Transcripts For CSPAN3 Reconstruction And Civil Rights 20170722

History tv, all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook. Next on American History television, pulitzer prizewinning author eic foner on the challenges of establishing civil rights for friedman in the reconstruction period and beyond. Eric foner. With that, i would like to introduce eric foner. Eric when iuntered was a College Student thinking about becoming an historian and had visions of riding a good book. Then i read freemen, free soil, maybe ir and thought ought to stop now. I will not be able to write a book that good. Whatis is his first book, is he going to write . I ran away from antebellum history. You cant compete with people like him. I have come back to antebellum history and slavery and since then, i have relied on many of erics more than 20 books. I would review the list, but we do not have that much time. I do want to say, and this is the fun of introducing a speaker, looking at his selected publications, i notice he has written a book called dance for the city 50 years of the new york city ballet, and i can think of no better preparation for giving a talk today at this moment on reconstruction and the radical republicans who helped reconstruct the nation than somebody who knows how to move quickly on his feet. And with that, i would like to introduce my good friend, someone i admire in honestly. The winner of the lincoln prize, i think every other prize available, eric foner. [applause] you, paulfoner thank finger men, for that. Thank you all for braving the elements. Obviously we have an audience that is very dedicated to hearing about history. And thanks, also to lauren and the others who organized this conference. I should say, paul, in the interest of fairness and the stability of my marriage, my wife is actually the scholar of these scholar of dance history, and that book did have my name on it, but really only as a kid that sir kibitzer. The publisher insisted my name be on it because it would sell more books. She was annoyed about it, actually. I am happy to answer questions for a while. To askfeel free questions. There will be microphones passed around for people. That will be in a little while. So, what is reconstruction anyway . The things one of with paul, younger scholars are talking about a long reconstruction. It didnt really end in 1977. 1877. Some people are taking it all the way up to 1900. You will have many opportunities 150thebrate the anniversary of reconstruction up to 2050. Ba prepare for those conferences. 1865 toit is dated 1877. Theres a lot of flexibility. Its aportantly historical process, one might say, the process by which the United States tried to come to terms with the consequences of the civil war, the two most important of which were the preservation of the nation and the destruction of the institution of slavery. If you view reconstruction that way, you might say we are still trying to work out the consequences of the end of slavery in american life, and therefore reconstruction never quite ended. I have devoted a lot of my career to studying reconstruction. I have written books, created a museum exhibition, but i have to admit, most americans know very, very little about the reconstruction period. While ago, the department of education did a survey of graduating seniors from american high schools, 15,000 of them, about what they knew about American History. They gave them a list of things to see if they could identify them. Most of them could identify things like the dropping of the first atomic bomb or the westward movement, but at the , only likehe list 15 could say anything intelligible about reconstruction. Published atly 600page book on reconstruction, so i found this disheartening. But the fact is, even though we dont know much about it. The key questions facing our society right now, today, have their origins in some way in reconstruction, or at least you can understand them without knowing something about that 150 years ago. Issues on our agenda today are reconstruction issues. The right tove vote . Thats a reconstruction question. And is still very much alive today. The relationship between the federal government and the states. Thats a reconstruction question. How to deal with terrorism is a reconstruction question. Not terrorism from abroad, but terrorism, the ku klux klan, and organizations founded in reconstruction. What is the relationship between political democracy and economic democracy. That is a reconstruction question that is maybe being debated more now than it has for a while in our country. One other thing before i get into the actual history of reconstruction this era is a prime example of what we sometimes called the politics of history. Im not talking about whether a historian is a republican or a democrat. What i mean is the way historical interpretation reflects and helps to shape the politics of the present. Writing about reconstruction often tells us as much about the moment the historian is writing period. E historical whatost of the 20 century, we call the old or standard or Dunning School view of reconstruction, after my predecessor at Columbia University a long, long time ago, william a. Dunning, who taught the civil war there the Dunning School dominated historical writing and popular images of reconstruction, and in a nutshell in that view, reconstruction was the lowest point in the hole saga of american democracy. According to that lowest saga of the whole american democracy. According to that interpretation, president lincoln wanted to bring the defeated south back into the union in a quick, leaning it, defeated manner. After his assassination, his policy was continued, according to this view, by his successor, president Andrew Johnson. Johnson was thwarted by the villains of the story, the radical republicans in congress. Depending on which his story in your red, they were motivated by irrational hatred of the south or the desire to fasten the grip of northern capitalism on the self, or simply by the desire to keep the Republican Party in power. But for whatever reason, they lenient plannsons and imposed blacks average imposed blacks suffrage that is the vote for black men since women did not vote at that time in the defeated south. The crux of the dunning view is what people are incapable of taking part in political democracy. They lacked the foresight, lacked the rationality, these self. Whatever it is, they are incapable and what followed was an or g of corruption and ms. Government presided over by carpetbaggers what followed of corruption ment bygovern carpetbaggers. Carpetbaggers, scalawags, who were white southerners who abandoned the race to join up in reconstruction governments and the africanamericans themselves. The governments work governments of corruption and abuse of power and eventually lanriotic groups like the k organized to overthrow this reconstruction and restore what rule,itely called home or really what we should call White Supremacy in the Southern States. At this interpretation not only dominated historical scholarship, but it reached a mass audience through films like which of a nation, premiered in the wilson white house and glorify the ku klux klan, and the bestseller of the 1920s by the journalist Claude Bowers called the tragic era. What do i mean by the politics of history . Why did this interpretation have such amazing longevity . Historians make their living overturning what previous historians have said. To remain the standard view for 60 or 70 years is unprecedented. I cant think it would be as if people in the 1980s were still adhering to charles beards interpretation of the american constitution. That does not happen. It happened in this case. Why . The explanation is the dunning view harmonized with the racial reality of the United States, it racial system, we call jim crow and the shorthand, of the United States from, lets say, 1900 of to the civil rights revolution. Of thistical lessons view of reconstruction were very clear. One, it was a mistake to give what people the right to vote. Therefore the white south was justified in taking away that boat, as other as every Southern State did between 1906 and 1908, and if you gave blacks to vote, thet horrors of reconstruction would be repeated again. Secondly, reconstruction was imposed by outsiders, northerners. Maybe some of them were dogooders. Thathe evidence then is outsiders do not understand southern race relations, and therefore the south should resist outside calls for change. You always heard about the horrors of reconstruction. Is ahe third lesson, which little arcane today, is it is a pillar of the solid democratic south. Reconstruction was created by the Republican Party, and if white southerners were tempted to vote republican, you would eriod ofther p[eri reconstruction. Claude bowers, who i mentioned, ao wrote the tragic era, lurid work of historical fiction masquerading as history, it was published in 1929. Why . The First Time Since reconstruction, republicans had carried a number of Southern States in the president ial election. Herbert hoover. Why . Cause out smith, the democratic smith,te because how the democratic candidate, was a catholic, and many evangelicals did not want to vote for a catholic. But many were alarmed by the inroads hoover had made in the southern vote and his lurid book was a warning of what might happen if southerners turned to the Republican Party. Well, then the civil rights revolution took place. The pillars of the old view fell to the ground. You could no longer argue that black people were inherently incapable of taking part in political democracy. And the historians completely revised their view of the period. Today, i would say most historians see reconstruction as a noble, if unsuccessful, effort to establish for the first time in American History and interracial democracy, a democracy with the participation of africanamericans and whites at the same time, which had never existed in the United States before the civil war. If reconstruction was tragic, we now would say it was not because it attempted, but because it failed. That was the tragedy. And that it left to future generations that is very difficult problem of Racial Justice in american society. To understand how radical ,econstruction was and how despite its immediate failure, it reshaped American History in significant ways, we have to very quickly remind ourselves of what this country look like in 1860. There were 4 million slaves in the United States, like people, slaves. Slaveowners pretty much with a few exceptions, but mostly they did. Slavery was powerful, thriving, and spending. It was not going anywhere. It was not dying away. Slaves in the United States in 1860 than there had been at any point in our history and there is no reason to think that expansion of slavery would not continue. The power of slavery shaped the definition of american nationality or citizenship before the civil war, giving it a powerful racial overturn. As you know, im sure, on the eve of the war, the Supreme Court in the dred scott decision ruled that no black person could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks, it said, were aliens, even if they were born in the United States. Even if their ancestors had been here for generations. It did not matter. States could make black people citizens back then citizenship was defined in peculiar ways, as we will hear probably tomorrow but the state could make a black person like a citizen like messages as did, but other states did not have to recognize that. The comedy clause of the constitution says each state has citizens ofally the other states, does not apply to black people, says the Supreme Court, and i certainly do not have to recognize them as citizens of the United States. I draw attention to this mostly change thatkable came about during the civil war and reconstruction in what the benedict the writer anderson called the imagined community. It is not just a physical space on a map. It exists in the imagination. What does it mean to be an american . Who can be an america who can be an american . Onlyhe civil war, the people who really put forward the idea of an american nation wasnd the tyranny of race the abolitionist movement, who insisted not only that black people be freed, but that they be absorbed as equal members of the society and the policy. What came about as a result of reconstruction, a concept of citizenship which is still in our laws today, no matter how often severed from racial definition. The most important thing that put the question of black citizenship on the national agenda, of course, was slavery, but more immediately, actually, the service of 200,000 black men in the union army and navy during the civil war staked a citizenship. Ican Abraham Lincoln himself, who had never supported Political Rights for black americans before the civil war although he was deeply opposed to slavery at the end of the war was advocating that some africanamerican men be given the right to vote. Who . He singled out what he called the very intelligent, that is the free blacks who had some education, and those who served nobly in our ranks. That is, the former soldiers. They had earned the right to vote, said lincoln. That was not universal suffrage. Manhood not universal suffrage. At that point, lincoln was considerably ahead of the curve. Only five states allowed lachman to vote on the same basis as white and lincoln is not pushing that direction allowed lachman to vote on the same basis as white men and lincoln is pushing that direction. Lack men to vote. His successor, Andrew Johnson, was once per trade as a heroic defender against radical republicans. We take we play this game sometimes where we break the president s. Lincoln is always up there, fdr, george washington, and Richard Nixon and a few others are at the bottom. Most are somewhere in the middle. Andrew johnson used to be up there with the real greats. When i was in school, he would be number 7, 8, 9. He was considered a really significant president. Today, i think, johnson has a to beingaim considered the worst president in u. S. History. There is competition for that ranking [laughter] professor foner but johnson is a strong contender anyway. Johnson lacked all of the elements of greatness that lincoln possessed. He was in call urgently he was in car trouble he was ra nosesc ofist, racist, noto work ability to work with congress. He became military governor of tennessee under lincoln. And he was seen as someone who could appeal he was put on the ticket as Vice President not because anyone thought he would become president. Lincoln was a pretty young guy. Early 50s. Is no one expected him to die in office here it although lincoln himself was pretty morbid and had dreams about his own death. But he did not think about it that much or he would have thought seriously, i could not but johnson as president. But johnson thought, the africanamericans are free, no question, absolutely. They should now go back to work on the plantations and leave public issues to white americans. He set up, in 1865, new governments in the south completely controlled by whites with blacks having no Political Rights whatsoever. These government enacted a series of laws known as the black codes to regulate the condition of these former slaves. And basically, they put them in a position of second class or. Hird class citizenship basically the black codes tried to use the power of the state governments to push africanamericans back to work on the plantations. They gave blacks certain rights like their marriages would be like theyunder law, would not under slavery, of course. Mississippi made it illegal for black people to own property outside of cities. But no civil rights. They could not go to court and testify in cases involving whites. They could not serve on juries. They could not vote. No Political Rights. And they required all black men at the beginning of each year to sign a yearlong labor contract with a white employer. If you did not do that, you were deemed a vagrant. Even if you wanted to work for yourself, you were a vagrant, because you were not working for a white employer. You would be fined. If you could not pay the fine, you would have to go to work for a white guy who would pay your fine, and you would have to do that for the whole year. Now these black codes turned the northern Public Opinion against johnson fell policy johnsons policy. They alarms congress, thinking that the south is trying to reintroduce slavery in all but name. Course, these states amendment,d the 13th which irrevocably abolished slavery threat the United States, and, by the way, introduced the word slavery into the constitution for the first time. The founders used circumlocutions like persons held to labor and things like that. The 13th amendment has been back nks to news lately tha the documentary 13th, which got a lot of viewing and linked slavery. Rceration to it borrowed the language of the northwest ordinance and they prohibit slavery, except for persons convicted of crime. Intocould be forced involuntary servitude without violating the 13th amendment. Inadvertently, congress created a loophole that would later lead to the widespread use of convict labor in the south chain gangs, the widespread use of prison labor today in many the documentary shows. The documentary, unfortunately, like many hollywood things has a conspiratorial air to it and that congresshink in 1865 was thinking ahead to mass incarceration in 2017. But that language was very familiar. It came from jefferson, oddly enough. That, which was a serious flaw in the 13th amendment, it irrevocably abolished slavery. We are very close to the Supreme Court, just across the way. As you all know, there had been certain justices who insist the way to think about constitutional amendment is by ascertaining the original intent of the people who wrote them or the original meaning of the words of the time, not what it means today, but what it meant act then. Back then. As an historian, i dont think any historian actually thinks any important document has one single original intent. All open to numerous plausible interpretations. There is no single the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, they were drafted, they were debated, they were ratified, they were discussed and there were all sorts of interpretations and intents there. They also had unintended consequences like prison labor, which no one anticipated in any significant way. But anyway, my point is the 13th and 14th amendment were not enacted at one time. They were enacted over five years in response to a rapidly situation intical which peoples political views changed as time went on. Historian, its an is our job to try to figure out what were they trying to accomplish. Why were they trying to pass these things . They must have had something in mind. But contrary to that movie about lincoln, what you might think, lincoln did not originate the 13th amendment. In fact, it was more the thattionist movement originated it. This is not just historical trivia. Abolitionists sought is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a regime change. That is what they were aiming for, regime change. It had to be altered fundamentally. ,he transformation of a prewar proslavery regime into one committed to the idea of equality. Most republicans were not abolitionists. They agreed on certain principles. One, slavery had caused the civil war and the death of recorder 7 million americans feared three quarters of a million americans. It was a cancer that degraded the entire country, that degraded white labor and essential liberties of all americans, not just slaves. The 13th amendment aimed to change all of this, a step toward changing the entire regime. In one respect, it was truly revolutionary. It abolished the largest concentration of property in the United States with no monetary compensation. This has very rarely happened in history. I dont figure happened in the french revolution. They did not just abolish all the landholdings aired landholdings. They cut the heads off of people, that was one thing. But after getting property is a radical thing. Settled thendment fate of slavery but opened other questions. What exactly was being abolished . Was it simply holding another person as property, was that it . What about the racial inequality that was built into slavery, was that being abolished . What about the political system based on slavery . What did it mean to be a free person in the United States . The 13th amendment question does not answer it, although it does authorize congress to figure it out. There is a second cloth thing congress can enforce this second clause thing congress can enforce this. People believe that equality came before the law. There could not be one set of laws for black people and one thefor white people, as Southern States had just passed. But every state has some kind of law discriminating against africanamericans. Very quickly, congress decided that Andrew Johnsons reconstruction plan was not working, it needed to be amended , and relying on the 13th amendment, they passed one of the most important laws in American History, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The first law to declare sensence declare in a who is a citizen of the United States and the rights these citizens are supposed to enjoy. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 state to anybody born in the United States is a citizen. This seems pretty straightforward. It was, i think, there are people who know more about this than i do, but there was a common sense of people maybe before the civil war, if you were born in the United States, you are a citizen. But it did not apply to let people according to the Supreme Court and many states. Apply to a black people according to the Supreme Court and many states. But now those extensions are ended. Everybody born in the United States is a citizen. Of course, pick up your newspaper today, that is a public issue right now because it has to do with the status of the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States. Those children are citizens. There is no question about that, even though there are people who deny it. Or dont understand it. Because of the Civil Rights Act the14th amendment 14th amendment, which put this into the constitution f. It says nothing about race, it says anybody. It is a statement that anybody can be a loyal american, it doesnt matter what your races is, National Origin or the legal status of your parents. Anybody born here can be a good citizen of the United States. Citizenship from race, which is something abolitionists have been demanding for a long time. The Civil Rights Act goes on to say, and now these citizens have to have certain rights, what are they . Equality before the law. The law cannot discriminate between black and white. The rights of what you might free labor, the right to sign contracts, to own property, to testify in court, the right to sue and be sued. These of the rights necessary to compete in the economic marketplace. Law oringly, it says no custom, no custom can deprive citizens of these basic rights. The language of the Civil Rights Act interesting. What it says is all citizens must enjoy these rights the same as enjoyed by white persons. The same way as white persons. Before the civil war, the word white is in a lot of legislation , but it generally as a barrier. White people can vote. It is a barrier of exclusion when you put white people in, it means other people do not have these rights. In this law, whiteness becomes a baseline. The rights that white people have have to be enjoyed by everyone else. It is very interesting. It changes the way that concept of whiteness is used in american law feared american law feared the prohibition of customs that deprive citizens of their rights makes it clear that congress was acting against private acts of discrimination as well as laws. If they well knew there was also violence, private violence against former slaves, that plantation owners have formed organizations to restrict the Economic Opportunities of former slaves. They were trying to get at that also, not just the legislation. Anyway, Andrew Johnson vetoed the civil rights bill. Veto, thelaw over his first significant line American History to do that. Johnsons veto message is worth reading, because johnson attacked the law for what today we would call reverse discrimination. The distinction of race and color, he said, is made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. In fact, in the idea that expanding the rights of nonwhite people take something away from white people, the ghost of Andrew Johnson is still around today in our politics in that concept. That there is a finite number of rights, and if one group gets more, Something Else must be losing them geared we do hear that today. Of course, a lot can be repealed by the next congress. So Congress Moves to put these principles into the constitution and the 14th amendment, which is passed to congress in the summer of 1866. The most important change in the constitution since the bill of rights. The 14th amendment is the longest amendment ever ratified, it is complicated, convoluted, is weirdly written in some places. Talk about original intent feared its language is a series eight to seven votes, and it is impossible to figure out what every person meant ive is vague language. The what the 14th amendment basically is is putting into the constitution the victorious north understanding their victory of the civil war, the fruits of that victory feared some of the provisions have no relevance today. It prohibits monetary compensation for slaves. Confederate debt, people who page radically loaned to the confederate government will not be repaid feared it also absolve the National Debt. The National Debt shall not be questioned, which is a weird way of putting it. I dont think there is any jurisprudence about that, and recently became an issue when it was thought that Congress Might not expand or increase the debt ceiling, which would mean the government would have to default bonds it hashe issued geared and some people said it has issued. And some people said that under the 14th amendment, the abilityt would have the to not do that. You cannot question the National Debt. Clause, a convoluted section two, depriving some of the numbers of house of representatives that they dont give black men the right to vote. This arose because of a strange situation that because of the end of slavery, southern representation in congress would actually increase. Why . Before the civil war, the number of members of congress was based 3 5he free population and of the slaves. People wereblack 5unted, 5 5 feud represent 5. The representation increased. You get governments that are more equitable, but most republicans thought you would not be able to get this ratified, giving black men the right to vote. There was still strong opposition for that. They ended up with this crazy thing that if you deprive any group of men the right to vote, you will lose april auction lose a proportion of your population. So if ms. Abusive so if mississippi says only white people can vote, they lose half their congress. Giveesnt say you have to black people right to vote, it says you have to choose. By the way, this was never enforced. Long afterward when the Southern States did take away the right to vote, they should have lost members of congress, the Supreme Court would not touch it with a 10 foot pole and a house never enforced it on itself. Mark my words, this may become an issue again. If you take a state like texas laws,with its voter id which are being held up in court, but if they are able to do that, they will be disenfranchising of people that they should lose a member of congress. Even if they disenfranchise just 3 or 4 , dont know how many members of the house texas has appeared if you lose 4 of the vote, you should lose one of those members of congress feared im going to lead a campaign to enforce this section of the 14th amendment. By the way, the Womens Suffrage Movement was annoyed by this because it introduced the word male into the constitution for the first time. If you deprive a group of men of the right to vote, you lost members of congress. If you deprive women of the right to vote, as they all did, there was no penalty. The heart of the 14th amendment is the first section, and this makes lawyers rich. They are always fighting it out in the Supreme Court. What does this mean . A constitutional life is birth rights it starts out, all persons borne in the United States are naturalized citizens, and it stops the states from abridging citizens or denying person of life, liberty or property, equal action under the law. Notice, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the working commitment does not list specific rights, it lists general principles, due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities geared what are they . Note quite knows. It says congress can figure it out. It is up to congress to breathe meeting into these principles. What it does is introduce the concept of equality for the first time in two our constitution. The original constitution did use the word equal at one point in referring to the number of senators each state has. Thats not what we mean when we talk about equality. The 14th amendment makes the constitution what it never was but what it became later as a result of this, which is a document that americans who feel they are being denied equality cant appeal to can appeal to. You could not go to court for the civil war and say i am being night myself right to equality, you did not have one. Now you do, even though what that means has to be worked out. There is nothing about race in this, either. Status of the former slaves is on their mind, but it applies to everyone. Caseost important recent utilizing the 14th amendment was the case which prohibited states from denying gay people the right to marriage. That is a 14 commitment decision by justice kennedy. 14th amendment decision by justice kennedy. States cannot deny you without due process of law. Kennedy said, it has become a thatt youre right your right to freedom in your intimate life is part of your liberty. Gay were not thinking about as a concept in 1866. But kennedy gives you the opposite of the original interpretation. These concepts growth and expand. Andhese concepts grow expand. It is a 14th amendment decision. Launchedamendment also a significant change, as did the 13th and 15th, and the federal system, the balance between states and federal government. You can see the point i am making if you compare these amendments with the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments that give us basic Civil Liberties, freedom of speech, trial by jury, etc. The first words of the bill of rights is Congress Shall make no law. It protects these liberties against federal abridgment. It has nothing to do with the states. South carolina had all sorts of laws making it illegal to criticize labor. You cannot get up and make a speech against slavery. The First Amendment has to do with the federal government. Massachusetts had an established church until the 1820s, did that not violate the bill of rights . No, it was states. It has nothing to do with the state. Now look at the last clause of the 13th, 14th and 18th amendment. Congress has the power to enforce the Spirit Congress has the power to enforce these. Is theeral government protector of liberty and the state governments, it was state law that established slavery, states were violating the basic rights of the slaves, they were the ones in danger of limiting the liberties of all americans feared the federal government comes all americans. Government protects the Civil Liberties of all americans. They absorb the bill of rights to all the states using the 14th amendment appeared they say, now the states have to abide by freedom of speech and the press. That has been going on for decades. 10 years ago, the mcdonalds case where the Second Amendment was incorporated to states and local governments. That was about the right to bear arms that cannot be infringed on. That process has gone on. Is, the point empowerment of the National Government at the expense of the states through this. So the 14th amendment said nothing about the right to vote directly. To second section tries encourage states to give blacks the right to vote, but quickly after this, congress decided that there was no point working with johnson, his governments were no good and had to be replaced. In 1857, they passed the reconstruction act which called for the creation of new governments in the south based on universal manhood suffrage. Mane ofld be black voting for the first time in American History in any large numbers and holding office. Callbegins the period we radical reconstruction. Before the civil war, only a tiny number of black men could vote anywhere in the country, and as for holding office, i have seen reference to about five black men who held a look office before the civil war. Mostly justices of the peace in oberland, ohio, a weirdly liberal place. That is not a lot. Now suddenly, blackmun can vote black men can vote and hold office. And then it is extended to the whole country. The 15th amendments a state cannot deprive anyone of the right to vote because of race. That was not the amendment the radical republicans wanted. They wanted a positive statement of the right to vote. It wouldve saved a lot of trouble later on if they had done that. It would have been men unfortunately at that time, any male citizen 21 years of age or older has the right to vote. And a formative an affirmative statement. That is not what the 15th amendment is. It says no state can deny you the right to vote because of race. There are plenty of other reasons they can deny. Gender, for one. As with happen later, literacy, understanding clauses. The way this dont the way the south took away the right to vote, it said nothing about blacks. Nonracialnsibly they wereen though implement it in a completely racist manner was upheld by the Supreme Court. They said look, it doesnt say anything about race, we cannot go into the motivations of the registrars and legislators and what they really mean. We are looking at what the law says, and it says anybody can vote as long as they understand the state constitution. What is wrong without . The 15th amendment was a remarkable step forward but on the other hand it was too weak to a congress permanently what it try to do. Nonetheless, this period of radical reconstruction when new, biracial government came to power in the south, was a massive, unprecedented experiment in interracial democracy. Thee governments, despite old view, had many achievements. They created the first tax supported open School System in the Southern States. They begin the process of trying to rebuild the seven economy. State civilmany rights laws trying to uphold the basic rights of former slaves. As i said, blackmun held a look office at every level from the first two black members of the senate, both elected from mississippi, to members of congress, to state legislatures, state constitutional conventions, justices of the peace, shares, school board officials, mayors, you name it. One black man served on the state Supreme Court of South Carolina. The hands remained in of whites, but the fact that over 2000 black men by my count, Held Public Office during reconstruction, was an amazing change in the political system. Of course, the problems of people coming out of slavery were not just civil and Political Rights. Blacks came out of slavery without money, without property. They wanted land, of course, one of the few things people have heard about in reconstruction was the phrase 40 acres and a summarize the africanamerican desire for land as a kind of economic underpinning to their new freedom. That did not happen. The former slaves were left with little alternative than to go back to work, to go to work for white employers. What the Political Revolution was dramatic enough that it inspired, as i mentioned, a wave of violence in the south by the groups, whiched used terrorism to try and intimidate people and undermine these governments, to try and destroy the Republican Party on the local level, to event people from voting. Violence succeeded in some places in paralyzing these governments and even overthrowing them. Handinhand with that came a retreat in the north in the 1870s from this ideal of equality, from a willingness to enforce the new constitutional by one, thisnd one was a long, complicated story, but i am nearing the end of my talk, these governments fell by 1877, whichuntil by is traditionally listed as the end of reconstruction, the entire south quebec under the control of the entire south was back under the control of white democrats, who would wouldt until the control it. We know by 1900, a new system crow,t in place, jim which was based by taking away the rights of voters, racial segregation, the severe cutbacks to black education. A rigidly segmented labor market and which good jobs were reserved for whites, and at the edge of it, there was lynching. Lynched, people were killed by mobs. Most of them africanamericans. While violated with impunity, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment remained on the books. What Charles Sumner called sleeping giants. Later they would be awakened by a new generation and to provide a legal basis for the civil rights revolution, which is sometimes called the second reconstruction. When south africa abolished apartheid, they needed to write a new constitution. Rights movement did not produce any change to the constitution. We do not need a new constitution, we needed the old constitution to be enforced. Finally, after many decades, the changes that reconstruction put into the constitution were finally enforced to some extent. There are a couple of lessons i want to finish with. Right on the books are not sufficient. They are not self enforcing. The 14th and 15th amendments, the civil rights legislation remain on the books remained on the books that were ignored. This modelly, in retreat from the ideal of equality, the Supreme Court of the United States played a very significant role. The retreat was gradual, it was never total, but certainly the 14th and 15th amendments became dead letters in many parts of the south. The other point is simply is that americans, we like to think of our history as a Straight Line of a greater and greater freedom. Actually, as reconstruction shows, our history is a more complicated, more interesting story of up downs, progress and retrogression. Commanded aist who unit of black soldiers in the civil war wrote around the time reconstruction began, revolutions may go backward. Reconstruction was a revolution that went backward. The fact it happened at all like the foundation for future generations to try to bring to thation the aspirations of era and the concept of a country beyond the tyranny of race that had inspired reconstruction first place. We may be entering another period when rights taken for granted are taken away. We have come very far, the challenge of dealing with the legacy of slavery, the crux of reconstruction, still confronts us a century in the half after the end of the civil war. Thank you very much for listening. [applause] thank you very much. , dont have to field questions this man has been teaching longer than i have aired i just want to point out we have two people with microphones, so if you have a question, wait until the microphone get to you. Everything you should know is we are honored to have cspan here, so if you dont want to begin your 15 minutes of fame on tv, dont ask a question. Hand, if youre anxious for fame, here is your opportunity to your opportunity. Professor lowing can be first. Im going to send you a you know, a bunch of little points, but i have a question. I think we should date the big change. 2 1890 because late in that year, first of all we had what used to be called the battle of wounded knee, now called the massacre at wounded knee. Mississippi passes its new constitution later in that year, and the United States government more or less by a single vote in the senate fails to pass the federal elections bill of 1890, and after that, the democrats the right of the republicans s. Ride the republican black folks have no allies. I think 1890 is a more important change point than 18 77. Think that is a good argument. As i said, there is now a debate, when should we and reconstruction . 1890 is a good argument as you said. In the 1880s, black people continued to vote in many places in the south. In some places, they voted but they were not counted properly or stuff like that. Know, the 1880s were kind of a transitional period. Black people, some go to court when they are denied proper sitting on a railroad and get damages. Some people do not win. It is not until plessy that racial segregation is giving given the full attention. Some people say you should end in 1906 when georgia completed the whole process. Or maybe plessy v ferguson. There are other contingents contenders. Ends. Y never a vested interest in 1877, i wrote a book that ended in 1877. [laughter] secondhad a reconstruction in North Carolina in the 1890s, maybe 1898, the populistopulace republican government in North Carolina, where you actually had another government coming to power for four years. Not everything was totally closed off until the early 20th century. I think it is a good point that to theld not be wedded rigid chronology. The person who is calling on people is actually lauren with the microphone. Keep your hands up. Thank you very much. Thatake an excellent point reconstruction was a failure because of its tragedy in not doing what it should have done. I would say that is a part of American History throughout. America failed when he was in the colonial stage. When we built a society based on slavery. We failed at the Early National period, madonna the country, the constitutional debates, when we codified slavery and made it the law of the land. Indulge me a little bit. Lets play a what if game of history. Considering all of the things you have laid out as failures, political failures and process going to reconstruction. What are the one or two things, just one or two, that would have made reconstruction a success . If they had gone the other way, if the will had been there to go in a different direction, what are those one or two things that would have made the difference . In a certain sense, you answered the question at the end of the question. You said, if the will had been there. That wouldve been necessary. I get the point you are making in your question very effectively. Even though i use the term, i actually dont like to just say reconstruction was a failure and leave it at that. Many things were, list and reconstruction which were not failures. Reconstruction, which it could not talk about here, reconstruction creates the foundation for the modern black community. Black churches, black schools, black institutions of all kinds are created in the space that opens up in reconstruction. And they survived. The black colleges survive and the black church survives. It is not that everything that happened in reconstruction was a failure. I dont want to be pollyanna ish. Equality in politics was a race for long time. A race for long time. Is, we cannot, this is not really a question, but we should not teach reconstruction backward, you know i mean . Real issueat the is not, why did it fail. On thewere not operating assumption it would fail. They were trying to do something very remarkable, and that is will we have to look at. And we can say, it did not work and why, but if you make a failure the beginning of the story rather than the end, i think youll miss a lot of what happened. What could have been done . Some people would say look, it was impossible, no other society that abolished slavery, and many of them went through reconstruction, there was no other effort to really empower the former slaves in such a dramatic way, even if it was temporary. You might say the amazing thing about reconstruction is not that it failed that it happened at all. It took a remarkable computation of events and actors to make this remarkable moment happened. If you can imagine a situation where the federal government tried to enforce the law more effectively, that is what theyre supposed to do, maybe reconstruction would have stuck more. It is hard to work out a counterfactual thing because it becomes your speculation pure speculation divorced from reality. Everything seems inevitable effort happens. It is inevitable, because it is made inevitable. Historians make it inevitable. Historians explain why it had to happen. We eliminate all the other options that may have been existing at any historical moment. I dont know what is going to happen. Let us imagine that President Trump is impeached, lets just historians will come along and say it was inevitable, and this is why it happened. But it is not inevitable. It may not happen, it may happen, but now we dont know what will happen. Most people and most moments in history dont know what will happen. We have to realize that. Im a little skeptical of counterfactual history. Who has the microphone . Wonderful talk. Worked the obstacles almost insurmountable in this and you have a rebellion that officially did not occur because the states could not leave the union, and you had people in great unison gray uniforms return home, and unless you deprive them of suffrage, you are not going to get permanent majorities in the 11 seceded state, and the federal Occupation Forces until 1877, with ever larger enough large enough to enforce civil rights laws, and was the lyrical support among Political Support among white northern voters Strong Enough had they tried to do so . Clearly not, as you say. In a sense, you are asking a similar sort of russian. Sort of question. In many Southern States, African American voters were with with a small number of white allies, were sufficient enough to govern the state or be a sufficient element that rates would have been protected. That would not have been the case in all the states. The states most recalcitrant or the order states that remained in the union. Kentucky joined the confederacy after the civil war, they do not realize it was over. [laughter] in no state, the black population is a smaller and lacking, but in mississippi, alabama, at the south, the 45 , 55 h, lacks are of the population. Operate without violence, you would have governments that respected the rights. The question becomes, could violence have been prevented, or could the law has been enforced . A recent book by Gregory Downes about the army and occupation said at least at the beginning of reconstruction, the army was pretty effective and was pretty numerous up to around 1870. The idea that 1877 with a true rew the truth is a myth. There were hardly any troops by that time. The troops were long gone before that. Forward aning to put unrealistic scenario where you took it would have developed. What would success look like . The south was a devastated region. Economically it was impoverished. It was going have severe difficulties the matter what happened economically. The world Cotton Market was over it was a glut of cotton on the world market. Farmers were going to be suffering in the late 19th century south. White farmers suffered terribly because of the decline in price of cotton. The whole National Credit system was geared against the south. You name it, they had a million problems. What would success of looks like . I think it would have looked like people having basic rights, respected. That does not seem that amazing. I think it is possible to imagine scenarios where that would happen. Know, it is very easy once we see what happened to think it was inevitable. I am not sure i am willing to buy into that 100 . The question is, how the Southern States were covered in the period before congressional reconstruction under president johnsons reconstruction . Yes. They were governed by white electorates and mostly people that connections to the confederacy in one form or another. How did that get controlled . The military governors appointed like johnson was appointed a military governor in tennessee. That was during the war. As the war ends . Johnson appoints governors and instructs them to appoint constitutional conventions that abolished slavery and we. Slavery and repudiate secession. Elected governments are put in place by confederate states. Whiteere elected by the electric, the blacks are not given any voice. That small,an idea white farmers were loyal to the union and had been dragooned into the rebellion by the planters, and if you could keep the planters out, you would have loyal, honest, Small Farmers running things. But it did not work out that way. They voted the old confederates back into office. Functionedovernments in 1865 and 1866. In 1867, congress it, these governments no good and we are getting rid of them. That is when you have what is called a military reconstruction, which is a bit of a misnomer. Generals were appointed and it was developed into military districts, but it was basically so they could register voters. You have you do not have military governments there except for a very brief period of time. New governors were elected. Johnson have the power somehow to appoint governors . During the first year or so . Did he have the power . He said, yes, i am doing it. Somebody had to appoint them. There already was a governor, a legislature. No, they were confederate. They were illegitimate. He said, those are not real governments, they are not real governors, not real legislatures, they dont exist anymore and now you need legitimate governments in the south. So he appointed the governors to create that. The constitution the people who wrote the constitution did not anticipate a situation in which 11 states would wage war against the rest of the country. So there is nothing in the constitution that says in the event of a civil war, here is what happens. So these guys were making it up as they went along. Entombed with be the constitution in some way, but they cannot find anything in the constitution which told them exactly what to do, so johnson said, all right, we need new governments there. Somebody has to do it. I will do it. Only i can do it, he said. [laughter] i am on can do it. Late as january 1865, lincoln was willing to recognize the loss of capital in the south, they were willing to buy the slaves for half million dollars. Hadntgovernment invested that much money, once over, because in fact with that have had . Lincoln had long advocated a emancipation and compensation to the owners. The emancipation proclamation ended that. But you are absolutely right that after the Hampton Roads 1865,ence of february lincoln came back to his cabinet should givebe we them was a 500 million or 250 million . Whatever it was, a good sum of money. It was unclear what he had in mind. Was it to go to the planters with compensation for the slaves . Was it a kind of Marshall Plan for development . It to the cabinet and the cabinet secretary you have to be crazy, lincoln. That is ridiculous. Love beenhis could killed, billions of dollars have been spent, you want to give those guys money . Lincoln said, you are all against me, and he dropped the idea. Congress would never have appropriated money for Something Like that. What did lincoln think . There were a substantial number of white southerners could be brought loyalty to the United States. That there were many who have gone with the confederacy reluctantly or maybe not at all really believing in it. I think lincoln overestimated their numbers. Andrew johnson also underestimated overestimated their numbers. That is a what if. Some people have said, you need the Marshall Plan. If the u. S. Government had said, we are going to develop the south, we are going to create Job Opportunities for everybody, yeah him a it might not of been a bad idea. But it was utterly impossible in the 19th century, there was no such thing as a Marshall Plan in the 19th century. Created inostility the civil war, i dont think most northerners wanted tax money to bolster the south. That is how they wouldve seen it, at least. Thank you. I learned something. You just said most of the troops have been pulled out by 1877. Oh yeah. I thought was the crux from the hayes election was pulling out the troops. What was the crux of the deal . The deal was in a nutshell that hayes would be recognized as president in a disputed election and the federal government there were troops there were disputed results in three states, South Carolina, florida and louisiana. Determine who won those states in terms of electoral votes and they had to determine who had won the governorship of those states. There was a republican who claimed to be governor and a democrat who claim to be governor. Weretroops regarding guarding the governors mansion. That was like 20 guys. What hayes said is we are withdrawing those troops back to their barracks. They are no longer going to have anything to do with the dispute within the states about who won the gubernatorial elections. Because of that, the government the democrats took over the state. The deal was, the republicans would get the presidency and the democrats would get complete control of the southern at this point, all the other Southern States were under control of democrats. That was the deal. Hayes eventually pull troops out in july, 1877. Why . He needs them to suppress the Great Railroad strike that has broken out, the First National strike in American History. Troops are sent into the north, south to put down the railroad strike. They are not willing to protect the rights of africanamerican voters in the south, but perfectly happy to protect the rights of property in the north. In a way, that is a significant shift in the outlook, so to speak, or the raison detre of the Republican Party. In the 1880s, they build armories in northern cities. New york city, the armory show. Modern art comes to america. What the hell was in armory doing their . Doing there . On park avenue. What do we have an armory for . Afraid of workingclass uprisings in the north end of violence and labor conflict. It was built in the 1880s. They do not build armories and the south so troops would be ready to protect black citizens. The build armories and north so troops would be ready in the case of a file and, which was endemic in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. That is a sign of the shift of what the Republican Party stands for, so does the. Which is part of the story. Last question. Who wants to be the last question . Thank you for your presentation. I have a question relating to a development. Think you are aware where they recently the federal government established the first Reconstruction Era National monument under the National Park service in South Carolina. There were a remarkable number of structures unchanged since that period. Are there other sites, maybe one or two other spots in the country that you think deserve similar to the nation to teach us about the reconstruction era and present a physical reminder . This is a setup, this question. [laughter] really. I was more responsible for this South Carolina thing than a just about anybody. In the year 2000, things take a long time in washington, in the year 2000, secretary of the therior bruise that it secretary of the interior called me up. I did not know him. He called me up at columbia and said, i just read your book on reconstruction. I said, that surprises me, mr. Secretary. I just dont think rivers of the cabinet have time to read among books like this. Theaid, i want to know why what is there no Historic Site for reconstruction . Theres not a single one for reconstruction. I said, if you read my book, you know why. [laughter] he said, you we have to build one. I came down and had lunch with him, and he said, i would like you to write a report on where should be. And i studied this. The key is, where are these artifacts if everything was destroyed, we can have a National Park site. Buford is great because a lot of construction happened in the area. The sea island experiment, the pen school, black soldiers raced there. All sorts of things. Luckily, confederates there were total cowards, and as soon as the union navy arrived, they ran away. That is great for historians because the buildings were all standing and nothing was destroyed. Stayed there and the whites ran away. Reconstruction began in the buford area. It took a long time because you need the support of the local congressman to do this, and the local congressman from that area was not happy. Especially because the sons of confederate veterans did not int a reconstruction site the state of South Carolina. They seem to have a lot of political clout. Eventually, the current congressman said it is a good idea, we should do it. The senators went along. And president obama designated this. From 2000 until 2016, it took 16 years to get this site designated. Are there other places . Im sure there are. New orleans has many buildings related to the history of reconstruction. Natchez, mississippi, which has a very fine National Park site about urban slavery. It also has many places connected to reconstruction in mississippi. Think we need more than one. Its not like buford is a sufficient to cover the whole thing for the whole country, not at all. I hope it will be more and more sites for reconstruction. I also will say i hope that one of these days, there will be like statues. There is a lot of debate right now about taking down statues. Last night in new orleans, they took down Jefferson Davis. A week ago, they took down the battle of Liberty Place monument. But i think that is only half the story. They should put up new ones, they should put up a statue of the first black senator or anybody. Any of these leaders, Jonathan J Wright. Onlyhan j wright, the black member of a state Supreme Court in South Carolina. A portrait of Jonathan J Wright was not put up in the state Supreme Court holding until 1999. They had a portrait of every single other person who had served on the Supreme Court of South Carolina from the revolution until the present, one after another of them, but no portrait of Jonathan J Wright, because he was black. This is the erasure. Youre talking about taking down Jefferson Davis as the erasure of history, but reconstruction has been erased from the public in the south. Thank you all very much for coming. [applause] join us on cspan3 sunday for American History tv live special, the 19th to seven detroit riots 50th anniversary. Pulls her prizewinning historian Heather Thompson and Detroit Free Press editorial editor stephen henderson. At 1 15, former Detroit Police chief and former Detroit Free Press journalist. An American History tv special, the 1967 detroit riot 50th anniversary, live sunday at noon eastern on cspan3. 50 years ago, the 1967 detroit riots began, ignited by a long simmering racial tensions. This week on cspans the sidebar podcast, a look back at what happened with joseph california junior, who served as an aid to president johnson. You can find every season podcast on the free cspan radio app as well as google play music. American history tv is on his band three every weekend, featuring is important, archival programs on the presidency, civil war and more. Heres a clip from a recent program. So each ordered up one of these documents that they have several of, and it turns out we found a whole bunch of them from Thomas Putnam that had the two ink quality. As we looked across the different archives, we found more of them. There are about 16 of them out of the 200 he wrote. Changes in ae ink particular spot. You could understand if he ran out the vacant started over with a different that. Hear hoofbeats, you think course before the break. Alsoy all started with and the day. This is critical because almost every single indictment of the crime itself is listed as the date of their examination. That was because the crime that was witnessed by all these people, because remember when they were saying you have to have two witnesses of the same criminal act . During the public examinations, the things that were happening, and the girls were supposedly afflicted, everybody could see that. They were not tried on the crimes they had done before they were arrested, they were actually charged with what they had done during their examinations while in custody. And this piece below their ads adds in the information to support the charge on the indictment. You can watch this and other American History programs on our website, where all our video is archived. Ory. Is cspan. Org hist raid triggered the detroit riots. Anthony fairmont. Erimonte is part of th imonte. Ony fier my mother thought i was going to be the pope. She was mistaken