials saying, we are a conquered people. We fought, we lost, they won and now we need to accept whatever rules they impose on us and move ahead. And, of course, you have all seen the photographs. You know, charleston is burned, columbia is burned, richmond is burned, the south has just lost, you know, hundreds of thousands of young men, and this is a chance to really start fixing things and it is going to be easy . Of course not. But instead of kind of digging his heels in johnson says to the white south, go about your business and he appoints people like william marvel who said in florida, it was white mans war. Of course the only important battle fought in florida was olustee and the 54th and 55th were there and fought and died at olustee. He appoints people who had been unionists, opposed to secession but collaborative with the confederacy in these important governorships and says go about your business. He says to the governor of South Carolina, inform me from time to time what is happening in South Carolina. Thats it. Not here are the rules, but inform me from time to time. So, again, we will never know how things would have been different. What mary once said about her husband, once abe digs those big heels in theres no power on earth that could change him. When lincoln meets with Frederick Douglass, theyre talking about soldiers and unequal pay for black soldiers and lincoln says, i move slowly but no one can ever accuse me of moving in the wrong direction. And so for me johnsons crime is that he squanders this moment in which things could have been different. What i found so depressing about writing the book on reconstruction and this is north and south the battles that are fought again in the 1950s, the 1960s, people who paid with their lives again in our lifetime is because it wasnt done right the first time. I think things would have been very, very different had lincoln not gone to fords theater. Thank you. Joan, weve heard from judge steve savakis, a judge who is a good friend in baltimore county, that president grants hand were really tied by the United States Supreme Court in 1875 when they issued the their opinion in u. S. Versus crookshank saying that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to enforce the kkk act, socalled. It took that took away from the commander in chief and chief magistrate the tools that he needed to enforce what were speaking about, that is Civil Liberties and the rights of citizenship which certainly is not just freedom but the rights that are attendant to freedom. So do you agree with that . Do you agree that that was the reason that in the second term, or at least towards the second term of the grant administration, he was inhibited on the enforcement of the civil rights legislation . Yes. [ laughter ] thats thats what i like from my lawyers, but i never get it. [ laughter ] i never get one word answers. I think you can certainly yes. I think that was certainly a big turning point. Another big turning point was the elections of 1874 in which for the First Time Since before the war grant had to deal with a democratic controlled congress, and there and northern the northern people were withdrawing their support for the kind of reconstruction envisioned by congress in 1868 and bringing u. S. Grant to the presidency. I do think that i hate to be the one who our 21st ideas about racial progress and equity were not there in the 19th century. 19th century people were racist. We can call them that. Thats what they were, white people, most white people. And the thing is that you touched on edna touched on the most important factor to northern whites was free labor, and they wanted they wanted africanamericans in the south, the freed people to have security in their person and security and the ability to move and sell their free labor. It was so simplistic and they didnt really want to know the he details, but once they were reassured to themselves that that was what was going on, republicans voted for that. And the reason that it seems to me that Abraham Lincoln acceded i dont know how much he had to do with this selection of Andrew Jackson who was a wartime governor of tennessee. So he wasnt a ridiculous choice. Abraham lincoln did not know he was going to be assassinated while watching a comedy at fords theater, of course, but the thing that he was concerned about and that he did see in the future was establishing the Republican Party as a national party. And he saw Andrew Johnson and the renaming of the Republican Party for the 1864 election, the union party, as a way to do that because he knew that the loyal, slaveholding states of tennessee, of missouri, of kentucky, of maryland would be a problem for the Republican Party in the postwar era. So we dont have to agree with his decision. There is no person on earth that thinks Andrew Johnson is a good president , i dont think, in this room anyway. But i mean there are if we put ourselves in the shoes of the people who were living in the past, we can understand at least their reasoning. It is not thats all i have to say. [ laughter ] thank you. Yes, please. Absolutely, please do. To what extent does this decision of the Republican Party to support voting vierights in south for africanamericans based on the idea that this is the group thats going to help the Republican Party stay in power . You are exactly right. The africanamericans comprised 80 of the republicans in the south during the period that they made every effort to secure that vote. It was one of the few times in our history that so perfectly melded policy, power and idealism. And it had mixed results obviously, and thats all i want to say. Can i have a word . Yes, please, doug. Politicians can do the right thing for the wrong reason, and i agree with you both. Lincoln got 1,337 votes in 1860 in virginia, all of which is now west virginia. Of course, he wins in 60 because he is running against two democrats and he wins in 64 because the south is not having an election that year. Of course, grant loses new york in 68, but thanks to the reconstruction act he carries both carolinas. Most find it amazing working class former slaves in alabama can vote for a working class black man in syracuse. The light bulb goes on. Grant understands how the Electoral College works, and of course South Carolina and mississippi have a black majority. If black men can vote across the south, those will be a lock in the Electoral College. What does grant say in the inaugural address . He wants to be reelectioned in 72 and black men are going to make it happen. They got him elected in 68 and now he wants black votes across the north as well and make sure he holds on to those votes in mississippi and South Carolina. Doug, i have to ask you a question. Did new york try to rescind its vote on the 15th amendment . No, they finally give in, but in 1860 again, this goes back to 1821 when they have a new constitution. Of course, slavery still exists in new york state until 1827. So they eliminate the final property qualification for white voters in 1821 but imposed a new one on black voters. So they have a ballot referendum in 1860 to get rid of this, and moderate republicans in new york banned together with democrats and vote it down. So new york lincoln carries new york handily in 60, but the ballot referendum which is going to franchise black new yorkers goes down, so some of the same voters go to the polls to vote for lincoln in 60 and vote against black rights in the empire state. Theyre not happy about it, but new york was finally limping along, 67 when they finally interest great the Public Schools. So theyre kind of moving in the right direction. The story of the 14th and 15th amendment is very much like the film that you saw on lincoln in the passage of the 13th amendment. These amendments would not have been passed in any other era. It was made possible by the tremendous revolution of freeing four million enslaved people, and what did they call it . It is the factory, lots of shady deals done. The 14th and 15th amendments only passed because southern it was a requirement of the former Confederate States that they had to accept it before they could come into the union. It was harder, it was very hard to get a lot of northern states to get to that magic number. Edna, you know, you mentioned appropriately the rights of citizenship and thats more than just freedom. The right to vote, the right to serve on jurors, the right to serve in the military, and the right to a free education, too. What about that, what about this literacy issue and the quest for knowledge and to be able to the read and write that occur canned during this period . Sure. At the end of the war 70 of the africanamericans population itself was illiterate because people were not allowed well, there were laws against teaching enslaved people to read and write. Some people were able to acquire literacy anyway, despite those laws. But africanamericans from the very beginning understood that if they were going to be able to maintain their freedom they would have to be able to read and write. If they were going to become fullfledged american citizens, they would have to be educated. Now, it is not that they thought that they had to be better than anyone else because they were certainly a lot of white men and women out there who were not educated, who were not literate either, because there was no universal Public School system in the south before the civil war. But certainly people fresh out of slavery understood that an education would help them toed advance. I think in the past we put too much attention on the idea that africanamericans want to learn to read because they want to read the bible. Yes, some people did. But it is much more than that. It is about being able to read contracts and know what youre signing. It is about being able to just move forward in american society. And so what they do is at great sacrifice they establish these schools. It is not just the freedmens bureau. It is not just these benevolent organizations in the north. It is not just the missionaries who come down and teach africanamericans to read and write while the war is still going on actually, but it is africanamericans themselves who take their meager earnings and they find teachers, he they pay for those teachers salaries, they purchase books for their children and for themselves, because youve got adults who are in these classes as well at night. And they build these schools or they find appropriate facilities to house these schools. So it is really an africanamerican population that understands that something as fundamental as being able to read had been denied to them and they have to acquire that in any way that they could. Any other comments from other panel before we open the floor to he questions . Please get behind the microphone, ladies and gentlemen, so that we can refer to you. It is almost q a time. One last question for you, edna, at least on this round. Were all of the freed men and women victims despite the horrific violence that they encountered in the pushback during this period . Were they all victims . In terms of victimization on how they were treated. Well, the violence during this period was just phenomenal, because right after the war has ended youve got the klan rising, but you also had individuals. You had people who are not a part of organizations, who are burning churches, who are burning schoolhouses, who are burning black businesses. So thats happening all over the south. So there is is serious victimization, but a africanamericanss dont succumb to that. They leave the rural areas and move to the cities first, and then they move from the south to the west. So theyre going to places like nicodemus, kansas, forming allblack towns in places in kansas, in some parts of texas. Theyre not going north, of course, until the great migration of, you know, 19 they start in 1914, 1915. So even though theres victimization, they try to stay where they are, to work it out, but it does come to a point that they realize that theyre never going to be able to advance in the south. So some of them do leave. Whole congregations of people leave and go west or he they eventually come to the north. So theyre doing everything they can to try to control their lives, to try to control their destiny. Any comments from the panel . I will just add that there is no safe place, and the north is safer than the south. But philadelphia in 1871, young octavius cato, a black School Teacher who single handedly integrates streetcars in philadelphia is assassinated on election day in front of a giant crowd in the allwhite jury lets the democratic assassin go. This is the city of brotherly love. He once gives a speech in which he says 53,000 black activists nationwide have been targeted for assassination. He didnt say 50,000 or about. He says 53,000. People are writing to him, feeding him information. Think of that number. Thats bigger than the casualty rate of gettysburg. So, yeah, they are being victimized but not just in the south. Okay. Lets begin with the questions. Melissa. Yes, hi. As a fellow central new yorker, i attended a a conference, an neh conference in rochester on Frederick Douglass womens Rights Movement as well. I believe they never addressed and i dont know if it actually is a topic or not, but did Frederick Douglass have any role in reconstruction under johnson and grant . I can answer that. No. I mean he had i should say here that everything i know about Frederick Douglass, my colleague and wife is writing a great book, due to be out this spring were on cspan. Hi, honey. [ laughter ] called women in the world of Frederick Douglass, so everything i know about douglase i learned from lee fant. Of course lee and johnson are bitter enemies immediately. He admires grant but he believes it is better to be an activist where he is and not be kind of part of the political system. Again, even in the north, the north is complicated, as popular as he is in rochester he could not have been elected to congress in rochester. He would have to be in the south to do that, kind of a black belt county. He and grant are i think he sees grant as an ally and certainly sees johnson as an enemy, but he always remains just an activist who believes that his pen and voice are his best weapon. But isnt that he was a great campaigner in 1872 for grant, some really rousing speeches in favor of the republicans and grant. But his agitation is the most important thing that he does. I mean that is his role in society. He is the leader of black america, i think undisputed, during this part of the 19th century. He is there to agitate and he is there to bail out white men who let the freedmens bank go down the tubes. So he tries to save it and he puts his own money into the bank, and he is still not able to save it because theyve made such a mess of it. So it wasnt africanamericans responsible for that failure but the white men put in charge of that bank. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mine is a simple question. What effect, if any, did the death of Thaddeus Stevens have on the outcome of reconstruction . Joan . [ laughter ] thank you. [ laughter ] i think it i think that actually Thaddeus Stevens upon hearing that Andrew Jackson was not impeached from the Senate Trials said, the country has gone to the dogs and then he died. And he was so disgusted. But his day had had passed by then. He was being superseded by moderate republicans already in 1868. The feeling was that radical republicans were a fading presence on the scene, and his death confirmed it. Thank you. Anyone else . Doug. Go back to ednas point, he had a great land reform bill and johnson doesnt have to veto it because it never comes out of committee. It is even too radical for other socalled radical republicans. In many ways his job was to be sort of the voice of real progressive reform, but he is kind of out there by himself. Is he the bernie of his era . [ laughter ] im not going there. Yes. After listening to yesterdays talks on surrender and yours on reconstruction, todays panel, i think im going to write a book, dont do the war unless you know how to make the peace. It seems like there was zero preparation, planning the end of the war. You had commanders in the field writing their own terms of surrender. You would have expected that lincoln would have been sending that out, at least stanton. And then reconstruction, was there no planning for what is going to happen after this . We said the states could not leave, and now were planning how to bring them back in, for one thing. Was there no commission, no committee . Wasnt anyone trying to figure this out . Edna, you can start. Lincoln had certainly suggested as early as december of 63 what reconstruction should look like, and believing that southerners had never officially left the union he was very mild and conciliatory with his plans. So, as you know, it required only 10 of the population of people who were eligible to vote in 1860 having to declare allegiance to the union, and then that state could come back into the union. But in terms of what happened after that, you know, how do you sort of heal the wounds that had occurred during the war . What do you do about the freed people . He was not very clear about that. Certainly we know that he was already talking about Voting Rights for certain groups of africanamericans by the time of his assassination, but hes talking then, of course, about a limited number of men. Of course, we doe kn know once door was open there was no way to stop it, so it would have been universal suffrage for africanamericans. In terms of what to do with africanamericanss economically he does indicate he wouldnt mind seeing a period of kind of an apprenticeship established, where africanamericans who had been enslaved and the slaveholders could find their way, work their way into a new relationship. So there was going to be some a period in which africanamericans would not be truly free. They would still be dependent on the very people who had held them enslaved. Now, he did say that if they attempt to move further in the direction of unfreedom that he would take the liberty of stepping in. So what he would have done, had he lived and had he continued that mild conciliatory plan and former confederates had been attempted to take away the rights that africanamericans had had received in freedom, i dont know that he would have certainly been willing to go to war again to do something about that. I mean he was tired of it. The nation was tired of it. So im not so sure that he would have been that different. Doug or joan, any other comments . I just have one. How can you plan for what you dont know is going to happen . And from the very beginning, from 1861 to 1865 it was so transformative, it is hard to plan. But there were rehearsals for reconstruction. Lincoln had a plan. Con congress opposed his plan, or radical republicans. We do know that this was a contentious time, unlike now. [ laughter ] right. I cant wait for your question. Yes. Nothing provocative this time. Can you describe the role of custers 7th calvary in suppressing the klan in the deep south . Second quick question, you mentioned the sea islands. The blacks toward the end of the civil war established their own constitution and seized the plantations. Can you tell us something about that . You mentioned sea island. Doug, do you want to start with the 7th calvary . Skip over that part. The gary owen group. Skip over the whole 7th calvary and get to the question of the klan and mention sea islands, what is happening down there. In the popular imagination, you know, we have the klan, guys riding around in robes and hoods, and if you have seen birth of a nation they have this kind of odd spike on top of their heads. Im not sure where that came from. And then, of course, the klan act is passed and grant declares martial law and crushes the klan. Thats the good news, the bad news is it decentralizes and drives it underground. They understand you have to get 25 guys in white robe and burn crosses, you just get your cousin or the guy who is your sergeant during the war and you wait outside the home of a local black activist and you shoot him in the morning and you ride away. That becomes very, very hard to combat. In some cases theres not even theres not even a death. I had one story, i found a bureau report. As we all know, theres no modern ballast in the 19th century. So this local black activist in South Carolina has a ticket for next days election. About six guys ride to his house, not of course wearing hoods and say, give us the tickets or well shoot you and kill your wife. So the guy does the prud enthen thing, he hands the tickets over and the next day there are no battle in that county and the republicans get zero votes. The guys learned early on you dont have to have this Big Organization to crush democracy and Voting Rights in the south. You just need a up can will of people and it makes it hard to go after. In terms of the sea islands, of course, you know, when the u. S. Army and navy arrived in 62 and 63 whites fled inland. This is the rice coast and South Carolina and georgia, and they arrived to find the blacks had already moved into the big house and, of course, it was africans who initially who knew how to produce rice in the first place, not englishmen, so theyre already kind of running the operation. And that is, of course, when there are, as joan mention, rehearsals for reconstruction in which theyre talking about land reform and land redistribution. I will will say lincoln, we dont really kind of know what is going to happen. He mused out loud when it comes to policy and he says, you know, 40 acres sounds about right for a piece of land. That sounds you know, so the whole 40 acres and a mule, thats not a complete fantasy. Look, it actually sort of pops out of his head and who knows whether it is serious policy or not . Then, of course, johnson overturns all of that and hands not just political power but literally land back to, in many cases guys who had been gone for years. For me one of the saddest parts is that, of course, some of the land had been controlled by planters or their sons who were now dead, and, you know, people who had been working that land, want that land, and instead they have auctions and it is northern capitalists who buy the land. So blacks find themselves battling not just former confederates but wealthy people from new jersey who want to have a nice estate. So what goes wrong with reconstruction, theres a lot of shared blame. And some of that control of the land occurs while the war is still going on, too, because you have the emancipated working the land but you have people coming from the north who are the land is up for auction. They get access to the land. They have people working on these government farms as well. So the experiment is not a great one. Certainly shermans field order, special order number 15, declaring that area for 30 miles back from the ocean and then from southern South Carolina down to northern florida as land thats to be given to africanamericans, and white men are not supposed to live on that land. I mean that was an interesting approach, but it was not maintained, as you said. It was given back to the original owner. Joan . The three rs, restore, rebuild, reunite. We havent mentioned the economy at all. How was the south supposed to get back on its feet if its major cash crop, cotton, could not be picked. All of these come into play in the way lincoln and his successors were thinking as well as protecting africanamericans in their person and in their Voting Rights. Michelle. I have an openended question, however you want to answer this. But can you comment on either the role, influence or voice of the veterans of the civil war in terms of reconstruction, either on behalf of africanamericans, against africanamericans . Those are the folks that actually fought the war, and sometimes you see soldiers accounts when theyre in the south and theyre realizing firsthand how awful slavery has been or meeting people for the first time. Where are the veterans voices in this story . Very good question. Who will want to go first . Well, i think joan. I want to Say Something because i see a roomful of hungry people here, with all due respect. Were not done yet. Im only kidding. But i think that one of the most fascinating stories of reconstruction as was suggested is the development of black leadership, which would later be called the voices of the talented ten. In the vanguard were the black veterans who fought in the war and settled in the south. They could read and write. They ran for office. They held all of the lower offices that we dont hear about. We hear about the senators and the congressmen in the congress in 1868 and 1872 but we dont hear about the sheriffs. So all of that, they were a great in the great masses of veterans, white veterans in the north were i think they were proud of their role in emancipation as a Republican Party would have on their banners for at least until the election of 1900, were the party that saved the union, made freedom national. But they as far as civil rights, most of them were not particularly notable in pushing for that. In terms of acquisition of land, theyre the guys who have the money because they have these bounties. So they come in and they are able to purchase the land, and they are an example for people who are sharecropping who cant do any better. So what they the purpose they served partially is to show people that it is possible to be economically independent. And as joan says, these are the leaders in the south when the war is over, and i think you cant over emphasize their role in helping make the transition to true freedom or to the ek tent th extent the people are allowed to be free in the south. There are 1510 identified people of color who hold state office in reconstruction in the south, and a large number were military. Thats the story of america in 1946, you couldnt run for office unless you had been in the army. These are the guys who had expertise, most of them were free before the war and theyre literate. Yeah, theyre the ones that kind of moved into political party. While i think it is also true, i will agree with joan that northern white soldiers dont ever get on the progressive bandwagon. People like mcclellan argue if black men are armed in the war of 63, white men will desert in droves. I found soldiers saying things like, well, you know, if i have to die can use some help here, that kind can of thing. So while mcclellans never get acustomed to black men with guns, the common soldiers realize quickly they can use all of the help they can get. If that means they get to go home sooner, fine by them. Thank you. Yes . Professor medford i was glad you mentioned Howard Universitys creation. I think people dont realize that Howard University in many ways is a living part of reconstruction today because every year when the Congress Debates the education appropriation, a member will get up and point out Howard University and Howard University is the only university that has its own line in the federal appropriations bill. Actually, there are two universities. Gallaudet university in washington has that same privilege. How long has howard had that appropriation . How has it kept it . Also, howard was a hotbed of the civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s. Yes. What kind of opposition did the University Run into in congress, especially when the southern chairman of the appropriations and the rules committee was must have been just besides themselves. Indeed. I believe howard has had the appropriation since 1928, if im not mistaken. It has percentage of howards budget that comes from that appropriation has been dwindling for sometime, has been getting lower, and we appreciate that appropriation. Howard has had a unique history, having been founded in 1867 under the leadership of earl howard, a Union General. And it was congressionally authorized. Absolutely. Who believed initially that the freed people needed ministers, but his attitude about that quickly changed, and the group of men who helped him found howard believed that the freed people would also benefit from teachers. And then within months, they decided, well, why not a law school and a medical school and all of the rest, so it became a university very quickly. And, yes, in the 50s howard was instrumental in the fight for civil rights. In its law school, for instance, Charles Hamilton houston trained people like Thurgood Marshall and others who led the fights in the courts for desegregation of the schools. And howards professors, historians and im happy to say were also a part of that whole effort. How weve been able to keep the appropriation only god knows. [ laughter ] but i pray that we do keep it because it is very necessary. It is helpful to our students. We do have a student population, some of whom have difficulty paying for college. We are fairly expensive but we would be even more so with that, without that appropriation. Without that appropriation. 6 captioning performed by vitac
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.